Evolution vs. Creation/ID: Does This Fight Belong in Schools?

If we stop forcing people to pay into a single pot for "public" education, we can eliminate these disagreements. Parents should educate their children as they see fit. No person has the right to force their views upon the child of another. Most parents want their children taught evolution. Some parents want ID in the curriculum. The only sure way to avoid a violation of someone's right to parent as they see fit is to eliminate involuntary education/educational funding.

Some day I want my kids to learn both, because, as a Creationist, I know that there is no greater enemy to evolutionary dogmatism than exposing it to the light of day (that is to say, the light of rational inquiry). Putting your head in the sand, regardless of your present position, doesn't do any good.

With either evolution or creation, you are ultimately talking about a post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after the fact, therefore because of) argument, which any book on logic will decry as a fallacy. You cannot "prove" things about the past in a conclusive way because you cannot experiment on the past.

You can attempt to replicate the conditions that you believe to have been present, but you are ultimately forced to rest are far too many "givens" for your conclusions to be much more than elaborations on your intial hypothesis.

With that in mind, we are left with a decision that must be made by those who have the authority to make it: what will parents choose to have their children taught? If either side (ID/Creationist OR Evolutionist) attempts to coerce families into surrendering this right, it is tyranny. We do not allow the government to tell us what religion to adhere to, so why do we think that it should be able to dictate a universal position on this issue, which is clearly a matter of religious faith?

Evolutionists must, in the end, choose to believe that speciation was the result of natural processes that we cannot observe. Creationists must choose to believe in their respective explanation of how the many different biological kinds came to be. Both decisions are based on faith, and not on any ironclad argument, either inductive or deductive.

Evolutionary theory is not the result of scientific experimention. It is the result of speculation based on observation. This cannot rightly be considered "science" because it does not follow the scientific method.

Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experiment
Analysis
Conclusion

If it doesn't incorporate those steps, it isn't "scientific" in any meaningful sense. You cannot, solely based on the self-avowed "reasonable" nature of your particular hypothesis, disregard all others.

Example: If I observe bees gathering nectar, and I hypothesize that they are so successful because they are utilizing biologically-based RF transmitters to disseminate the location of particularly fruitful area, this is not an unscientific hypothesis, per se. If I claim this based only on my observation and without experimentation, it is an unscientific claim, because I did not derive it from the scientific method. I can, of course test this hypothesis by, let's say, introducing some sort of RF interference that, given my hypothesis, could disprove my claims. I then have to control for whatever my independent variable is. My final conclusion could, with scientific authority, only say whether the hypothesis is true or false (along with any mitigating factors that were discovered in the process of the experiment) or undetermined (if my experiment failed).

What Causes Poverty?

It is undeniable that welfare programs create, for their recipients, various disincentives to be financially and socially responsible. A perfect example of this is the fact that public housing requests for single mothers are often expedited as compared to requests from non-parents. This clearly creates an incentive to have children. This incentive is not a sufficient cause, by any means, I am sure, but the knowledge of this fact among young girls residing in public housing is surely considered by young girls in their decision making process.

As a source, I cite Desire, an independent documentary by Julie Gustafson. http://www.state.sc.us/arts/circuit/current.htm#gustafson

(I think that Gustafson is a fine filmmaker, and a wretched economist/sociologist, by the way.)

While Gustafson herself makes the case in her narration/dialogue in the film that her subjects--young, poor girls such as those discussed above--were inevitably going to get
pregnant and remain poor, the girls themselves were adamant that they had many options available to them and could have chosen differently.

In the movie, which follows the lives of several girls over five years, we meet a girl named Cassandra who dreams of going into the military, going to college, and leading a financially comfortable life. She becomes pregnant, and, despite his overtures, refuses to allow her child's father joint custody of their daughter. Because of her sole custody of the baby girl, the military will not allow her to contract (for the obvious reason that she would be unable to care for her child while in basic training, while deployed, etc.).

Gustafson's interpretation of this is that Cassandra was doomed by her poverty, and never really had a choice. When I saw this movie last night, Gustafson was in attendance, and held a short question and answer time afterwards. When questioned as to why the girls ended up as they did, she stated that they were trapped, and that the "illusion" of a choice is what gave them hope and their pride. Gustafson then repeated, "They were very proud... too proud." It was this last part that I find most revealing.

Cassandra was too proud to allow her child's father to share custody, and too proud to depend on him for support, even though, by the end of the movie, he is working as a barber making better than the usual (for the individuals in the movie) minimum wage. Her unwillingness to depend on others who were voluntarily offering support, and to instead rely on the government housing and other welfare made available to her effectively kept her in poverty.

After viewing this, I must conclude that it is this government's welfare programs, which create this sense of entitlement in the first place, which ultimately made this girl too proud to accept a hand up. Had she allowed her former lover joint custody, she could have achived her dreams, insofar as they were portrayed in this documentary.

Likewise, when people feel as though they are entitled to something that they did not earn, there is little incentive to be responsible, to control spending, to save, to plan ahead, and to lift yourself from a life that seems to be close to mere subsistence.

Is Religion a Sufficient Cause for Social Ills?

(The Center for Faith in Politics posted a link to this story, which discusses a study that reports that the pervasiveness of religion in a particular country can be correlated with higher rates of "anti-social" activities, including abortion, murder, et al. My response is below.)

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies." (from the article)

Therein lies the rub. There is a correlation demonstrated by this data, but not a causal relationship between religion and crime, necessarily. That is, there is a correlation if these data are correct. They don't seem to be.

According to NationMaster.com, the countries with the highest percentage of their populations falling victim to crime are, in order: Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Itally, Canada, Denmark, Poland, and Belgium.

The site notes that "Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats."

It also offers the proviso that,

"Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

I would guess that the study in question likely found itself beleaguered by similar problems, namely, that some victims are less likely to report to crimes than others. Either way, the study is either critically disabled by data collection problems, or, if you want to be the conspiracy theorist type, willfully misrepresenting the available data.

---------------

My apologies, I plugged the wrong choices into the NationMaster.com engine. The list that I gave above should read: Austrailia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Canada, St. Kitts & Nevis, Malta, Denmark.

Another interesting statistic:

Total crimes per capita, by country (top ten worst)

Dominica, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Chile, United Kingdom, Montserrat, United States, Netherlands, South Africa.