backtop


Print 16 comment(s) - last by drycrust3.. on Oct 15 at 12:57 AM

Science says the debate is over; religious zealots say otherwise

In statements ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- the jihadist group that controls parts of Iraq and Syria) announced that it was "reforming" education in the Iraqi city of Mosul.

I. No More Pencils, No More Books

The group's leadership released a statement proclaiming:

[We'd like to share the] good news of the establishment of the Islamic State Education Diwan by the caliph who seeks to eliminate ignorance, to spread religious sciences and fight the decayed curriculum.  [Educators must] teach and serve the Muslims in order to improve people of the Islamic state in the fields of all religious and other sciences... This announcement is binding.  Anyone who acts against it will face punishment.

What does this mean in practice?  Well, some subjects such as art (wouldn't want to risk a Mohammad cartoon) or history (kind of hard to teach it, when you're trying to rewrite it) are "permanently annulled".  So too are classes to teach Mosul's predominately Sunni Islamic population about other religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

But the self-styled "caliphate" was not stopping at the humanities.  It also sought to replace the foul Western "science" with "religious sciences".  More specifically, it banned teaching the theory of evolution.
 
Teachers have good cause to be wary of defying the prohibition.  ISIS has committed mass murder on a large scale of religious opponents, killing Shiite Muslims, Kurdish Iraqis, Christians, and basically anyone else who doesn't embrace their religious views.

II. Monkey Business

This issue should sound somewhat familiar to the U.S.

Observing adaptation in nature in the 1830s and 1840s, Charles Darwin formulated the hypothesis that adaptations were inherited via a process known as natural selection.  In 1859, Darwin published his groundbreaking work, On the Origin of Species.  In the U.S. where Darwin had no copyright, the book was nonetheless equally popular and controversial.

Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection triggered a fierce debate in the 1800s.

By the 1870s the "controversial" part had faded from the scientific community which had come to embrace expanded and refined versions of Darwin's theory in the face of overwhelming morphological and paleontological evidence.  But in the general population evolution devolved into a three-sided debate.

Members of the public with a greater background in natural sciences general adopted a secular view of evolution as simply a natural phenomena.  Another group embraced the views of Asa Gray who proposed that evolution was real, but was guided by a divine "design".  A third group flatly rejected the idea of evolution altogether.  They were led orthodox Calvinist theologian Charles Hodge whose 1871 work "What is Darwinism?" became a popular rebuttal to "Darwinism", which Hodge argued to be atheism in disguise.

By the 1920s religious views on the topic had softened across much of the country, but in some parts -- particularly southern states -- it remained a taboo topic.  Narratives published between 1910 and 1915 in Volumes 7 and 8 of the Protestant Christian essay series The Fundamentals delivered particularly fiery attacks against the theory, in spite of the fact that some of the essay series' other theologians had by then embraced the idea.  

The Fundamentals (from which the modern meaning of "fundamentalism" originated) inspired Tennessee politicians to in 1925 pass the Butler Act, a bill which narrowly mirrored the policy we see today from ISIS.  The law made it a misdemeanor to teach about evolution or deny strictly literal interpretations of Biblical creationism.

Scopes sentencing
Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was convicted of a crime in 1929 for teaching evolution to high school students.

In 1929, John Thomas Scopes -- a Tennessee high school teacher -- was tried under the law for teaching evolutionary theory.  The case ignited a media frenzy and became known as "the Scopes Monkey Trial".  After a fierce debate Scopes was found guilty, but was pardoned by the state Supreme Court on a technicality; the law would remain on the books until 1967 when it was struck down on free speech grounds.

III. School's Out for the Summer / School's Out Forever

Today strengthened by the knowledge of modern genetics, a greatly broadened archive of paleontolgical specimens, and even direct observations of evolution of biosynthetic pathways in the laboratory, evolution is a core part of science curriculum in America.  And yet even today, some groups are working to try to protect public school teachers who abandon state curriculum, denying evolutionary theory in favor of religious creationism.  There have also been efforts to revise the curriculum to avoid the topic of evolution.

South Park evolution
[Image Source: South Park Studios]

In other words, ISIS's ideas may seem outlandish to those with science backgrounds, but to many in America they're preaching to the choir.  Sociological studies have suggested groups like ISIS and American evangelical creationists share a common opposition to evolutionary theory due to a common root factor -- fear of the unknown.

That hypothesis would make sense somewhat; if anyone knows a thing or two about spreading fear, it's ISIS.

Neanderthal chuck norris
Neanderthal Chuck Norris is displeased with those who ignore science. [Image Source: BBC]

But fear is a relatively weak tool against the scientific truth.  Indeed, while teachers in Mosul weren't even believed to have tought evolution prior to the ISIS edict, nonetheless they have taken issue to the demands.  Classes were supposed to start on Sept. 9, but teachers simply didn't show up.

A teacher, speaking anonymously to the Associated Press, says that local educators would rather be out of a job than to teach children in ISIS-run schools.  He comments:

What’s important to us now is that the children continue receiving knowledge correctly, even if they lose a whole academic year and an official certification.  They will brainwash them and contaminate their thoughts.

Unable to receive a free education thanks to ISIS, most parents in the city have now turned to home schooling.  Mosul was home to 1.8 million people after the war, but the population may now be closer to 1.5 million, as many Iraqis fled the city when ISIS arrived.

Sources: AP, Talking Points Memo, MSNBC





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Surprise surprise
By geddarkstorm on 9/18/2014 7:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Coming from a group the beheads journalists, crucifies common folks, blows up anything they feel like such as hospitals and mosques, I guess we can all sit in complete shock at this uncharacteristic turn of events. Who knew barbaric, psychopaths who wish to brutally destroy anything that impedes their total control would ban education that impedes their total control.




RE: Surprise surprise
By roykahn on 9/20/14, Rating: 0
RE: Surprise surprise
By geddarkstorm on 9/21/2014 3:19:37 PM , Rating: 5
1. Vietnam was on the behest of our allies, the French, who had made an imperial colony out of Vietnam and whom the Vietnamese had rebelled against. It was wrong for the US to trust and help its allies in that case, due to the US being extremely anti-imperialistic in principle; meaning such assistance to an imperial demand was clearly against all the US stood for (the rebel leaders even wanted to copy the US constitution for their own, but were turned away and had to go to the USSR instead). It happened, and the US paid for it dearly. But it wasn't a spontaneous "let's invade someone" off the cuff thing; unlike ISIS.

2. Iraq had used chemical weapons for genocide before. Invaded and warred with neighbors before. Was continuing to oppress its people and also deny UN inspectors from verifying that Iraq was not harboring or continuing production of WMD. The UN passed an ultimatum resolution, demanding Saddam allow weapons inspectors back in his country or face whatever force was necessary to allow it. Saddam flagrantly gave the entire world community the finger, and the US, along with other UN nations, attacked and disposed him. It was not an invasion by the US off the cuff, again; unlike ISIS.

3. There are national as well as state levels of rules for education. However, material that falls out of the core rules is in a "gray" zone that individual districts and school communities have a prerogative to decide if those ancillary materials should be taught or not. It is not wrong to say "no, we'll teach something else". Who cares if the state bans one Latin American education program, when there are plenty of other, better Latin American education programs to choose from? That's not our call to make. Nothing like ISIS, who bans education due to knowledge in general being its foe due to the personal empowerment it can bring.

4. Torture was wrong. A perversion of the US's high minded principles. But given the nature of a shadow enemy, with no clear state or army to negotiate with or deal with, it was deemed essential at the time. An overreaction, yes, but it was terminated as soon as cooler heads prevailed (as far as such things are). It is not an ongoing, nor is it a -sanctioned- activity. Nor was the "torture" performed by the US even remotely as brutal or horrific as the torture (i.e. crucifixions, televised beheadings, etc) perpetrated by ISIS.

5. So, it's wrong for the US to support Israel, Bahrain, and Egypt? Is it wrong for the US to support France as an ally, despite the horrors France has committed in recent times on the Ivory Coast? Or the UK after all its actions in Iraq? Just because one nation is an ally with another, and that other commits bad decisions, doesn't mean the allying nation is condoning or agreeing with those decisions. All nations commonly ally with other nations, even if they are terrible; and there are many layers and types of allying, treaties, and "support". So, what supposed "ill" are you trying to suggest, hm? ISIS doesn't have allies or performs diplomacy to make a more peaceful world -- ISIS slaughters everyone.

6. Subversion of democracy oversees. Well, that's an interesting claim. Care to back it up with actual data and full information? Sometimes that wrong pony is backed despite it looking good at the start, but the US's intent is always to increase democracy, as that is always in the "best national interests" of the US, and the world. ISIS doesn't simply "subvert" democracy, it slaughters anyone who isn't under its complete, totalitarian control.

7. ISIS isn't particularly troubling because its "obvious religious motivations". Religion is just a tool to ISIS for recruiting and indoctrination. What is particularly troubling about ISIS is its brutality. Saddam was particularly troubling to the whole world, and his regime was not religious in the least. Stalin was troubling to the whole world, and his regime was not religious in the least. What did the two have in common? A complete, flagrant disregard for life, liberty, and freedoms, and a willingness to commit genocide for the fun of it. That's ISIS. Religion has nothing to do with it, and if you fall into that blinding trap, you'll never figure out how to oppose forces like ISIS, dictators, or other genocidal maniacs. The source of their insanity has to be addressed, or there will never be an end to atheist and "religious" dictators who feel the need to oppress and slaughter.

The funny thing about your points is the clear lack of context, history, and information underlying your beliefs. You're speaking in ways that sound so blind.

The world isn't binary -- one or the other -- it's much more complex and stochastic in how we get from point A to point B; and the best intentions can and often do go awry. The US has made plenty of mistakes (why didn't you bring up the Banana wars? Those are true examples of the US doing actual evil; not anything you list), but the US is nothing like ISIS, due to the principles of liberty, the respect for life, and the desire to give people freedoms (the last one is currently under attack from within in the US in the form of "security", but the principle is still standing thus far).


RE: Surprise surprise
By roykahn on 9/21/14, Rating: 0
RE: Surprise surprise
By khanikun on 9/22/2014 3:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter if it's ISIS or the American government. All governments are looking out for their own interests. It's how they go about doing it.


RE: Surprise surprise
By Dug on 9/22/2014 3:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not reading the entire reply is the same as ignoring his point. But you are willing to say he turned a blind eye.

I will repeat what he said, "..lack of context, history, and information underlying your beliefs"
Which is exactly what you did and what he was trying to convey.

You ask to look at the similarities, yet you won't accept the context which would negate the similarities.


RE: Surprise surprise
By oh Hal on 10/8/2014 12:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
You seem like you want to argue about this stuff, but most of it can be dismissed if you want to make an effort at seeking the truth.

For instance, we waged war against Vietnam because the French asked us or Saddam was some big terrorist because he gassed some of his citizens at some time with weapons that the first Bush gave him or that there are no issues with supporting Israel, the Saudis or a long list of countries and leaders with controversial actions.

The US engages in torture on a regular basis often without some national security need. But in their defense, the US always has as other countries have and always will.

I don't really hear much from Isis that i don't hear in the US. The idea that evolution is nonsense is widespread. Why does Mick look at history rather than current events? Is he trying to get a junket to one of the Creation Museums?

If you actually talk to people, the idea that journalists are beheaded isn't that foreign a notion. No, they won't state it in the media, but work with the public and you'll hear that sentiment plenty.


RE: Surprise surprise
By mars2k on 10/6/2014 3:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Just like the Babtists


This is what gets me:
By inperfectdarkness on 9/18/2014 1:29:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
[We'd like to share the] good news of the establishment of the Islamic State Education Diwan by the caliph who seeks to eliminate ignorance, to spread religious sciences and fight the decayed curriculum. [Educators must] teach and serve the Muslims in order to improve people of the Islamic state in the fields of all religious and other sciences ... This announcement is binding. Anyone who acts against it will face punishment.


Bold added for emphasis. These bolded sections are an inherent dichotomy. Religion is not a science, not even in the most tenuous definition possible. Noah Webster is spinning in his grave as I type.

Now let me be very clear here. Not only is religion NOT a science...it's actually almost a polar opposite. Science seeks to observe phenomenon (natural or man-made) and from them deduce hypothesis & theories about how and why the universe works the way it does.

Religion does completely the opposite. Religion stems from some "sacred texts", and from these we are expected to deduce all manner of daily living and so forth. Succinctly, the conclusion is the result (end) of science, but the BEGINNING (start) of religion. Religion has only survived for so long by vigorously fighting any science which may undermine (disprove) the sacred texts on which it is based. This is why Galileo (among MANY others) was so openly persecuted--because science conflicted with religion.

This is why a theocracy (like Islam in general aspires to be) is so inherently dangerous. It is in essence returning mankind to the days of the Spanish Inquisition (and other infamous moments in history), when religion leveraged power (via state control) over even the most pedantic of affairs. Theocracy dooms scientists to not only ridicule for conflicting views with the prevailing religion--but it also turns them into traitors...since religion and state are one. Needless to say, progress is stifled under this system.

I am proud to call myself a theocracist for this reason.




RE: This is what gets me:
By chick0n on 9/18/2014 4:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well said sir.


Old and Tired Arguments
By deltaend on 9/25/2014 6:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
I get kind of annoyed when I see an argument like this so obviously out of place on a tech website. It reminds me of seeing political arguments on religious websites or tech arguments on political ones.

The comparison between the US and ISIS is unwarranted and unnecessary. A state like that of the USA has always had the right to reinvent itself at anytime which it has done and continues to do (not always for the better though). You cannot say the same for ISIS.

Lastly, without going into long standing arguments which could easily turn into hundreds of pages of comments, it is a completely valid theory (from a scientific perspective) to believe in evolution or intelligent design. The very fact that God is attached to intelligent design doesn't make it less possible, however, the addition of God to intelligent design seems to be what attracts instant and automatic reactions from the scientific and pseudo scientific communities. Until a time machine is built and one theory is proven correct, teach both and we can all go on with our day.




RE: Old and Tired Arguments
By xthetenth on 10/8/2014 12:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Or just teach the mechanism of evolution, which has a ton of evidence behind it and don't set a precedent of randomly adding conjectures that are carefully constructed so as to make no actual predictions or have any use in actually understanding the way biology works, rather than evolution, which makes predictions that have been backed up consistently by evidence of structures in biology that are only efficient if you consider that the modern form of animals came from a very different form and every single step had to do better at what it did than its predecessors (such as the vagus nerve on the giraffe, for example). Intelligent design is at odds with many fundamental ideas of science and logic.


Lol!
By PerfectOne on 9/22/2014 8:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
"Neanderthal Chuck Norris is displeased with those who ignore science."

Too funny.

To those comparing US politics and society to those of ISIS....I would take living anywhere in the US than in ISIS controlled IRAQ :)




By drycrust3 on 10/15/2014 12:57:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In other words, ISIS's ideas may seem outlandish to those with science backgrounds, but to many in America they're preaching to the choir. Sociological studies have suggested groups like ISIS and American evangelical creationists share a common opposition to evolutionary theory due to a common root factor -- fear of the unknown. - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/ISIS+Imposes+Ban+on+Teach...

You've got most of it wrong. See, I'm not afraid of the unknown because there isn't anything that is unknown to "the Top Guy". Now that doesn't mean there aren't beings "out there" (well actually, all the evidence I've seen suggests they are here, on this planet, but we can pretend they are "out there") that aren't truly frightening, I've met a few of them, and I can assure you they aren't nice.
The really frightening thing is the expectation that everyone should believe in Evolution as a fact, it isn't a proven fact, it is an unproven theory.
A theory can be anything: it could be that light slows down as it travels towards a gravitational source, or that it speeds up as it travels away from a gravitational source. Another theory is that when you stand at the bottom of a mountain and look towards the top then everything has a blue tinge, and that if you stand at the top of the mountain and look towards where you previously stood everything has a green tinge. Another theory is that objects in space on an escape trajectory away from a gravitational source accelerate as they cool down, and another theory is that gravity is the reason the sun shines (and why Jupiter emits more heat than it gets from the sun), not nuclear reactions.
The point of a theory is that you can use it as a guide in your scientific investigations, so you can prove your theories are right or wrong, you don't use them as a whip. For example one could go out and look at the top of a mountain to see how blue it looks, and then drive to the top and look down, and wonder if my theory is right or not. The thing you don't do is take school children on mandatory school trips up to the top of mountains to "prove" I am right, some families can't afford (or don't want to waste) the bus fare, others will argue that what they see is a trick of the light, and still others will say they don't see a thing.
However, what we find in Jason's article is "out comes the whip": everyone must believe the theory of Evolution (grammar note: remember that deities have a capital letter) is true even though it hasn't been proven to be a fact. Where are the scientific experiments that prove it? Where are the Nobel prizes? If Creationists used that sort of argument to justify teaching their scientific viewpoint then there would be a huge outcry, so why do it with Evolution? The theory of Evolution should be able to stand on pure merit, it shouldn't need people to push it.
The consequence of believing Evolution is a fact without proof is what should frighten you, because then the theory of Evolution becomes a deity, so then you become exactly like the Isis people: you are judging people by whether their beliefs match your own, not on whether they do they obey the law or not.




Oh noes?
By rbuszka on 9/19/14, Rating: -1
RE: Oh noes?
By coburn_c on 9/24/2014 8:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
I really hate this down-vote system. Especially when down without any sort of rebuttal. It's actually very apropos to this article to censor someone without discussion.

quote:
Even marketing professionals know you can't change someone's worldview by attacking it head-on - you just become that person's enemy (which is why the atheists I know don't even like other atheists.)

Marketing professionals are selling something, something that is very rarely the truth. You can't argue truth against fiction by compromising truth.

Also, the word atheist denotes someone who is without religion. I wish you religious nut-jobs would stop pretending it is a philosophy.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan
















botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki