As my child approaches school age, I worry about school board battles a little bit more. I hate politics, but I can see myself forced to get involved at some point. And I find myself wondering, what is it about some Evangelical Christians? Why is their faith so weak? Is God testing them? I ask this because of their constant griping about “equal time” for Creationism in public schools. Given that science classes are supposed to teach science and not religion, it’s pretty much a no-brainer; and after the smack-down they received in Dover, you’d think maybe, just maybe, they would have learned their lesson. But these soldiers for Christ carry on, betraying their ultimate lack of faith in the Bible and their God.
Lack of faith? But they’re fighting so hard for their faith! Whatever could you mean?
Faith, which is the belief in the supernatural despite lack of evidence, is, in the terms of some theologies, a gift from God. It is the belief in things not seen. It’s essentially a test—believe in Me despite my refusal to prove my existence, and you will be rewarded. Anyone can believe in a God who walks the Earth. It takes a special kind of believer to follow a God who never shows up.
Most of the truly faithful go about their lives with their belief, understanding that God is not likely to confirm their faith until they die. And that’s just fine with them, because it doesn’t change most of the events of the day. The sun rises, the sun sets. The car starts. The snow falls. These things happen for the faithful and heathen alike.
But the ID’ers out there seem to lack a strong faith in their God. They feel that scientists, teachers, and governments must give them a stamp of legitimacy. Their faith is so weak that a high school biology teacher can shake its very foundations.
Want to prove your faith in God? Then live among those who don’t believe, and let that reinforce your ideas. Move to Israel, to Iran, to Saudi Arabia for a year and let your faith be tested. But stop saying that your faith deserves equal time along side science in classrooms. The idea is insulting to those of us who don’t share your beliefs, and should be insulting to you, as it implies that you need your God to have the approval of secular authorities.
I bring this up because of a concern that, admittedly, is a variation on a slippery slope argument. If you can insert Creationism into a science classroom in the name of “equal time”, then you could also put homeopathy and other cult beliefs into medical schools for the same reason. This, despite lack of any scientific evidence.
The attack on science isn’t limited to the overtly religious, but as I’ve said before, many of these altmed beliefs are essentially religion, in that they require faith over reason.
So teach your kids whatever you want. Just don’t teach it to mine.
Amen, Brother! We need to educate our educators to teach critical thinking.
PAL: Great to see another blogger so close to home here in SE MI. Actually, I’ve known about your blog for some time, but justed lurked and learned.
As a parent of school age public schoolers (15 and 13), I share your concern. I’ve been on the lookout for creationist shenanigans here for many years. Suffice to say that if it happens, we’ll have no trouble mobilizing the forces of rationality and good science education to meet the challenge. If you notice any funny business going on in your neck of the woods, let me know.
I believe we will be seeing less and less on religion in schools, as the UN is set on world order based on a more holistic outlook, or this is my though on it anyways. Critical thinking is an action that must happen in our schools for the children, its all about the events of global warming these days and environment to save the world, our children are being programed in schools on a different level and less and less is aimed on any type of Christianity.
I’m surprised that daedalus hasn’t come up with a comment that ID supporters have low NO levels…..:o)
I do actually wonder what proportion of people in the USA are fundies/evangelical christians. I reckon they may be a mite overrepresented.
Zed, ask and ye shall receive.
Actually how low NO fits into religious fundamentalism is complex. If you have low NO during development in utero you are more on the autism spectrum and so are less susceptible to wrong beliefs communicated to you by an “authority”.
People with low NO during neurodevelopment, in utero and childhood have brains epigenetically programmed to function with low NO. NO sets the length scale of functional connectivity. Low NO results in a short length scale, with only small brain regions in a close-coupled interaction. (these are the minicolumns which are smaller and more numerous in ASDs). People with ASDs have to build big thoughts out of little pieces. The little pieces have to fit together, otherwise there is dissonance. The little thoughts are facts, data, and little bits of evidence. Big thoughts are built from little thoughts which can be tested for reliability.
In contrast, people who develop with a high NO level in utero and childhood have larger regions in close coupled interaction. These large close coupled regions facilitate communication because large ideas can be conveyed simply because there are large brain similarities that are in sync between different people. However these large ideas are too large to easily test. But that is ok because it is only “important” (relatively speaking) if the idea is shared by other people, not if the idea is actually correct or not.
As people age, their NO levels tend to go down. Low NO makes it more difficult to learn new things because learning new things means forming new connections between previously unconnected regions. To make a connection between two previously unconnected regions requires neural connectivity without a synapse. This (non-synaptic connectivity) is mediated through NO. NO can then trigger synaptogenesis so new synapses can form where previously there were none. The threshold at which NO can trigger new synapse formation and facilitate learning depends on the epigenetic level that was programmed in utero and early childhood. Development under low NO sets a lower threshold and facilitates learning later in life.
The NO level as an adult is also important. Low NO makes new learning more difficult, but particularly for individuals who developed under conditions of high NO. If NO is low, it becomes essentially impossible for them to change their beliefs no matter what kind of evidence is presented. They simply don’t have the capacity to change. They don’t have the neuronal plasticity to modify their beliefs.
Examples of religious leaders with high and low NO levels respectively would be the Dalai Lama and Jerry Falwell. This is clear (to me) from a number of perspectives. Meditation of the type that the Dalai Lama practices specifically generates NO, and this has been measured instrumentally. High NO is a low stress state, the Dalai Lama lives and practices a low stress lifestyle. High NO leads to high ATP in the brain. ATP is the fundamental “need” that cells have. Presumably ATP was one of the first needs that physiology evolved to satisfy. As other “needs” became survival and reproductive features, no doubt pathways evolved to satisfy those other “needs” via elaboration of the existing “ATP need” pathways (which happen to involve NO at many levels). With the Dalai Lama’s ATP need satisfied via his high NO level, at a fundamental level he doesn’t “need” anything else. As a result he lives a simple life with no “need” of material possessions. He doesn’t seek power or authority. The Dalai Lama is completely rational. He has stated that “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.” The type of behaviors that cause stress, lying, cheating, stealing, hurting others, all lower NO levels. These are all behaviors that the Dalai Lama does not practice. These behaviors both cause and require a low NO level to achieve. The Dalai Lama doesn’t practice them because he knows the cost to him in terms of lowering his NO level is greater than any short term or transient “benefit” he might get.
In contrast Jerry Falwell exhibited many behaviors and physical symptoms characteristic of low NO. He was obese and died of heart disease, both signs of low NO. He sought, and acquired material possessions and authority. What ever he had it seemingly wasn’t “enough”, he always wanted more. More food, more money, more authority, more power. He was a hateful man who blamed 9/11 on gays and liberals and seemingly had no compunction about spreading his hate around or in using that hatred to raise money by fomenting hatred against others. He seemingly had no compunction about lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting others to further his agendas. He had many delusional beliefs, creationism, literal belief in the bible and many others. Lying to try and “win” an argument is a classic sign of low NO. All the anti-science whack-jobs do it, it is a sign that they are out of touch with reality.
Low NO can induce a delusional state. That is one of the main causes of acute psychosis (my hypothesis).
http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2007/08/low-nitric-oxide-acute-psychosis.html
Low enough NO will make anyone delusional and psychotic, but people who developed under low NO have brain anatomy that can tolerate a greater reduction in NO levels before that happens. The cognitive process of building big ideas from little ones is more robust to disruptions in functional connectivity due to low NO than is the adoption of gigantic complex beliefs in whole (i.e. literal belief in the Bible) particularly when those “beliefs” are inconsistent and self-contradictory (as is the Bible). One can only accept wrong beliefs from authorities by making oneself more stupid, by refusing to analyze that belief, by ignoring facts that are clearly in conflict with the wrong belief. Wrong beliefs are (in general) much more complicated than correct beliefs. When the brain can’t support that complexity (as when functional connectivity decreases due to low NO), the person’s conceptualization of reality “breaks”. With no little ideas to fall back on, the person then has no way to conceive of reality.
couple of interesting reads for you, maybe, palmd
apoptosis discovery
they can block HIV from leaving a cell with gene therapy
I think it would be a great idea to teach homeopathy in med school, as part of a “critical thinking” minicourse. Take a bunch of stuff like that with no evidence behind it and shoot the hell out of it. That way you’re better prepared when you get confronted with it and you know more about why it’s so dumb.
Same thing in high school biology. Go ahead and talk about creation and evolution and present the evidence for both. On the one hand, a few words, a translation of a Hebrew modification of an old creation tale. On the other, let’s see, the fossil record and genetics and………
I’ve argued before that there should be an EBM course in the first 2 years of med school, especially tearing apart cult medicine. I’m glad I’m not alone.
Unfortunately, many schools are credulously including altmed as a legit area of study.
If children were taught from the very beginning to question their teachers and request (demand) evidence, then “Intelligent Design” class would become quite awkward.
And so would the rest of school. Give a 14 year old the power to consistently question his teachers, and he’ll make the lesson last hours, perhaps even days.