Agreed! Great passage by Gould.

We become intellectual midgets when we start saying things that are strictly to one-up someone with different views, values, and beliefs. I do not believe anyone is intellectually justified to give or not give another human being "a pass" for believing something different than he.

Religious thinking severely undermines education in the US. Trying to keep education focused on science rather than magical thinking is not one-upping anyone. It's fighting for the future of our nation. Are you advocating that we teach our kids that all organisms were created magically rather than by an evolutionary process?

The problem with NOMA is that it must work both ways, but it never will. A vast majority of the "pressure" will always be from the religious side, and will always be in the direction of the "bronze age". So to those who value the education of our youth, it's either fight meekly and lose ground, or stand as firm as the other side - because it matters.

Yet if we could dissect what's wrong with education in the U.S, specifically with science and math, I suspect we'd come up with a lot more than religious thinking. Math achievement is just as low, and it's neutral with regard to beliefs. But I agree that just saying we accept NOMA doesn't get us out of the bind. Gould's point is that we have to understand and concede what can be said to be proper to either science or religion. A claim about reality such as creationism gets no protection under NOMA because religion has never had a way to find out how life forms developed. I don't understand the opposite perspective that well. It's what I would call the soft side--of spirituality, mysticism, and like traits that are endemic to brains even if not, as the religious view would have it, existing metaphysically. But here science and reason are largely without the tools to offer definitive counter proof.

Religious thinking severely undermines education in the US.

What evidence do you have for the above? The data supports your severity claim? Really??
Do not give more opinion here. Give some evidence to back that claim up.
Sometimes MSNBC can betray its staunchest supporters.

Trying to keep education focused on science rather than magical thinking is not one-upping anyone. It's fighting for the future of our nation.

There many factors involved here, as DWILL has stated.
You make it sound as if our youth are skipping class to attend church, or would rather major in Religious Studies. That simply is false.
If anything, this nation has become so soaked in a value system that is materialistic (keeping up with the Jones's), I'm willing to bet that there is more interested in the mundane and immediate gratification than there is for intellectual pursuits - like science

I await your evidence.

The evidence is right in your face ant. Look at the news, and the efforts to teach creationism in schools. Are you looking for some quantification, otherwise you refuse to acknowledge the effect religious thinking has?

Sometimes MSNBC can betray its staunchest supporters.

What does MSNBC have to do with this topic?

There many factors involved here, as DWILL has stated.

Yes, there are, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. In fact, there are more factors than we could likely ever illuminate. Some with large impact, some with minimal impact.

You make it sound as if our youth are skipping class to attend church, or would rather major in Religious Studies. That simply is false.

I didn't make it sound. That's the strawman you erected.

Ant, how you can pretend that the effort to inject creationism into the public education system isn't a serious obstacle to teaching quality science is bewildering.

Teachers are continuously being prohibited from teaching evolution in some areas of the United States.

Eugenie Scott is on the front line of the battle.

The evidence is right in your face ant. Look at the news, and the efforts to teach creationism in schools.

Are you serious here? "Look at the news"??
Accept anecdotal news tidbits as evidence for such a strong, sweeping statement like "religious thinking severely undermines education in the US"?

You have no real data here. No study to refer to. Not a speck of real evidence to evaluate to back your claim.
That is a ludicrous proposition with nothing of substance to back it up.
You'd like me to turn on my television set to see it and believe it. Really?


I will not accept your claim that mainstream entertainment (which today's news mostly is) is evidence enough. That simply is silly.

Hi Chris!

I'm not pretending anything here.

There is no denial that an effort to teach creationism in schools is occurring.
I'd direct your attention to the fact that there is nothing prohibiting our students from concentrating their studies in the sciences. That simply is false.
Our universities are actually quite liberal. There is no power grab going on here to commandeer our students. They are free to select their field of study. It is NOT due to religious brain washing, or any other religious coercion.
Can you point me to a study that indicates our university students are frustrated by religion, and as a result, are unable to major in math or science?
Not a youtube clip, please. I'd like to see some serious academic research, please.

Thanks

Aside from the middle of the continuum, Creationism cannot be true at the same time that the scientific process is legitimate. As long as it can be shown that Creationism is an acceptable alternative to evolution(the debate is mainstream), the rest follows from definition of the concepts. The premise is that the legitimacy of the scientific process is an integral part to education, which is a different debate.

So the very fact that it's reported(non-zero sum) is evidence. The content is immaterial, and of course could be plotted on some bias curve. All the content needs to report is that there is a debate between evolution and creationism. The "severe" part is that the apparent legitimacy of creationism is increased by the fact that some states are considering teaching it, Tennessee for example. I can find you a link if you're unable.

I'd direct your attention to the fact that there is nothing prohibiting our students from concentrating their studies in the sciences. That simply is false.

"Prohibiting" students is not the claim. Did you mean "dissuading"?

Interbane wrote:Aside from the middle of the continuum, Creationism cannot be true at the same time that the scientific process is legitimate. As long as it can be shown that Creationism is an acceptable alternative to evolution(the debate is mainstream), the rest follows from definition of the concepts. The premise is that the legitimacy of the scientific process is an integral part to education, which is a different debate.

So the very fact that it's reported(non-zero sum) is evidence. The content is immaterial, and of course could be plotted on some bias curve. All the content needs to report is that there is a debate between evolution and creationism. The "severe" part is that the apparent legitimacy of creationism is increased by the fact that some states are considering teaching it, Tennessee for example. I can find you a link if you're unable.

I'd direct your attention to the fact that there is nothing prohibiting our students from concentrating their studies in the sciences. That simply is false.

"Prohibiting" students is not the claim. Did you mean "dissuading"?

No, Interbane. Your are speaking emotionally here and not scientifically.

I have found no studies yet that indicate as long as Creationism is "an acceptable alternative" science in our classrooms will suffer.
I have already read one study that indicates it may be related to the way science is being taught.
Also, there is concern that NCLB may also be partly responsible for the country's poor performance in science and math. That was a government study.
Additionally, it's interesting that private schools are scoring higher in math and science than public schools are.

UFO's have also been reported, but they can not be ruled as evidence that creatures from Mars are invading the planet.
The fact that something has been reported does NOT count as evidence. You know better than that.