Gavin

See shellfish thread for an interim reply (I think I was not logged in when I posted it though). I'll get round to this when I can. Pip pip, Gavin

Then a moslem and a jew spoke up from the audience. The moslem said, "But if I'm right, then both of you have made the mistake and only I will get to heaven when I die." The jew said, "You're all spiritual people, even you atheist, you who have struggled with your faith, but if I am right, then all of us, even you, will get to heaven when we die." "when I die ..... I win." Good grief!!

Ahem, ahem, ahem. Everyone is entitled to a few mistakes, to be sure, but to make them repeatedly, in a single post, is a sign of weakness. So, Bryan, your fallacious arguments are numerous, not few, as you claim. I have pointed out several, but not all of them, in my post replying to your critique of my first post in the "We have a settlement" thread. Okay, it was a long post, but that was becuase, principally, I chose your nitpicking tactic of trying to diminish an argument by tearing it apart, phrase by phrase, line by line, comment by comment, ad nauseam. You forget, conveniently so, that there is a message in any argument and rather than respond to the message, with intellectual honesty and integrity, you attack the progress of the argument, almost word at a time. This is why you'd never pass the bar. Imagine a court in which, after every single sentence uttered by one side, there was an objection, or snide remark, a "lol", an irrelevant comment, an unnecessary aside, an appeal to a higher authority or a cheap joke. You argue by fallacy, dissembly and attrition. In a single exchange with me, you comit fallacies of special pleading, ad hominem, begging the question, false dichotomy and appeals to ignorance and that's nowhere near an exhaustive analysis of your post in terms of the fallacies it contains. That's five fallacies Bryan, five, in a single post. Had I the time, or inclination, I might find another five, or ten, or more. Bryan, you use your knowledge of logic and epistemology to browbeat and bully people into submission. You challenge people, not on what they are actually saying to you, but on what you perceive their areas of weakness are. I am glad that there are people who see your intellectual tyranny for what it is and stand up to it, even though they may be less well equipped, or simply less willing, than you to debate with you on the terms that you dictate. Thank goodness the world isn't run by logicians. Take this case in point. I have said, in the "We have a settlement" thread, that the underlying principle at stake in the LaClair vs Mr. P. dispute was what the framers of the constitution intended, the seperation of church and state, in my words: "But seriously, the basic facts seem to be that the US Constitution embodies a seperation of Church and state. The public school sytem is part of the state and so religious dogma has no place in public schools." You have said precisely the same thing: "The worldview I advocate is the one shared by the Framers of the Constitution." Then you say "Just a reminder, Gavin. You may not be aware of it, but the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were overwhelmingly religious and overwhelmingly Christian. A majority of Christians established the freedoms that the US is supposed to champion." I mean, can you not see the fallacious reasoning and implication involved in your supposed argument! Not only do you comit the fallacy of distraction by mentioning the fact that the freedoms were established by christians, but you attempt a fallacious ad hominem implication that because the authors of the constitution were "overhwelmingly christian" then the Constitution might be framed in christian theology as well. Yet, as you very well know, despite their religious ideology, the framers of the Constitution took great pains to keep state and church seperate. Good grief! At the end of the day, winning is not important. It's what has been won that matters, not which side you're on. The secret of the universe, the ultimate answer, to the ultimate question, is that there are no sides, it's just us, all of us trying to make do in a random universe which has no point, no reason, no "purpose". There is no destination, either for me, you or our species. It's simply a matter of whether we make this fleeting life a boon or a bane for others. I mean, has anyone ever actually come back from the afterlife and said "Hey guys! There's this really great party going on in heaven, just top yourselves and come on up! It's a blast!" I'd consider it an obligation to my fellow man, let alone my children. Well, thats my philosophy, radical pinko that I am. Now, lest you should be thinking that I have simply blown you out of the water to try and stifle your opinion, just sit back, consider your position and make an argument for it without rancour or prejudice. Heck, make a few mistakes along the way, toss in a few fallacies why don't you. You'll be forgiven if your point is cogent and considered and reasonable. Like I said, we all make mistakes. But if you make a rational argument, in a reasonable manner, then we're all listening. Heck, if god really had a hand in any of this then the least he could have done is provided mankind with a reset button instead of all that mucking about with floods, pestilence and crucifiction. Bryan, hit reset. Pip pip, Gavin Ahem. No, I wasn't laughing. I've just got a bit of a cough.

Funny. I alikened Bryan to the Terrible Tedium from "The Phantom Tollbooth" He too was faceless. It's a childrens book, and Bryan has a child-like way of approaching "truth". As a teacher, I deal with people like Bryan almost every day. I never thought I would have to take in hand a guy my own age, (give or take a decade, what I mean is he's an adult) and try to teach him the same humility. How accurately does art have to mirror reality before we see ouselves clearly? There's truth in art, and nature, that is beyond Bryan's logic or his epistemology and semantics. He might call it God. I just put it down to reality. Pip pip, Gavin

Bryan, you are so much fun to play with. Ever read "The Phantom Tollbooth", you're the Terrible Tedium incarnate! Heeeeeere we go! My original goes back to green (I hope), your comment in red (your convention), my reply in grey. Thanks for the info on the quote function, 10 is woefully inadequate to respond to all your comments, I shall dispense with it from the beginning. (To tell the truth, I could never figure it out properly in the first place, I'm such a dummy!) It was this: "I must confess to more than a little surprise that it seems to be ongoing." Why the surprise? Because the matter itself, between the LaClairs and the school had been settled, yet still, events and statements made by Matthew and Mr. P. were being debated, heatedly, in this forum. If my surprise at this indicates any bias on my part then your assertion of such indicates a similar bias on yours. As I said, I believe that no-one can be truly unbiased. You think that Paul LaClair lies when he tells what Matthew wanted? Huh? Read Bryan, read. "I cannot say what Matthew wanted when he started this." Where on Earth do you get, from that, the justification for a statement such as "You think that Paul LaClair lies when he tells what Matthew wanted?". You are simply making an irrelevant statement with the words "Paul LaClair" and "lies" associated together. I don't have to accept what Paul LaClair asserts to be true any more than I have to accept what you assert to be true. Nor can I see into Matthews mind. Let me repeat, "I cannot say what Matthew wanted when he started this." Sheesh Bryan, shame on you. What he obtained was a healthy debate, much of it public, arguably sturdy and rational, and a settlement which reinforced the principle that religious dogma should not be a vehicle for teaching. I am sure that religious dogma itself may still be studied in government-run schools, in the same way that political dogmas are studied. Things like fascism for instance. That's technically true, but public school employees tend to steer away from it because of the threat of lawsuit. And, of course, college professors are able to receive a government paycheck while advocating their own political views, such as communism, in the classroom. That area of concern is less legally volatile, apparently. You have evidence for this, of course. Even if you do, then the fallacy of generalization from the specific could be invoked. "All public school employees tend to steer away from it because of the threat of lawsuit."? Perhaps a few of them have more backbone than you give them credit for. A goodly proportion of this entire thread would be a good, if somewhat self-referential example. I'll get back to self reference later. And don't forget your specific example of sour grapes. You seem to have forgotten it in the midst of supposedly providing an example. Hmm, seems my remark about self-reference went over your head. This, and your responses to it is my example that led me to the impression that a lot of the debate was about sour-grapes. By dwelling on the specifics of what was said in Mr. P.'s class, a matter settled by the BOE, you perpetuate a dispute that has been settled in a manner not to your liking. Instead of taking the debate on to more general areas that have been raised by the dispute, you and others seem bent on gainsaying the BOE's decision by nitpicking over pieces of the evidence. The BOE, I trust, were able to see all of it, and, in context. They made a decision. Live with it, move on to the next battle. So you think you made a mistake by suggesting that the basic issue is the church/state separation issue? "The basic issue in all of this, for me, is the whole church and state seperation idea. I see this as being very important in a country such as the US which on the one hand espouses a secular system of government and yet which demands religious belief from its politicians so comprehensively. To an outsider, it seems like a populace winding itself in ever tighter fundamentalist circles as its lawmakers plod steadfastly on in the original spirit of the republican and democratic ideals that the nation was founded upon.["] It kind of amplifies your hint of anti-Christian bigotry to object on church/state bounds not because of U.S. law but because of the threat to the world posed by those crazy Christians, don't you think? Why would you say I might think I made a mistake? Bryan!! Your tactics are appalling. You put words in peoples mouths and think that the mere mention of my making a mistake, when no mistake has in fact been made, in some way diminishes my argument. So, no, I do not think that suggesting that the basic issue was the church/state seperation is a mistake. Again, shame on you. This isn't reasoned argument, you are just flinging mud pies and trying to personalize the debate. And, as you should be quite aware by now, I am not anti-Christian per se, I am against all forms of organised religion having an influential role in government and education. I have spelled that out rather emphatically. If you insist on personalizing things then at least try to get it right. I have issues with car manufacturers too, but to say I am anti-Honda would be missing, by a considerable margin, the point. To say I am anti-christian is to commit the fallacy of special pleading perhaps? It would directly address what you identified as the "basic" issue if that supposedly basic issue were rooted in U.S. law instead of (apparently) in an anti-Christian bias. Apparently you don't give a flip about U.S. law. You're just worried that militant U.S. Christians will crush the world under booted heel (or something like that), so you want church/state separation on basis of personal pragmatism. Nope I do give a flip, and a fig and a damn, US law has a few problems IMHO. Enforcement could do with a tweak or two but basically you're on the right track. Not sure about guys suing their dry-cleaners for $60,000,000 though, that gives me pause for thought. And frying people is a tad OTT. Specially if they are innocent. But these are details, constitutionally, I think you've got a winner. I would like to see what Ben Franklin wanted, seperation of church and state. Show me that and I won't have to worry about militant christians, muslims or acolytes of the celstial teapot. Good enough for him, good enough for me. As to personal pragmatism, well, you may remember that I am not a US citizen, I do not live in the US, I have no relatives in the US, no investments in the US, no property in the US and I've only ever seen about four episodes of "Friends"!!! So, unless my entire philosophy is founded on possible future holiday plans then your personal pragmatism argument is about as valid as a three dollar bill. This is precisely my point. Were Mr. P's beliefs anything other than Christian, then his expression of them in class would probably have been ignored in the US. I want the rest of the LaClair supporters to see that standing by itself. They'll get a kick out of it, since they've argued precisely the opposite. Great. Let it stand. I don't belong to any camp of supporters, I'm a free agent and want to remain so. Were I to subscribe to a particular religious belief system, I would lose that freedom. Thank you for pointing that out. I realise this is a hypothetical area of dicussion but why is that? Why would someone only invoke Constitutional protections in the face of Christian dogma. Why is Christianity such a perceived threat that it causes so much debate? Perhaps it is because Christianity, in the US, is not the benign set of beliefs that many purport it to be. Ah-ha! Now we're getting somewhere. (IOW, he thinks that people who act on the basis of their religious beliefs are non-rational to the extent that they act on the basis of their religious beliefs, and that's supposedly not bigotry)http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot Nope, it's not bigotry. I am neither obstinate nor intolerant. Show me credible evidence that any religious system is based on truth and I'm listening hard. As to rationality and religion, well, how many centureies did it take for the catholic church to get around to apologizing to Galileo and admitting that he was right, after all. Religion isn't rational. Its dogmatic. So, you would suggest that the separation of church and state was part of the Constitutional framework because the Framers had little regard for their Christianity? It would be a bit more subtle for you to have "I'm biased against religion" tattooed on your forehead. Aah, finally, he gets it. YES! If it were not a social impediment I probably would have "I am biased against religion" tattooed on my forehead. I have a deep seated mistrust of anything that says "This is right, this is what you must and must not do." without any justification other than "I told you so." That's what religion is, to me. Without faith in god, I can see it as nothing more than an arbitrary system of rules and prejudices that, whilst at one time may have been useful, has little relevance today. Of course, if I have no faith in god, I am bound to that assessment of religion. But why do I have no faith in god? What has been denied me that others "so richly" possess? Nothing, I have simply opened my eyes and started thinking for myself instead of thinking the way others would demand. Open your eyes Bryan, unfetter yourself from the shackles of religious dogma and see the world as it truly is. Imperfect, arbitrary and without design, but yet beautiful, complex and subtle beyond any intelligence. Encompass the universe within a book! A single philosophy!! Okay, go ahead, live in your tiny, finite world. The rest of us have infinity to explore. The framers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they boxed religion in, I wouldn't say they had little regard for their christianity, but they recognized the dangers of a religious backed state. (Remember where their founding fathers had come from) But isn't it interesting however that Ben Franklin, the principal author of the Constitution, could scarcely be described as a Christian, a Deist, yes, but he struggled with his religious convictions throughout his life. Quite enlightened for a man born three centuries ago and given a Calvinist upbringing. An argument for religious education being innocuous perhaps? But seriously, the basic facts seem to be that the US Constitution embodies a seperation of Church and state. The public school sytem is part of the state and so religious dogma has no place in public schools. Remember that whole "federalism" thing you skipped over so blithely? If you want to talk about the role of church/state separation (intelligently) in terms of U.S. law then you're obliged to educate yourself about the radical changes in the structure of U.S. federalism. You can go back and review the stuff you claimed was off-topic now, if you like. "Skipped over"? No way, I addressed it parenthetically. It's not germaine. "Obliged"? In what way was Ben Franklin obliged? Lets just start from scratch like he did. No, seriously, that would not be sensible. I would love to continue my education on the "radical" changes in the structure of U.S. federalism. Unfortunatley I have more pressing interests in the developing world that demand too much of my time. For those that want it, there are plenty of private schools which can provide both the religious instruction for students and jobs for Mr. P. Perish the thought that those who want it can try to recapture the actual intent of the Framers of the Constitution, right? Nope, not perish the thought at all. Go ahead, make my day, its your funeral. As to the actual intent of the Framers of the Consititution, you really seem to have your head in the sand. As you pointed out, they were overwhelmingly christian, so why, in the name of Allah, Yaweh, Buddah, Ganesh and God, did the constitution explicitly seperate church and state? Are you saying that the actual intent of the framers of the consitution was to have kids in religious schools receiving state funded religious instruction? Of, course! That's why they did their damndest to make sure religion was kept OUT of the state. Forgive me for being so stupid as not to realize that the best way of acheiving something is to make it illegal. A hypothetical scenario but any such suggestion has some merit an needs a better defence than any ad hominem refutation. I do not know very much science, there is so much of the darn stuff. Even more worryingly, the longer I live, the more of it I seem not to know! By the time I die, I swear, I'll be completely ignorant! I do know something of science however. Karl Popper, the eminent philos[o]pher of science, describes the falsifiability criterion as being key to distinguishing that which is or is not science. If a theory is capable of being falsified, i.e. testable, then it is scientific. If something is falsifiable then ipso facto it is not necessarily true. So, according to Popper, any scientific theory is, by definition something which is not necessarily true. Paradoxical, I know, but then the juiciest bits of life often are. Its what makes it such fun! It's only paradoxical if one fails to adequately understand what "necessarily" means in terms of logic. Okay, point taken, substitute the words "may or may not be" for "not necessarily" in both instances. In any event, the paradox, real or imagined, is not the point. Take Newtonian gravity for example, stunningly successful until realtivity came along and superceded it. The Newtonian theory of gravity was testable, falsifiable and when a better theory came along, it was replaced. It is still in use however as the theory of general relativity is fiendishly complicated and the Newtonian approach is a very good approximation so long as you're not mucking about with singularities or the speed of light. Or celestial navigation, still in use, very successful, but based on the premise that the Earth is the centre of things. Useful, effective but not true. Only a mathematical theorem can be proved as "true". Mathematics proceeds, exclusively, by a process of deductive logic wheras science proceeds by a combination of deductive and inductive logic. Mathematics however requires certain axioms before it can begin. Unfortunately, Kurt Godel showed that any axiomatic system cannot be simultaneously complete AND consistent. So, any given mathematics may be either complete, in which case it is inconsistent, or consistent, in which case it is incomplete, or some intermediate. By consistent I mean that, with reference to itself, it does not contradict itself. This is often referred to as Godels incompleteness theorem. Bit of a bummer for the seekers of "truth".[/color] Not really, since the Incompleteness Theorem refers to the impossibility of all-encompassing truth, not to individual statements of absolute truth. Individual statements of absolute truth are what I object to. So do you when it comes to "Evolution is true", as do I. Plus I suspect that infinite set theory could toss a hefty spanner in the works. Is an infinity "complete" according to the theorem? There are infinities and there are infinities. One of the weirder aspects of number theory is that not all infinities are equal. This has a lot to do with Godel's incompleteness theorem, it's one area where the consistency of mathematics begins to unravel. Why would set theory be immune to Godel's theorem? Please, enlighten me. Evolution, as a theory, Darwinian or Lamarckian, is jolly useful at explaining a lot of facts. Don't make it true though. There's another statement that could get the LaClair crosshairs on the space between your eyebrows. It's not easy making the LaClairs happy, is it? Do they need making happy? Are they unhappy people? I, for one, hope they are happy. Stop trying to score points against the LaClairs, Bryan and you might start making sense. Heck, he's a teenage boy for crying out loud, how old are you? Give the guy a break and lay off him, and his Dad. Anyway, if we get hung up on what is or isn't true we'll be here forever. Nonsense. Paul LaClair will settle it for you. Or sue you if you fail to agree. Cheap and ad hominem. "Truth" is a slippery beast and so is anybody who claims to have found it, especially if they then try to force it down someone elses throat and make them worship it. Is that the truth? Is your lecture on "self-referential" coming next? Nope, its my opinion and you missed the self-referential "lecture", thought you might, it's in the Godel piece. The essence of Godel is self reference. Bryan, please read this stuff carefully! Dear me, it's like you are just not paying attention. I'd rather see a take it or leave it approach to things. Here's evolution, here's what it explains, here's natural selection, see what it can do. Look at how we can apply the principles of evolution to engineering and design so successfully. You want it? Well, you're going to have to pay for it by sacrificing some of your religious convictions. So, do you want this fancy software, the shiny new car, this new drug that will cure your disease? No? Still want to hang on to beliefs that are flatly contradicted by the science that makes all of this stuff you want? Tell you what, you can have it all, the backroom boys will carry on using this science thing to churn out all you want. Keep your beliefs, please, keep them. But keep them to yourself. If you're worried about the techies creating something nasty, then become an ethicist or a journalist but leave your religious convictions at the door. They were invented far too long ago to be of much relevance now. Is that the truth? We can tell the truth via the calendar (hat tip to C.S. Lewis)? What's the shelf-life for evolution, BTW? Dear Wormwood, Nope, it's not the truth. The clue is in the opening words "I'd rather see..." It's an opinion. Dangnabbit! I keep telling you to read this stuff carefully! Yours affectionately, Screwtape Shelf life for evolution you ask? Hmm, okies, let me get my crystal ball. well, hmm, it seems to say here that in 500 years or so they're going to find some inconsistencies in the patterns of gene mutation that gave rise to the IMHO1 gene that codes for humility in primates. Turns out that there's just no way the mutation could have been random. God has signed his creation! Praise the Lord! What's the shelf life for evolution? Gimme a break! What's the shelf life for christianity for crying out loud? Evolution has a track record of several billion years. Christianity, two thousand, and counting (down). You tell me. It is a bit tricky, to be sure. Fortunately there are a number of consequences to the big bang theory that can be checked against empirical observation. How do those consequences help verify something coming from absolutely nothing, please? Please keep your answer in terms of the scientific method. Why should I have to confine my answer to the terms of the scientific method. Is that the only method that you trust. So, lets try applying the scientific method to religion. Ooops, bit of a failure there. Bryan, you can't pick and choose your turf like this. But, if you like *sigh*. Here goes. Atomic spectra, here on Earth, measured (observable fact), interesting, atomic theory (theory), explains spectra, new spectra found in radiation from sun (observable fact), new element posited (theory), Helium, Helium found on Earth (observable fact), spectra confirmed, (woot! - Nobel prize anyone?), spectra from distant stars analysed (observable fact), hmm, bit different, patterns the same but red-shifted, Doppler (theory) Expanding universe (theory), go backwards in time, everything seems to be condensed into a singularity (theory), big bang (theory), background radiation from big bang posited (theory), background radiation observed by Penzias and Wilson in the 60's (observable fact). I mean it really is that simple when you look back on it. Why you guys have a problem with it just beggars belief. The only real problem is the original singularity itself. Where did that come from? Is that a legitimate question to ask? Particle physics, which is a really, really successful and highly accurate branch of science. Has things popping into existence from nothing all the time, real and virtual particles. I'm not a physicist, but once you've got Heisenberg's uncertanty principle under your belt, the origin of the universe is a darn sight more explicable than god. The real problem is that the Big Bang theory throws up a number of param[e]ters which seem to be entirely arbitrary. Many of these param[e]ters seem so finely tuned to the requirements for a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life as we know it that it has been suggested that the values of these param[e]ters must have been "chosen". Enter the Intelligent Design theory. Unfortunately, ID does not explain anything at all that cannot be explained by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle doesn't explain anything. I take it you're referring to the inevitability of self-observation given existence regardless of the cause. Not so, the anthropic principle explains why we don't need more complicated explanations, such as those invoking a designer. That had the parameters been anything other than what they are, we would not be here to observe them. Rather than serve to offer an explanation for anything ID raises the problem of the origin of a Designer. Arguing that a Designer, God, requires no origin, is no different to arguing that the universe, or the multiverse, requires no origin. Well, that's apples and origins--er--oranges. Claiming that the universe came to exist from nothing is positing a particular origin. It is not a claim that the universe requires no origin. If it were claimed that the universe requires no origin, it would be different from claiming that a designer required no origin. That's because an infinite regress of events in time poses some real difficulties--and the only way out of the infinite regress is to posit some type of timeless existence logically prior to time. You can do that without insisting on personality, but it's not easy explaining how the impersonal timeless X went from impersonal timeless X to something else. A personal timeless X at least might have a purpose, and an ability to act is implied by personality. This is such fun, we could go on for hours. Look, to my way of thinking, it's a darn sight easier to accept quantum fluctuation in a multi-dimensional hyperverse as being the origin of the big bang and verything since. The alternative, that an omniscient, omnipotent being, a conscious being, a complex being, who has been around forever and who just "IS", created the big bang or just magicked verything into existense 6.700 years ago, is just untenable. Evolution explains how the complex can arise, from natural processes, from the simple. ID requires that we simply accept the existence of a Designer and explains nothing at all. William of Occam wouldn't have had much difficulty with this one. You do realize that he was a Christian theist, right? Really? He was a Christian? Damn, that means I can't use him in any anti-theitical argument? Sheesh, I was referring to his precept! ad hominem fallacy once again Bryan, you really should be more careful. There are two main problems with what you wrote just above. What is a "natural process"? If you take the route I think you'll take, doesn't it make sense to conclude that you are not intelligent? After all, your actions are completely explicable in terms of completely natural processes--are they not? Lets not get into the freewill argument, which is where this will head if we're not careful. A natural process, as I meant it, is a one that does not require intelligence to guide it, it is governed only by the natural laws of the universe, whatever they may be. You're sticking point, if I am correct, is that you simply cannot see how a natural process can, from simple origins, give rise to incredible complexity such as a human being. Well, others can see how it can happen, they have explored the mechanisms and employed them in other fields, with great success. So, although my actions may be entirely explicable in terms of natural processes, this has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether or not I am intelligent. Second, Ockham's Razor works in terms of sufficient explanations. On what basis is a big bang from a literal nothing a sufficient explanation? Read up. Pretty safe to say that I think it's something he did say. There's so much he didn't! Your answer doesn't make much sense in terms of what you wrote earlier ("Any history or science teacher who fails to acknolwedge this must surely be failing their students.") Can you pinpoint Paszkiewicz's active failure to acknowledge "this"? Clearly, much of what I say doesn't make much sense to you, but I'm holding out for you Bryan, you'll get there in the end. Paskiewicz contradicted himself a great deal. I've read the transcript you linked to and I was dumbfounded that a professional educator would let himself get sidetracked like that. Talk about off topic. Were I to have been in the room, evaluating his teaching skills, he would not have faired well. I'd have had to recommend some professional development and a further review of his perfomance. I wouldn't have recommended his dismissal, unless this was one in a long line of repeated instances. The religious stuff, well we're all allowed to believe in God, Santa or the Celestial Teapot. But. Telling the students that his own 12 year old would be beaten by Mr. P. if he stopped going to church is a tad, er, reprehensible? To say the least! I consider it outrageous. Son: Daddy, some of the guys at school say Santa doesn't really exist, they're bothering me. Dad: Haw! Don't you listen to those fools, you've read all those books about Santa and what a nice guy he is, bringing you presents an' all, if you've been a good little boy. Son: Yeah Daddy, but last christmas, it was you that filled my stocking, I pretended to be asleep and I saw you. Dad: Well, son, sometimes Santa needs a little help from his friends. He has elves too you know. Think about that. Son: I have Daddy, I have given it a lot of thought, and I just can't accept this idea of an ageless, jolly white guy, who has to spend a year making toys and then delivers them all in one night. I mean, there are over a billion Chinese people, a billion Indian people and I don't know how many other Asian and African people, how come Santa is a white guy? Dad: Now, you lookee here Son, don't you start asking those sort of questions. Now you go and get Daddy's belt from the chifferobe and come on back here. Son: No Daddy, please. I only think that Santa is a fairy tale, I'm old enough to be told the truth now, I'm almost 12. Dad: You ain't old enough to be talking like that to your Daddy son. *Whack* Just you wait till you reach the age of majority, *whack* then you can start telling your Daddy what you do and don't believe *whack* six more years of beatings like this and you'll change your tune *whack* dammit, you'll believe in Santa if I tell you to okay? *whack* Son: Yes, Daddy, OK, I believe in Santa. Can we talk about the tooth fairy now? Glad to. The teacher appears to have aired his religious beliefs in class. Repeatedly. Correct. He said he doesn't believe in Purgatory, that he believes there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark, and that the universe had to be created by a personal being (not necessarily exhausting the list). What is your complaint, given that you think that a Muslim (for example) expressing his beliefs wouldn't cause a fuss? See above. If one of my teachers started expressing beliefs about fairies at the bottom of his garden, at length, and repeatedly in a class of high school students, I'd be looking up how much medical leave he had left and suggesting he take a few days off. I know that there were times when this was simply in response to questions from students but you have to ask why the students were even interested. I do? lol Rhetorical. Sheesh, I didn't mean you actually have to ask him Bryan! Give yourself a break, I meant that the fact that students were questioning Mr. P. at considerable length indicates some prior incident(s) and/or remarks that aroused their interest. By now, you will have realised that I'm using your own nitpicking tactics. A wee jab here, a cocky jibe there. It just diminishes the quality of you argument, an argument which has merit, if you can discuss it without this schoolboy stuff. Now, he seems to have done this in a pretty forceful way, telling students that he thought they would go to hell etc. You bought a spin job. It's not a perfect transcript, but if you look at the exchange you'll see that the references about going to hell were not directed at the students with evangelical fervor, but done in the context of the Christian explanation of the problems of evil--something that Matthew LaClair asked about. http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html Paszkiewicz's statements were taken out of context from the moment Matthew brought his accusations. They've been repeated in the media and by the LaClairs until they have been accepted (uncritically) as the truth by many. Agreed. I bought a spin job on the going to hell if they don't believe in Jesus. Point to you. He didn't say they would go to hell, just that if they were his kids and 12 years old and said they didn't want to go to church anymore he'd break their backsides. Which is, like, okay, right? That's a pretty intolerant way of getting a point across don't you think? It would be if it were the truth, but it's not. If you ask me how to get to heaven under Islam and I tell you that you must accept Allah, the Koran, and the prophet Muhammed (let's assume that I'm correct in that representation, just to avoid digression), am I being intolerant? Does it make a difference whether or not I am a Muslim when I give that description? I wouldn't ask you. Unless you were my teacher in a religous studies class I had to attend to make up my grades for failing epistemology 101. If, however, you'd been my history teacher and kept banging on about Mohammed at every opportunity, then yes, I might just ask you a few questions to get you going so that me and the rest of the class can take a break from studying the stuff that really matters and that we're gonna be graded on. In truth, and going over the transcript, Mr. P. was pretty balanced if very self contradictory, but that's the nature of a transcript of spontaneous conversation I guess. I wouldn't say he was actually being intolerant in terms of his religious beliefs towards the students in that classIt's just that he was balanced about a load of complete bollocks! It had no place in the class. Then add the very dodgy political stuff about what the state is doing to public education and you've got a teacher, a public employee, trying to sell a political ideology and using religion as a vehicle. Precisely, exactly, what I have always said I was worried about. Would you be tolerant if I introduced the subject of phrenology to a class with your kids in it, acknowldging that it was a rather old fashioned practice, much maligned but that whether you agreed or disagreed with it, it was remarkably successful at identifying people who were likely to commit crimes. Believe in this or suffer eternal damnation, fire and brimstone. For any adult to use that sort of coercion with children is, frankly, appalling. Should the teacher have explained the Christian explanation for the problem of evil without mentioning Hell or salvation? Wouldn't be much of an explanation without those things, would it? I hate to break it to you but if you don't beleive in god, there is no problem of evil. The problem of evil only exists if you choose to believe in god. Did that get a mention? But, you are entitled to an entirely different opinion, it is, after all, the mechanism by which all Abrahamic religions get their point across. Tolerance is not God's strong point. Really? Why does he allow atheists to live even for a little while? Oh, dunno really. Freewill is usually dragged into it. I prefer to ignore the question because it is pointless. To quote Richard Dawkins, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filiacidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (The God Delusion, p. 31) Dawkins scribed that without apparently realizing the absurdity of suggesting that a god could be megalomaniacal. That's a measure of that particular man (though it hardly exhausts the errors in the brief quotation). Would you care to give examples of the errors in Dawkins' quotation. Every one of the attributes Dawkins ascribes to Yaweh can be backed up by scripture. You want to argue on this one? Bring it on. Now, would anyone really want that sort of God in their classroom? A tolerant person might. I'd rather take the risk of having a convicted sex-offender teach my kids. You're not speaking about tolerance in any sensible way here. Where does tolerance have to give way to self-preservation? I don't want my kids to be smited (smote? smitten?) just because they're Egyptian! Good grief! Anti-semitism is an alternative viewpoint, just because it is does not mean that i[t]s espousal by an employee of the government should be condoned. If we tighten up the analogy to what Paszkiewicz said, then we could reason that anti-semitism should not be mentioned in school. So much for learning all about WW2 Germany. Nope, already covered that. I have said that its okay to learn about religious beliefs and systems, just as it is fine to learn about political systems. This is about teaching things through a religious system. using a religious perspective as a vehicle for teaching histroy or science. Your reasoning begs the facts. Science is founded on empiricism and uses epistemology to make progress. I would disagree that empiricism is taken as axiomatic without discussion. Your willingness to discuss it hardly rules out the tendency. Philosophy of science gets little attention in American schools. Perhaps your experience is different. Yep, it is. I have made it so. What is often confused is the difference between empirical knowledge and scientific theories which derive from it. Hence the claims of "but it is a scientific fact!" Talk to Paul. He objects to the notion that accepting scientific claims involves faith. Talked to him already. He listened and responded with a very clear exposition on the need for a workaday "truth" vs a philosophical "truth". He's a lawyer, I not only see his point, but I made it to you when you asked if I could prove I was intelligent. My answer included something to the effect that the only real truths we deal with on a day to day basis are those decided in courts of law by judges and juries. You and I can argue till the cows come home about precisely how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, meanwhile, Paul and the legal community will decide the "acceptable" truth. My sincerest hope, as was Ben Franklin's, is that when the verdict is read, religion will not be a part of it. However, if the empiricist viewpoint is taken as axiomatic then it follows that science will always be either incomplete or inconsitsent. (see Godel, above) They tend to skip the chapter on Godel in American public schools for some reason. Pity. Can I come and work in New Jersey? I think you need me. Similarly, taking the existence of God (or anything else) as axiomatic leads to the same problem. So you think an infinite god would be either incomplete or inconsistent according to Godel's theorem? Yup, you're way ahead of me already. Read on. The difficulty for God is that it is claimed he is both complete and consistent. I don't think that God is claimed to be "complete" in terms of Godel's theorem, but feel free to produce a claim to that effect if you can. I think you'll end up with a fallacy of equivocation. Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, I mean just omni everything. What more do you need for god to be considered complete? Omnichromatic? Omniverous? Nah, maybe not, he only eats children in the Bible. This makes God innaccessible to epistemology or critical thinking and we need an alternative. I don't suppose we can consider a critique of your reasoning first? I think you've both misunderstood and misapplied Godel's theorem. Of course I've misapplied Godel's theorem!!! It only works with mathematics. Sheesh. But, God is everything, he created everything, including mathematics. You see where I'm heading don't you? Okay, nuff said. Look, better men than I have tried to find a logical proof for the non-existence of God, and wasted years of their life on it. I ain't going there Bryan. No-one can prove the non-existence of god, or for that matter, his existence. You know the Douglas Adams quote? Something like "God says "I refuse to prove that I exist for proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing. "Ah" says man, "but the Babel fish proves you exist, therefore you don't! Q.E.D." "That was easy" says man, and goes on to prove black is white and then gets killed at the next pedestrian crossing." My point was, and you missed it by a staggering margin. Religion is a matter of faith, not reason. Choose. ]The only alternative to critical thinking that I can think of is uncritical thinking. Then the barbarians really will not just be at the gate but sitting in my favourite armchair, spilling ale on the sheepskin and eying the family silver with interest. Assuming you get past the convert or die phase, of course. Aww, and I thought he was such a tolerant chap. Cogito ergo sum. Done. No problem. You were pretty quick to substitute philosophy for science, and pretty quick to assume that an argument for existence was an argument for intelligence. Was either strategy rational and reasonable, IYO? How have I used philosophy as a substitute for science? With regard to what exactly? I have talked about the philosophy OF science, is that what is confusing you? I did not assume that an argument for existence was an argument for intelligence, in fact I took pains to point out the distinction. Look, Bryan, if you aren't going to read this stuff properly then I'm gonna stop writing it. Well, not quite. I can prove to myself that I am self aware, that's just about it. As I've mentioned above, a "scientific proof" is really inaccessible in philosophical terms, as I suspect you well know. What, anyway, do you mean by "intelligent". It is a complicated term. I'm not even sure I know exactly what "intelligent" means myself, it seems entirely relative. So you admit the problem. You can hardly devise a test for something you can't define. But at least you can claim that it isn't necessary in order for complexity to result. Whatever it is. So you admit I admit the problem. Thank you. Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth! Look, you asked the question: "How would you scientifically prove that you are intelligent?" and I asked you to define your terms. What do you mean by "intelligent", I haven't the foggiest notion what you mean by the word. I have proved to myself I exist so by some measure I must have some intelligence. But I haven't proved that to you, as far as you're concerned I could be a "we" or an "it" or a "Him". So, lets turn it around shall we, what do you think Bryan? Do you think I am intelligent? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Could you prove you believe in God? I mean, you could say or do whatever but there's no real way of looking inside your head and examining your beliefs. You could always just be faking it. Like, I suspect, so many US politicians who go through the motions of religious conviction because the realize they are unelectable if they do not. Why would I need to prove that I believe in god? Help me out with the relevance. Why would I need to prove my intelligence. That's the relevance. How about this, you could call me unintelligent, I could sue for libel, and we'll let a jury decide. On what grounds would you sue for libel if you can't define "intelligent"? How would you perceive the injury? Could you contradict me with science? I doubt you'd get to the jury stage unless you glommed onto some commonly understood definition. I don't suppose you'd share that definition? Sorry, it was your question, you didn't define your terms, so don't expect me to do it for you. That really is the only "proof" we really deal with on a day to day basis, the sort that's handed down by the courts. So the gods do exist. They wear robes and sometimes funny wigs. Yup, now I'm with you 100% Hey, congratulations. We've agreed on something! C'mon, it wasn't that hard really was it? What is true or untrue is ultimately decided by men and women. That is why Ben Franklin was so very careful, he knew the pitfalls of letting matters of faith interfere with matters of government. It is also why I and others are concerned at the emergence of a right wing political movement that uses faith to inform policy. The bible is such a horrendously cruel and wide rangingly barbarous text that it can be used to justify almost anything in the name of faith. Eating shellfish could become a capital offense!!! Seems ludicrous? Yes, it is, just as we find slavery ludicrous today, or the salem witch trials. What will our great great grandchildren think of us? You seem to have danced completely around the issue so far. The Framers of the Constitution were overwhelmingly religious and overwhelmingly Christian. You expected them to prohibit the eating of shellfish in the Constitution, did you not? Well, they didn't manage to prohibit slavery, not a very christian practice. My point about the shellfish was this. Laws based upon religious belief are creeping in to our lives. Well, to be fair, some laws based on religious belief are creeping out too. Homosexuality is pretty much okay at the moment, disregarding a few states and nations that still obsess about what two consenting adults do with their genitalia (I mean, who cares for crying out loud, let em dip their willies in chocolate sauce and dance naked to Abba hits - woe betide any teacher who talks about this in class though!). What I do not understand is how religious principles can inform the law in a country that seperates church from state. That was my point about the Malaysian issue. Once you start letting religious tenets inform the law then pretty much anything is fair game. As I said the Bible is pretty far ranging in it's list of "don'ts", including the eating of shellfish. Of course, I could say that my intelligence, meagre as it is, has been revealed to me by an angel of the lord. Would that constitute proof? Hmm. You seem to know what "intelligence" is enough to use it in a sentence. Shall we blame it on Godel's theorem? The point is that you cannot have an empirical proof in principle. Pointing to the epistemic problems that a revelatory proof might have don't really address that issue, IMHO. Perhaps that won't stop you from supposing otherwise. Whee! We agree again! Hey, we have to do this more often Bryan. As I pointed out at some length, an empirical proof, as you put it, is impossible. Disproof, yes, fine, but proof, outside the realms of mathematics, no can do. <appreciated the bits of humor, but it was a bit longish; I think Paul thinks you live in a theocracy> Thank ye. I do try to lighten things up a bit. You think Paul thinks...? Heck, double hearsay taken to the fourth power! Actually, I currently live in a communist dictatorship, one party system and all of that. When I look out of my window, all I can see is the underside of a huge boot. So, when I talk of dogma, its from the heart. I have, as you will have figured out by now, a pretty low opinion of any organised religion. And the people who subscribe to it, it seems (see "bigot"). Covered above. I distinguish people from the beliefs they hold. I'm not obstinate, I described myself as a strong agnostic, not, you note, an atheist. I think atheism is as untenable as deism. Believing that there is no god is about as justifiable as believing there is. I just take things on the preponderance of evidence. Strong agnostic I remain. Show me proof, either way and I'll follow where it leads. That isn't obstinate, therefore I am no bigot. Spiritual truth is best arrived at through a personal journey of some kind IMHO. Accepting someone elses truth, at face value, is not something I would recommend. You probably ought to refrain from recommending that spiritual truth anyway, for the sake of avoiding self-stultification (but I suppose you can blame Godel). Whahaaaay! Touchdown! (Crowd goes wild) we have a third, yes ladies and gentlemen, a third point of agreement between Bryan and Gavin. Listeners, I hardly need remind you that this debate has had everyone on the edge of their seats, but now, it seems there could be an outcome! Wait, wait, I think Gavin is about to say something........ Who is that guy? Okay, I quite agree, I do refrain from making that recommendation, I merely, and humbly, express my personal opinion. That's what IMHO means, as you very well know. And never in class. (Unless asked, of course) That so many people are willing to do so astounded me until I realized that there were certain evolutionary advantages to accepting things on faith. In fact, and you'll get a real kick out of this, religious belief is only really explicable in terms of natural selection and the structure of early hominid society. Having invented it, we then proceed to indoctrinate our young with it. So, we end up with religious beliefs that are simply an accident of birth. If I had been born in Malaysia I would almost certainly be muslim. And, no matter what doubts I might have as to my faith, there is nothing I can do to apostacize, let alone get my foreskin back. (intellect as slave to cause-and-effect. Is there any evolutionary advantage to self-awareness, under the assumption that our choices are beyond our ability to control?) Yes. Bad assumption. Intellect is what frees us from cause and effect by allowing us to manipulate cause and thereby control effect. Intellect allows us to anticipate the effect of a given cause. Mind you, rats can learn which button to press, and they don't rank to highly on my scale of intellectuals. Can we get back to your definition of intelligence one day? Now, things are not quite as bad as that in the US, but the plight of young people, brought up with an unquestioning faith in christianity, who suffer in fear of hellish torment should they stray from the path has to be acknowledged. It

My pleasure, and please accept my congratulations on the settlement and on having such a courageous and intelligent son. My only hope, in entering this debate, is that it be moved away from the specifics of Matthew and Mr. P so that they can both get on with their lives, and into a wider arena where the issues that Matthew drew attention to can be addressed. I'm sure you've read my reply to Bryan's comments on my post. I do recommend Popper. The history of science is littered with dogma just as pernicious as religious dogma. Many eminent scientists have fallen into the trap of assuming that, in a particular field, the book had been closed and truth established. Then someone finds that years or centuries later, new evidence causes a rethink and a cherished theory has to be abandoned by something better. Personally, I think that the weight of evidence in favour of the basic tenets of evolution is huge and I cannot conceive of anything which could be discovered that would disprove it. (Well, upon reflection, I can think of some discovery that would allow the theory of evolution to be consistent with the existence of an active creationist god, but I think it highly improbable) But, had I lived 150 years ago, I would have said exactly the same about Newtonian gravitation and eventually would have had to eat my words. Science is so successful, arguably the most successful human endeavour, that we are often guilty of a sort of scientific hubris and we forget that what we have acheived through science is based upon the very humbling and courageous principle of peer review. "This is what has been observed, this is what I think it means, I could be wrong though. Can anybody prove I'm wrong?" So long as the answer to that remains no, we have a workable scientific theory, hopefully with some utility. So often though, the jury comes back, after centuries in some cases, and returns a verdict of, "Yes, you're wrong. Look at this observation." It would be presumptious, in my mind it would be a philosophical travesty, to establish evolution, or any other scientific theory, as "fact" or "truth". But lets just run with it for the time being, keep an open mind, and see what happens. Religion closes minds, so would any fiat that dictated evolution as "true". Science is a long game, possibly infinitely so, its relentless success in explaining the universe and debunking religious myth and dogma is only impeded by establishing scientific theory as dogma. Perhaps this is what is meant by "false idols" in the OT.

I don't think anyone can hope to be truly unbiased. The task is to fight against bias with honesty, humility and integrity. Indcidentally, and forgive me if I imply sarcasm where non was intended , which part of my opening remarks reveals me to be biased? The fact that I am an educator, like Mr. P.? An epistomologist, like yourself? No? Oh, it was that science thing was it? "Four legs good, two legs bad" eh? C'mon, get a grip. Don't tell me it was the fact that I listen to the BBC. Damn, I knew I should have kept my commie pinko atheistic radio station to myself. I cannot say what Matthew wanted when he started this. What he obtained was a healthy debate, much of it public, arguably sturdy and rational, and a settlement which reinforced the principle that religious dogma should not be a vehicle for teaching. I am sure that religious dogma itself may still be studied in government-run schools, in the same way that political dogmas are studied. Things like fascism for instance. A goodly proportion of this entire thread would be a good, if somewhat self-referential example. I'll get back to self reference later. This seems no more relevant to this issue than to, say, tax law. raotflmao However, if I may be forgiven for condensing an entire history curriculum into a single paragraph, big government has been a feature of human history for thousands of years. From the Dukedoms of feudal England, the warring of city states in rennaisance Italy and ancient Greece, the Roman empire, the United States, the EU, the UN. Smaller groups have always had a tendency to get into conflict with each other. They either wipe each other out, one totally dominates and subsumes the other, or they set up a larger entity that imposes a system of laws that enable life to go on without all the tedious fighting and bloodshed that is keeping people awake at night. The general direction that the course of human history has taken would indicate that any smaller entity that fails to recognize the tendency of groups to coalesce under some sort of system of government eventually gets left behind or ground underfoot. This, all of this, is a digression however and has little to do with the main issue which is about the place of religous belief in the classroom. This is precisely my point. Were Mr. P's beliefs anything other than Christian, then his expression of them in class would probably have been ignored in the US. I realise this is a hypothetical area of dicussion but why is that? Why would someone only invoke Constitutional protections in the face of Christian dogma. Why is Christianity such a perceived threat that it causes so much debate? Perhaps it is because Christianity, in the US, is not the benign set of beliefs that many purport it to be. I say in the US because in India, it is Hinduism that dominates and there, one current issue is sex education in schools. Religous beliefs, Hinduism in India, Christianity in the US, are informing what can and what cannot be taught in the state-funded public school classroom. This worries a lot of people. It is not anti-Christian bigotry that drives my thinking, it is a very strong agnosticism about all religion and its innappropriatness in informing any rational behaviour. Mr. P., unfortunately and probably unwittingly, stuck his head above the parapet with his comments in class. He became the lightning rod in a much bigger debate. Which brings me, rather neatly, to Mr. Franklin, his chums and their religious convictions. "Overwhelmingly" Christian, undoubtedly. But so what? Its is as bizarre or anomalous than the fact that the Apostles were "overwhelmingly" Jewish. In fact, that the authors of the Constitution specifically included (invented? or did the French get there first?) the concept of the seperation of church and state in spite of the fact that they were "overwhelmingly christian" is a pretty clear indication of how important they thought it was. But isn't it interesting however that Ben Franklin, the principal author of the Constitution, could scarcely be described as a Christian, a Deist, yes, but he struggled with his religious convictions throughout his life. Quite enlightened for a man born three centuries ago and given a Calvinist upbringing. An argument for religious education being innocuous perhaps? But seriously, the basic facts seem to be that the US Constitution embodies a seperation of Church and state. The public school sytem is part of the state and so religious dogma has no place in public schools. For those that want it, there are plenty of private schools which can provide both the religious instruction for students and jobs for Mr. P. A hypothetical scenario but any such suggestion has some merit an needs a better defence than any ad hominem refutation. I do not know very much science, there is so much of the darn stuff. Even more worryingly, the longer I live, the more of it I seem not to know! By the time I die, I swear, I'll be completely ignorant! I do know something of science however. Karl Popper, the eminent philospher of science, describes the falsifiability criterion as being key to distinguishing that which is or is not science. If a theory is capable of being falsified, i.e. testable, then it is scientific. If something is falsifiable then ipso facto it is not necessarily true. So, according to Popper, any scientific theory is, by definition something which is not necessarily true. Paradoxical, I know, but then the juiciest bits of life often are. Its what makes it such fun! Take Newtonian gravity for example, stunningly successful until realtivity came along and superceded it. The Newtonian theory of gravity was testable, falsifiable and when a better theory came along, it was replaced. It is still in use however as the theory of general relativity is fiendishly complicated and the Newtonian approach is a very good approximation so long as you're not mucking about with singularities or the speed of light. Or celestial navigation, still in use, very successful, but based on the premise that the Earth is the centre of things. Useful, effective but not true. Only a mathematical theorem can be proved as "true". Mathematics proceeds, exclusively, by a process of deductive logic wheras science proceeds by a combination of deductive and inductive logic. Mathematics however requires certain axioms before it can begin. Unfortunately, Kurt Godel showed that any axiomatic system cannot be simultaneously complete AND consistent. So, any given mathematics may be either complete, in which case it is inconsistent, or consistent, in which case it is incomplete, or some intermediate. By consistent I mean that, with reference to itself, it does not contradict itself. This is often referred to as Godels incompleteness theorem. Bit of a bummer for the seekers of "truth". Evolution, as a theory, Darwinian or Lamarckian, is jolly useful at explaining a lot of facts. Don't make it true though. Anyway, if we get hung up on what is or isn't true we'll be here forever. "Truth" is a slippery beast and so is anybody who claims to have found it, especially if they then try to force it down someone elses throat and make them worship it. I'd rather see a take it or leave it approach to things. Here's evolution, here's what it explains, here's natural selection, see what it can do. Look at how we can apply the principles of evolution to engineering and design so successfully. You want it? Well, you're going to have to pay for it by sacrificing some of your religious convictions. So, do you want this fancy software, the shiny new car, this new drug that will cure your disease? No? Still want to hang on to beliefs that are flatly contradicted by the science that makes all of this stuff you want? Tell you what, you can have it all, the backroom boys will carry on using this science thing to churn out all you want. Keep your beliefs, please, keep them. But keep them to yourself. If you're worried about the techies creating something nasty, then become an ethicist or a journalist but leave your religious convictions at the door. They were invented far too long ago to be of much relevance now. It is a bit tricky, to be sure. Fortunately there are a number of consequences to the big bang theory that can be checked against empirical observation. The real problem is that the Big Bang theory throws up a number of paramaters which seem to be entirely arbitrary. Many of these paramaters seem so finely tuned to the requirements for a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life as we know it that it has been suggested that the values of these paramaters must have been "chosen". Enter the Intelligent Design theory. Unfortunately, ID does not explain anything at all that cannot be explained by the anthropic principle. That had the parameters been anything other than what they are, we would not be here to observe them. Rather than serve to offer an explanation for anything ID raises the problem of the origin of a Designer. Arguing that a Designer, God, requires no origin, is no different to arguing that the universe, or the multiverse, requires no origin. Evolution explains how the complex can arise, from natural processes, from the simple. ID requires that we simply accept the existence of a Designer and explains nothing at all. William of Occam wouldn't have had much difficulty with this one. Pretty safe to say that I think it's something he did say. There's so much he didn't! Glad to. The teacher appears to have aired his religious beliefs in class. Repeatedly. I know that there were times when this was simply in response to questions from students but you have to ask why the students were even interested. Now, he seems to have done this in a pretty forceful way, telling students that he thought they would go to hell etc. That's a pretty intolerant way of getting a point across don't you think? Believe in this or suffer eternal damnation, fire and brimstone. For any adult to use that sort of coercion with children is, frankly, appalling. But, you are entitled to an entirely different opinion, it is, after all, the mechanism by which all Abrahamic religions get their point across. Tolerance is not God's strong point. To quote Richard Dawkins, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filiacidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (The God Delusion, p. 31) Now, would anyone really want that sort of God in their classroom? Anti-semitism is an alternative viewpoint, just because it is does not mean that is espousal by an employee of the government should be condoned. This is a general argument as to the sense of keeping religious doctrine out of the classroom, as Mr. P. failed to do. Paul's response to this particular point is probably more germaine to the particular issue of Mr. P.'s remarks. Science is founded on empiricism and uses epistemology to make progress. I would disagree that empiricism is taken as axiomatic without discussion. What is often confused is the difference between empirical knowledge and scientific theories which derive from it. Hence the claims of "but it is a scientific fact!" However, if the empiricist viewpoint is taken as axiomatic then it follows that science will always be either incomplete or inconsitsent. (see Godel, above) Similarly, taking the existence of God (or anything else) as axiomatic leads to the same problem. The difficulty for God is that it is claimed he is both complete and consistent. This makes God innaccessible to epistemology or critical thinking and we need an alternative. The only alternative to critical thinking that I can think of is uncritical thinking. Then the barbarians really will not just be at the gate but sitting in my favourite armchair, spilling ale on the sheepskin and eying the family silver with interest. Cogito ergo sum. Done. No problem. Well, not quite. I can prove to myself that I am self aware, that's just about it. As I've mentioned above, a "scientific proof" is really inaccessible in philosophical terms, as I suspect you well know. What, anyway, do you mean by "intelligent". It is a complicated term. I'm not even sure I know exactly what "intelligent" means myself, it seems entirely relative. Could you prove you believe in God? I mean, you could say or do whatever but there's no real way of looking inside your head and examining your beliefs. You could always just be faking it. Like, I suspect, so many US politicians who go through the motions of religious conviction because the realize they are unelectable if they do not. How about this, you could call me unintelligent, I could sue for libel, and we'll let a jury decide. That really is the only "proof" we really deal with on a day to day basis, the sort that's handed down by the courts. What is true or untrue is ultimately decided by men and women. That is why Ben Franklin was so very careful, he knew the pitfalls of letting matters of faith interfere with matters of government. It is also why I and others are concerned at the emergence of a right wing political movement that uses faith to inform policy. The bible is such a horrendously cruel and wide rangingly barbarous text that it can be used to justify almost anything in the name of faith. Eating shellfish could become a capital offense!!! Seems ludicrous? Yes, it is, just as we find slavery ludicrous today, or the salem witch trials. What will our great great grandchildren think of us? Of course, I could say that my intelligence, meagre as it is, has been revealed to me by an angel of the lord. Would that constitute proof? Nope. Dreadful place. Well, some bits are okay I guess. But you can't get a decent cup of coffee anywhere. I got out as soon as I considered I had paid my debt to the society that raised me. No, I was not detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, I did a stint of teaching in the UK public sector, about as much fun as prison actually. Then after thanking the secretary of education (he never replied) left for warmer climes with better coffee. The history of the Anglican church is a pretty awful account of an attempt by Henry VIII to get away with his liscentious attitude to matrimony. An attitude, I might add, that would not be out of place in today's society if you ignore a couple of beheadings. Then we got rid of Charles I and things started to look up from a religio-political point of view. Trouble is that Cromwell's lot were such bloody dour buggers. I mean, no dancing!!!! I think that's what drove the Quakers off to your part of the world. Anyway it got so depressing and bleak that we had to get Charley II back from France and he brought his church with him, along with a lot of very big hats. Since then, we've been stuck with a constitutional monarchy in which the head of the anglican church is decided by heredity! Talk about daft. At least you elect your head of state. I mean imagine how silly it would be if George Bush..... oh, but then, oops. Sorry about that. Anyway, Liz is alright, she leaves all the religious stuff to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Synod. She's also very good at the pomp, and you know how much we love our pomp. I have, as you will have figured out by now, a pretty low opinion of any organised religion. Spiritual truth is best arrived at through a personal journey of some kind IMHO. Accepting someone elses truth, at face value, is not something I would recommend. That so many people are willing to do so astounded me until I realized that there were certain evolutionary advantages to accepting things on faith. In fact, and you'll get a real kick out of this, religious belief is only really explicable in terms of natural selection and the structure of early hominid society. Having invented it, we then proceed to indoctrinate our young with it. So, we end up with religious beliefs that are simply an accident of birth. If I had been born in Malaysia I would almost certainly be muslim. And, no matter what doubts I might have as to my faith, there is nothing I can do to apostacize, let alone get my foreskin back. Now, things are not quite as bad as that in the US, but the plight of young people, brought up with an unquestioning faith in christianity, who suffer in fear of hellish torment should they stray from the path has to be acknowledged. It is one thing for parents to impose their religious beliefs upon their own children, although I would argue that it does, in some cases, consitute abuse, but for it to be reinforced in the classroom is a very, very serious cause for concern. So, Matthew can be proud of taking this matter in hand, I am sure he had some idea of the possible consequences for him personally and that takes courage. Even with the support of his family, life at school must have been, perhaps still is, very difficult for him. I applaud his courage. I would encourage the debate to move on from the specifics of Matthew and Mr. P. and on to the wider issues that have been raised.

Having heard the BBC piece on this issue yesterday, I thought I'd look into it and found my way here. As an educator myself, specializing in sciences and epistemology, specifically Theory of Knowledge, I have an interest in this debate. I must confess to more than a little surprise that it seems to be ongoing. From what little I have read so far I think Matthew LaClair is to be commended very highly, the BOE couldn't be more right in their settlement statement. I wish I had more students like him in my classes, challenging the material being taught and thereby elliciting a sturdy and rational defence of it. Has a mountain been made out of a molehill though? I don't think so, although it would seem that some of Matthew's detractors here would happily write pages of argument over the tiniest detail in a post. The devil, as they say, is in the detail, but it does smack of sour grapes to me. The basic issue in all of this, for me, is the whole church and state seperation idea. I see this as being very important in a country such as the US which on the one hand espouses a secular system of government and yet which demands religious belief from its politicians so comprehensively. To an outsider, it seems like a populace winding itself in ever tighter fundamentalist circles as its lawmakers plod steadfastly on in the original spirit of the republican and democratic ideals that the nation was founded upon. I may be repeating a comment somewhere else in these and related threads but can I ask what people would have said if a teacher with Hindu beliefs had aired them in class? Stating that it was their considered belief that the Big Bang was bunk and that the entire universe sat on the back of a giant elephant standing atop a celestial turtle. Would Matthew have raised similar objections? I doubt it, I think he'd have been amused. Matthew is worried, as should all Americans be, that the increasing dominance of Christianity in US society is posing a genuine threat to some of the freedoms that the US is supposed to champion. Evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, does not have to be accepted by anyone as true. It is, after all, only a theory and as such it cannot be proved to be true. What distinguishes it as something scientific is that it sets itself up to be disproven, something that has failed to happen. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it cannot be disproved because it is a belief, lacking any testable qualities it is not amenable to the scientific method and therefore not science. Evolution is scientific and as such it ought to be recognized as something worthy of being taught because it is useful. It does actually explain things, with enormous success. Whether or not it is "true" is neither here nor there, it is simply the single most successful interpretation of the diversity of life. Nothing else, in any pantheon, comes close to the success of evolution in explaining the observable facts. Any history or science teacher who fails to acknolwedge this must surely be failing their students. As a math teacher would be if she refused to allow graphics calculators in class, claiming that she didn't trust them and that, anyway, an abacus is a perfectly good tool for performing arithmetic. It is the intolerance of fundamentalist religious conviction that worries the free thinking world. Intolerance of alternative viewpoints, religions, theories, lifestyles etc. What amazes me is that there are people in the US who can decry the religious intolerance of the Taliban and then saunter off to their school board and vote to have Creationism taught as part of a science curriculum. It simply isn't science. As I write, a Malaysian court has denied a woman the right to renounce her Islamic status and become a Christian in the eyes of the law. This is a secular country with a constitutional seperation of Church and State. Ring any bells? Be careful my American friends, be very, very careful.