[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[Mark Smith]

On 05.12.2007, at 10:09, Chris Gehlker wrote:

> I have no idea what you are talking about in this whole post except
> for the one identified sentence.

You are not paying attention. (That's the kind explanation.)


> If I am trying to persuade you of anything it is that your strategy  
> of somehow 'excluding creationists from the table' sounds like a  
> looser,

See. That is not a strategy in terms of addressing the original  
problem which, as I see it, is the creeping subversion of science  
education by creationist (to use a somewhat paranoid term) agents.

In as much as I have advocated a strategy against that, I have made  
two points and they are admittedly not very enlightened (but I have  
yet to hear anything better):

1. We need to prevent the infiltration of schools by these "agents"
2. There is currently nothing to be gained by having a rational debate  
with creationists (or ID advocates, if you prefer that term). See the  
lengthy discussion with Stefano for some notes on this.

And please note carefully (sorry to be patronizing but you so clearly  
require to be lead carefully):

The point number 2. above does not equate to my meaning that a blanket  
exclusion of, or a frontal attack against creationists would currently  
have a successful outcome. (again see the discussion with Stefano)


> but I am not  at all sure of that because I don't understand what  
> you are advocating in practical terms.

I haven't really advocated anything practical. Must I ? I can think of  
lots of practical, but hideously unpalatable (also for myself)  
solutions. That's the realm of tyranny and we don't want to go there.  
That would be stooping to the level of religion. Its a profound  
philosophical problem, for which, unless I have missed any earth- 
shattering discoveries recently, there is no socially palatable,  
simple solution. The long game is scientific education - and that's  
precisely what they are trying to undermine.


> I looked back over your post and I'm just missing the big
> picture of what you are trying to convey. At one point you say that
> the argument for evolution is clearly more "robust" and yet you say
> "be very afraid."

Because a worryingly large fraction of the population are either not  
able to and/or don't want to see the relative robustness/flimsiness of  
the two sides arguments. (This resolves back to the education issue.  
Its as plain as your nose. If you are struggling, I don't think its my  
fault.)


> Let me make my position very clear. I do not share your fear, if it is
> your fear, that the creationists are 'winning',

They are most definitely making progress. There is no question about  
that. Maybe its progress that is going to run up against a wall soon ?  
Might be, might not.


> Two strategies have been employed against them
> effectively. One is David's of letting them present falsifiable
> hypothesis and then falsifying them.

Although this is the method that I default to normally and is the one  
that I would most like to see working, I haven't seen any evidence of  
it being "socially" successful in the creationist issue. The  
combination of freedom of speech laws, corrupt media and a largely  
ignorant public don't help in this particular case^[1]. This only  
reinforces the position of those who considered that it was bullshit  
in the first place. There is room for a view that this approach is  
(unfortunately) contra-productive on the whole and it opens the door  
(wider) for corruption in the halls of power.

> The other,  which actually proved effective in court, is simply to  
> use their internal communications to prove that ID people are  
> actually creationist who are just pretending to advance a scientific  
> theory.

They won't continue to make this kind of mistake. They are getting  
smarter in terms of strategy and they won't ever give up. They're on  
another one of their crusades.

You miss another approach and that is the combination of parody with  
legal submissions. Consider the FSM. I actually think that this kind  
of approach is likely to be the one that is most socially effective  
because it takes the problem to the highest courts via the shortest  
possible route (at least in countries with decent constitutions), but  
it has the unfortunate effect of making scientists appear to be  
whimsical rather than earnest.

Mark.

[1]: not to be considered as an opinion against free speech.