To Vouch or not to Vouch?
August 19th, 2007 RWA Posted in News |
One of our most recent discussions in the Darwin Central forums was about an article in Thursday’s National Post on how Quebec’s only Mennonite community, located in the small town of Roxton Falls, may move out instead of having their children attend the province’s public schools or be forced to have their private schools teach the provincially-mandated curriculum. According to community spokesman Ronald Goossen, “we don’t agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don’t like the morality standards; and we don’t like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles” .
Now, my own reflexive reaction was to say “this is not right”. Although Goossen does have a valid point about the sort of value judgements the public school system often imposes on students, when it comes to teaching science, there can be no compromise. You either teach the students the facts or you don’t. But as DC member Physicist noted, this particular religious community, no doubt in part because of their pacifist beliefs, are making no attempt to impose their values on others; they simply want to be able to preserve their cultural traditions by choosing the type of education they want for their children. Some creationists in both the United States and Canada are not waiting for public schools to allow for their views in the science classroom, and have taken the steps to either send their children to private schools or to homeschool them, where they are “free” of any challenges to their parent’s beliefs. It’s no wonder then that so many Evangelical Christians are in favor of private school vouchers.
As a conservative deeply concerned about science education, my views on vouchers for private schooling have shifted slightly and my views on homeschooling have shifted profoundly. Although critics of vouchers claim that they put public schools at a disadvantage, it seems to me that private schools disadvantage themselves when they don’t teach as rigorously and throughly as they should. Look at the recent controversy regarding the University of California system’s refusal to accept applicants from private Christian schools whose science curriculum did not meet the criteria for adequacy. It appears to me that even private schools will require some sort of oversight to ensure that science and other subjects are being properly taught; we may, perhaps, have to limit vouchers to those schools which meet a certain set of standards regarding teaching pedagogy. As for homeschooling, many of us here at Darwin Central have had frustrating on-line debates not just with creationist homeschoolers but homeschooled creationists, equipped with no actual scientific knowledge or reasoning skills, but who had been so skillfully brainwashed by their parents, that facts bounced off their brains like bullets off Superman’s chest. You don’t have to watch South Park to know that while homeschooled kids may be aces at spelling and other basics, their parents are more often than not ill-equipped to teach them more advanced subjects.
So to the Mennonites of Roxton Falls, and all other creationists: if you insist on having the schools your children attend teach religious myth instead of scientific fact, you may either pay for such a school out of your own pocket, or keep your children at home. But don’t expect me or anyone else to support you, and don’t be surprised if your child’s success as an adult winds up compromised by your own decisions as a parent, and if your own community further decays as a result of remaining anchored in the past.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Science is a religion.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Forgot :
“So to the Mennonites of Roxton Falls, and all other creationists: if you insist on having the schools your children attend teach religious myth instead of scientific fact, you may either pay for such a school out of your own pocket,”
1) They do, they pay tax for endoctrination of other children by the Monopoly of education and don’t receive any subsidy. They thought that gave them to right to do as in other provinces: be left alone! In Quebec ALL SCHOOLS, even so called “privated” much teach the curriculum decided by some Prussian dwarfs in some cubicles.
2) The curriculum does not go at all in any little problems with this *theory* (does it really explain macromutations, the odds are quasi miraculous).
3) Believing (it is the term) in Evolution had never made a better mechanic, farmer or even computer scientists. It has made a lot of people believe in the Survival of the Fittest as a new mythology replacing God, see what it has led to (Nazism, Racism).
August 19th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
There are many people, such as myself, who “believe” in both evolution and God. In fact, for some of us, evolution affirms our faith in God’s Creative power.
Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch was a contemporary of Darwin, who did not believe him. Nevertheless, he wrote that, even if evolution were accepted, Judaism “would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of ‘adaptation and heredity’ in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today…”
That view of God, Creator of the Universe, and all its processes is the one that I hold. “Belief” in evolution does not weaken my faith in God, nor does it replace God. Indeed, it increases my appreciation for His Creation and my Faith in his greatness.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
On a more prosaic level — and on a much smaller point — independent of the validity of evolution, there is one statement in which you are definitely incorrect.
Believing (or, at least, understanding) the concept of evolution has been of great use in computer science. An entire branch of computing is referred to as “evolutionary computing.”
Put in layman’s terms — as I am a layman in the area of computing — evolutionary computing takes the concept of evolution and applies it to computer algorithms. From a starting point a variety of possible algorithms are test for the quality of their results. The fittest are kept, fiddled with, and merged with others. The less fit algorithms are discarded.
This evolutionary process is repeated until a sufficiently “fit” algorithm for the desired task is arrived at.
If evolution is false, it would not be the first time that a false belief led to a useful outcome. In this case, belief in evolution has definitely made better computer scientists.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Ta ta ta Celtjew that they are transformations and small mutations even Amish farmers and breeders know that.
“evolutionary computing” does not prove Darwin is right or that his teaching is useful, it is only an image. And the same result and advance in computing can be obtained through other analogies (again trial and errors, local selection of a breeder at a micro-evolution level).
Speaking as a computer scientist (M Sc).
August 20th, 2007 at 3:03 am
(sorry for the typos very late, no way to edit)
August 20th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Celtjew, now as far as Creationism as not undermining the belief in God. I would tend to agree with you. But that is not really the point, we are only speaking about a theory, why should it be imposed upon the Mennonites by the State?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
To Vouch or not to Vouch?…
I’ll try to spread this post over the blogosphere. Thanks!…
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Hey Ken. Look up theory before you bloviate.