For example, we teach kids “you can’t take the square root of a negative number.” We don’t explain to kids who are just grasping the idea of the infinite that some infinities are bigger than others but that 5 + infinity is just infinity. We spend an endless amount of time teaching them to factor quadratic equations when almost all quadratic equations cannot be factored.

We teach many things in school which aren’t true or aren’t complete. So my question isn’t why you and the rest in your religion object to how evolution is not being taught – but why this is the issue that is more important to you than so many others?

Suppose a student understands and “accepts” evolution but finishes high school and never reads another book and can not do any math other than simple arithmetic – that to me is a bigger tragedy (and a more common one) than a student who graduates from high school and is well rounded and understands the arguments in favor of evolution but just doesn’t accept them.

I may not be expressing myself well here – I am not anti-evolution or religious – I just wonder why this is more important than other issues.

Daniel: Yes, evolution is being taught, but it is being taught alongside fables from a religious text about creation. This is what I object to. Your question strikes at the heart of my discomfort.

Children are greatly aided in learning to differentiate facts from fiction by their peers and elders. Here we have authority, the teachers, intentionally blurring (I believe this is substantiated by the documentaries and curricula I have seen) the difference. By teaching Noah’s ark and evolution in the same class, both are presented on equal footing. However, evolution is simply not open to interpretation in the same way that Noah’s ark is. In other words, the presentation is so skewed that the child will easily end up not accepting it.

Yes, you are right about “I find this” I was sloppy. I’ll fix the text!

We are taught many things in school that are subject to interpretation – many of these are taught as facts. How do we separate those from the things that are true.

Even outside of school – a great deal of Americans believe that we were right to go into Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11. In the scheme of things we accept and don’t accept – why does evolution bother you than many of the other things a child doesn’t accept.

It sounds as if evolution is being taught in these schools. If you take a child with a very religious home life and teach them evolution in a heterogeneous public school – is this child any more likely to “accept” it.

Finally, when you say “Many would find this repugnant, immoral, and an abuse of authority.” do you mean to say “I find this …”

D

The 123 Rules:

1. Pick up the book nearest you with at least 123 pages. (No cheating!)
2. Turn to page 123.
3. Count the first five sentences.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five other bloggers.

I guess I wasn’t clear enough, but this is really getting to “doing the right thing when no one is looking.” What makes people do good? Some believe it’s authority from a religious text, while others believe it’s authority from people, and an innate sense of morality.

In a sense I’m trying to explore what makes us do good when no one is watching. You are spot on about the concept of principles. The current research into morality makes the difference between principles and intuitions. We often have intuitions about moral actions without recourse to some set of principles. Or vice versa. Interesting things happen when our principles and our intuitions don’t coincide on the same action.

I’m new to this – I hope future blog posts will look at some practical aspects of morality too. The theory is no good without it.

This latter phrasing worries me because you could be moral and be concerned with such principles but behave quite badly. The second “concerned with” strikes me the same way.

So your definition of morals implies nothing about action or behavior. Perhaps that is right – but it is too academic for my tastes.

Finally, I think that most people think that they are doing mostly the right thing. We have a huge capacity for justifying much of what we do. I would hate for this to be classified under “moral” behavior.