by Hemant Mehta
If you are a fan of Carl Sagan‘s “Pale Blue Dot” homage, check this video out and explore humankind’s place in the cosmos.
If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of questions and by the depth of our answers. — Carl Sagan
(via The Thinking Atheist)
Let's dirty this up a bit, shall we?
Soon Missourians will take to the polls to decide the fate of a new amendment to the state’s constitution that would, at first blush, do nothing.
Surely I jest. Let’s look, with a little help from BallotPedia. The measure would ensure…
Well, that’s already in the U.S. Constitution, it’s a basic right of all Americans, so no big deal there…
While there’s a prohibition from prayers being coerced or directed by school officials and teachers and the like, no one can stop a student from praying or giving the Big Imaginary Guy a shout-out on their own, so once again, no harm no foul…
Well, if they must. It’s a handy thing to have around, you know, for reference.
Good then! A pointless ballot measure intended merely to get some excited conservatives to the polls. Vote for it, don’t vote for it, whatever. It won’t matter.
But wait.
It can’t be a ploy to get the religious vote out to the polls on Election Day, because it’s going to be voted on August 7, not in November. But if it’s so benign, so redundant, and not intended to drive turnout, what’s the point?
You see, there’s more to this measure than meets the eye. And I mean that literally, because what will not meet the eye of the voters is the full description of what the rest of the proposed amendment would do.
For one (emphasis mine):
. . . the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies
This feels to me like a middle finger to groups like FFRF and American Atheists who regularly challenge this practice. I’m sure it already happens in Missouri all the time, but here they are trying to codify it in their constitution, though I would imagine that it’s still not going to square with the U.S. Constitution.
There’s more!
. . . this section shall not be construed to expand the rights of prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States, excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.
The ACLU declared back in 2011 that this section was an overt attempt to limit the free exercise of religion for prisoners, which I didn’t quite see at first, though I got that it’s at the very least unsettling in how it goes out of its way to single out the incarcerated as not being invited to enjoy these new-but-not-new rights. But of course, then you realize what’s really at the meat of this, and it all falls together (emphasis mine):
. . . that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;
Ah.
In other words, students may essentially opt out of their education if it contradicts the Bronze Age nonsense they’ve been told to believe at home and at church. A student could theoretically claim adherence to Genesis in biology class, and not suffer academically for turning their nose up the course’s assignments, lessons, and readings.
This is a great way to make sure your state is as irrelevant as possible in the information economy.
I’m also troubled by the first part of the quoted paragraph, not because I’m all about religious discrimination, but it sure smells fishy to me in that I expect this language is there to make sure that for a project on, say, geology, a student could insist that the Earth is 6000 years old, and not receive a failing grade because, hey, that’d be discrimination.
And now we can tie this all back to the prisoners. The authors of the amendment want to make sure that students can opt out of anything that conflicts with their religion, but they don’t want his language to be construed as offering this same right to those in prison. The last thing they want is for a Muslim (or an atheist, even) to be able to claim that something required of him while incarcerated is in conflict with his beliefs. That’s just for the Christians.
And just so we’re clear, none of this stuff — about the prisoners, the clergy at public meetings, or the students skirting science education — is going to appear in the summary on the ballot on which people will actually vote. Almost no one actually deciding this question will see any of this.
It’s telling that even the amendment’s supporters don’t really know how to explain it. Here’s Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke making an attempt:
I think what this does is it tries to protect those rights that are already secure but now that we have challenges over the decades and over 231 years in the courts challenging our religious freedom I think it’s better for the states if we do make it clear that you have these freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and that we spell it out.
There was a sentence in there somewhere, I’m sure.
(Thanks to Brian for the tip.)
Jerry Coyne has published a new paper in the journal Evolution about… well… take a guess.
More specifically, it’s about “Science, Religion, and Society: The Problem of Evolution in America.”
These graphs tell a much larger story (click to enlarge):
Coyne also has a message for science organizations:
… when scientific organizations argue for the compatibility of religion and evolution, or of religion and science in general, they are engaged not in science or philosophy but in theology. That is because accommodationism endorses a particular form of religion — a liberal faith that sees scripture as almost entirely metaphorical. Such a viewpoint marginalizes the many forms of religion whose opposition to evolution is based on stricter adherence to scripture and dogma, as well as those religions, like Catholicism, that endorse a form of Godguided evolution. Scientific organizations should follow the lead of the Society for the Study of Evolution in maintaining strict neutrality toward faith, avoiding any statement about whether religion is compatible or incompatible with science. When we make official statements about the need to teach evolution, let us stick to our expertise — the science — and leave theology to the theologians.
There really is no way to reconcile science and faith without stretching one of them far beyond its intended definition.
My pal J.D.
You know what they say about New Jersey. No, not that thing. The other thing: Only the strong survive. If this is so, basic science literacy is just barely surviving, though starving, abused, and neglected.
Though I make my home in Maine and have spent years in Virginia and DC, I am a native New Jerseyan. Not only do I trace my cultural origins to the Garden State (I was born in Denver, but we left when I was not even a year old), but I have the rare distinction of being from both North and South Jersey, which, as anyone who has lived in Jersey knows, are essentially two different countries.
So I felt like I knew the place. Jersey. Certainly not the Center of Enlightenment, but still metropolitan, densely-populated, pretty well-educated (save for some blighted urban areas), and generally part of the wall of Blue States that have opted to continue plodding into the 21st Century.
Then Monmouth University releases a poll, and my ancestral pride is smashed.
In its new survey (PDF), Monmouth shows that a meager 51% of New Jerseyans accept evolution, while the correspondingly-jaw-dropping 49% reject it.
It couldn’t be, I thought. That’s not my state.
Only 69% of college graduates accept evolution (and I think I went to college with some of them, and I think they were marine biology majors at that).
Happily, a full 20% consider the Bible to be wholly fictional, which is a little better than the rest of the country, and NJ also improves on the U.S. at large on the literalism question, with 24% thinking the Bible is inerrant, versus 30% nationwide.
I’m still reeling, but perhaps I shouldn’t be. Though Jersey is often thought of as essentially a crowded outcropping of Manhattan, it also sports a surprising rural demographic in the south, where, let’s just say, education is not as highly valued as it might be in, say, Princeton or Edison. There are also many urban areas crushed by poverty and crime that probably get no familiarity with basic scientific concepts. And there is also a substantial conservative bloc of wealthy religious conservatives that keep electing House Members like this guy who want our kids to learn intelligent design in science classes. It’s not San Francisco, in other words.
Monmouth did something interesting with this poll, though, in that they didn’t limit their look at New Jerseyan supernaturalism to the Abrahamic god. They also asked about our state’s pet demon-thing, the Jersey Devil.
Now I spent my teen years right in the middle of Jersey Devil Country — I even lived right off of Jimmie Leeds Road (the Leeds name is associated with the creature, and I was even told as a kid that the legend is that a member of the Leeds family in the 1700s who was impregnated by Satan gave birth to the Jersey Devil… I was told how it came out, flew around the room, screeched, and escaped, and then I had many nightmares). But the only people who ever talked about the thing were my grandparents, and that was just to scare me, which it did.
Well, it seems the Leeds Devil is losing his mythical potency — a mere 11% of South Jerseyans still believe.
And I don’t believe in him, either. That’s right, not at all.
Okay, but I will say that I’m a lot more scared of him than I am of Yahweh. What does that say about me?!
Fact: Humans and apes share a common ancestor. In that sense, we are apes.
Reaction from educated people: It’s awe-inspiring that all living things share common ancestors!
Reaction from Creationist Ken Ham: HOW DARE YOU CALL ME AN APE?!
Ham sees the whole idea as an insult and the fact that the San Diego Zoo was selling books about evolution just set him off:
How would you like to have someone tell your children that they “are an ape” — that they are just an animal?
And then he goes on to question why humans are held to different standards than zoo animals:
There were hundreds and hundreds of elementary age school kids at the San Diego Zoo the day we visited. I wonder what the parents of these kids would think if the teachers started calling the kids “apes.” Something like: “Ok you apes, do what I tell you to do.”
…
I wonder what would happen if kids took off their clothes and said, “We are only apes, and apes don’t have clothes, so why should we have clothes?”
…
… as we were on the bus tour, the zoo tour guide kept telling the children to be quiet for the animals’ sake! Wait a minute! Didn’t she read this book that the zoo — the facility that employs her — sells? Those kids are just apes — they are animals, too. Why should she tell them to be different to the animals in the pens and cages? I never saw her telling the chimps to be quiet when they were making a racket.
You know that, in his head, he thinks he just disproved all the scientific evidence in the world in support of evolution with those comments…
But that’s the narrative most of the country believes. They not only don’t accept evolution, many find it insulting to even suggest that we’re related to chimps, bonobos, etc. They need to be better educated about it — and religion prevents them from gaining that understanding.
Meanwhile, Ken Ham’s gonna flip out when someone tells him he’s also a mammal.
Tell me again why we’re supposed to respect the beliefs of religious people?
Unlike the forwards you receive from your gullible older relatives, it turns out Albert Einstein did have something to say about religion, at least regarding prayer. In response to a young girl’s letter to him in which she asked, “Do scientists pray?” Einstein said this:
Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.
…
But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
In other words, scientists ought to be applying the ideas of logic and reason to religion, just like they do everything else. Trying to mix science and religion means you’re doing both of them wrong.
(via Letters of Note — Thanks to Amanda for the link!)
David Coppedge had a job most computer experts would kill for. He worked for NASA as a computer specialist, as a team leader on the Cassini mission, oriented towards the exploration of Saturn. Coppedge is also a Creationist, though, and he claims that this got him fired after 15 years on the job.
Of course, NASA and Caltech have a very different version of the story. They say Coppedge was confrontational, aggressive, and refused suggestions for retraining when it became apparent his position was in danger due to reductions in the project. There is also the matter of just how his Creationism manifested itself. It appears Coppedge frequently advocated so-called “Intelligent Design” to his co-workers, and even handed out free DVDs (produced by a company on whose board he sits) discussing the scientific evidence for Creationism which, if the DVDs were accurate, is at least a nice gesture, since you can always use another blank DVD.
This matter will be resolved in court. I know where my suspicions lie in the matter of Creation Safari Master Coppedge. However this does beg the question: Is it ever appropriate to fire someone due to his Creationism?
My tentative instinct is to say no, it’s not, even in cases where evolution is a central aspect of the subject matter, like a biology research lab. As long as a person is carrying out their responsibilities, being productive and cooperative and causing no strife with co-workers, there should be almost no belief that warrants dismissal on it’s own. I do think that Creationism, insofar as it shows an ignorance or disdain of the methods of science, can and should be used as a negative factor when considering hiring, promotion, and extension of a scientist. I don’t think you should hire a physicist who doesn’t accept gravity, either.
What would you do, if you worked for a scientific institution and learned that a prospective hire was a Creationist? Would you hire that person?
Nearly missed by the Beltway media, a tiny little amendment was brought to the House floor on May 9th by Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona. Here’s what the gentleman suggested should be law:
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to carry out the functions of the Political Science Program in the Division of Social and Economic Sciences of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences of the National Science Foundation.
I’m sorry, what? (I should say, this is about the most readable thing you’re likely to find in the Congressional Record; it’s like trying to read appendices from the Lord of the Rings while on Ambien.) The gist here is that Rep. Flake has a problem with public funding of political science research — and that’s not to mean “science with a political edge” (like climate change), but good old, liberal arts PoliSci. He personally considers it a waste of money and so proposed an amendment that would end its pursuit at the National Science Foundation.
You may already be sensing why this is bad. He’s not simply saying, “I will punish the NSF by reducing its funding,” but rather, “I deem this area of research to be pointless, and I forbid you to engage in it.”
The invaluable Ezra Klein sends up flares about the implications of legislation like this (emphasis mine):
… the NSF runs a widely respected peer-review program that decides what science to fund. If Flake wanted to reduce the funding available to the NSF in total, that would be one thing (and, to be fair to Flake, he has proposed that in the past). But what he’s doing here is telling the NSF what is and isn’t acceptable science to fund. That’s not how scientific decisions are supposed to work. And the effect could be chilling.
Jeff Flake, thinkin' 'bout science.
As they often do, Flake dressed up his opposition with paeans to fiscal responsibility and disdain for Ivy League universities. But the heart of the matter is that Flake — a person with no scientific expertise whatsoever — is inserting himself into a debate about what areas of inquiry are and are not worth pursuing, based on his own politics and notions of governance, all of which are irrelevant.
This actually gives him too much credit — he’s not inserting himself into a debate in order to engage in said debate. He’s entered the debate hall, knocked over the podiums, and declared himself the winner.
This is not an argument over the merits of a particular study’s findings, it’s a declaration that the entire field is worthless. And based on his own words on the floor of the House, it doesn’t sound like his understanding of political science is terribly sophisticated, as he trots out the old anti-spending canard, mining the NSF’s budget for things that can be phrased derisively:
So what kind of research is NSF charging to our credit card? $700,000 to develop a new model for international climate change analysis; $600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do… I think we can answer that question in about 5 minutes when we vote on this amendment because I can tell you, people out there want us to quit funding projects like this.
$301,000 to study gender and political ambition among high school and college students; $200,000 to study to determine why political candidates make vague statements. $200,000 to study why political candidates make vague statements. That’s what we’re paying for here.
These studies might satisfy the curiosities of a few academics, but I seriously doubt society will benefit from them. How can we justify this outcome?
Doesn’t this sound remarkably similar to what a certain former vice-presidential candidate once lamented about the study of fruit flies? I mean, how does he know society won’t benefit from this work? If anything, though, it’s worse, because it’s not about cutting off some silly-sounding earmark. It’s about upending a peer-review process in order to squelch an entire field of study. Imagine, if you will, that Rep. Flake decided that he felt that geology was a silly waste of time, since we know pretty much everything we need to know about rocks and stuff. This is what we’re talking about.
Flake’s amendment passed on Thursday.
Science needs to be done for its own sake. Areas of inquiry need to be pursued vigorously and utterly free of short-term, uninformed political interference. If we’re going to have a National Science Foundation, we need to let it do science. If Flake is setting a precedent, we’ll have only a small handful of preferred subjects that can be investigated. And when even those few subjects have a Sword of Damocles dangling over them in the shape of a GOP House Member, its hard to see how answers conveniently follow the dictates of the politicians, right along with the questions.
Oh, and Flake is running for Senate this year. Just so you know.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
Follow Patheos
Atheist: