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

[Chris Gehlker]

On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Mark Smith wrote:

>
>
>> 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"

What do you mean by "subversion" and "infiltration"? Do you mean that  
creationists are literally sneaking onto elementary campuses and  
unnoticed by the staff, whispering into the students ears? Do you mean  
that some teachers are secretly creationist and, unbeknownst to the  
administration or the school board are attempting to indoctrinate the  
children? Or do you simply mean that some creationist are exercising  
their rights to speak at public meetings and run for public office?

The  first simply isn't happening. The second actually did happen. She  
was exposed and fired as soon as the kids talked to their parents. The  
third is neither subversion nor infiltration. It is simply people  
exercising their rights.
>
> 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.

You seemed totally defeatist there. I don't understand why.

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

I readily  concede I  don't understand you half the time.
>
>
> 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)

And yet creationists have been frontally attacked, both in the courts  
and at the ballot box, and the results have been universally  
successful. In the  most famous case, by the time the court decided in  
favor of the  parents, their wasn't a single creationist left on the  
board.
>
>
>
>> 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.

What's wrong with the courts and the ballot box? How can something  
"hideously unpalatable", and therefor presumably unimplementable, be  
"practical"?
>
>
>
>> 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.)

In 1925, at the time of the Scopes trial, the  country was effectively  
100% creationist and teaching  evolution in the public schools was  
illegal. Now less than half the population is creationist and teaching  
creationism in the public schools is illegal. [1]

>> 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.

There is every reason to question it. They took over a handful of  
school districts. They have since been chased out. [1]


>> 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.

For someone who advocates 'doubt', you seem totally incapable of  
considering any evidence that conflicts with your own beliefs. I am  
sorry to be so direct but I have tried to cite some facts and your  
response has been personal attacks. I don't doubt that you are  
expressing deep personal beliefs but so are the creationists.
>
>
>> 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.

Here I happen to agree with you. They are clever and they will  
undoubtedly try something else. That doesn't  mean that they are doing  
anything but  fighting  a rear guard action. History is not on their  
side.
>
>
> 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.

Whimsical beats obsessive every time. I think the FSM approach was  
incredibly successful precisely it was humorous, undogmatic and  
avoided personal insults.

[1] Google for the data.
--
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who  
could not hear the music.
-Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)