Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
- From: catshark <catshark@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:46:57 -0400
On 3 Sep 2005 06:07:17 -0700, "Reed" <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I would appreciate comments on the following proposal. As background
>you should know that I am credentialed philosopher, an evolutionist,
>and an atheist.
Ha! We can top that. We have a credentialed philosopher-comedian!
>
>I would like to suggest the following practical strategy to counter the
>anti-evolutionists' call for equal time in the science classroom:
>
>When a school board presses for equal time, the evolutionists should
>agree and then press for adding a philosophy of science course to the
>curriculum specifically devoted to the creationism-evolution issue.
Which the IDeologists will cry "foul" about, saying the "Darwinists" are
trying to label ID as "philosophy" instead of science . . . and, anyway, it
is Darwinism that is philosophy . . . or at least no less a philosophy than
ID is (consistency is not one of their major concerns).
>This kind of course is well within the power of school boards to
>implement.
Careful now. If creationism is a core tenet of some religions, setting out
to "debunk" it is just as bad Constitutionally as setting out to teach it
as true.
>Moreover the Europeans routinely give philosophy courses in
>high school. IMHO, a philosophy of science course of this sort will be
>far more interesting and educationally relevant for students than the
>typical long dead white male course. Ideally the course will be jointly
>taught by both a proponent of ID and of evolution. As you know, we have
>lots of good, accessible material already developed on our side. In
>fact, this might be an excellent opportunity for NCSE (National Center
>for Science Education) to market it's own textbook on the subject. (Or
>jointly market it with the Discovery Institute.) Imagine if this course
>became standard nationwide! NCSE should start a national campaign for
>"equal time" on this basis.
I can imagine major fits being thrown by parents who think *their* prefered
position is not being given fair treatment (that is, taught to their
children as self-evidently true). That, of course, is not a reason not to
try, just a warning against Pollyannaism.
>
>This approach has many advantages:
>
>1. It puts NCSE and evolutionists on the offensive - in the politically
>advantageous position of being in favor of "equal time", which as you
>know is popular with the public . It is potentially economically and
>politically advantageous for NCSE and other pro-evolution
>organizations.
Has textbook publishing suddenly become a growth stock?
>
>2. It keeps ID and creationism out of the science classroom, and
>defuses that issue.
>
>3. It avoids the First Amendment issues.
It *may* avoid the Establishment clause but the devil is in the details.
>The course has an obvious
>secular purpose. It hopefully would bypass the need for endless
>litigation before an increasingly conservative court system.
>
>4. It allows us to frame the issues in broad historical context: we
>start with young earth creationism as a scientific theory, and end with
>ID.
>
>5. It allows us to present Darwin's argument in its original form: as
>an extended comparison of how the theory of evolution via natural
>selection matches against the Biblical theory of special creation in
>light of detailed empirical observation.
Now, here is an example of the pitfalls your proposal can face. While
Darwin spent a lot of time countering creationism in the _Origin_, it
wasn't the Biblical variety (and not even "special creation" _per se_) that
he was concerned with, for the simple reason that no one in the scientific
community he cared about still held to a Genesis account or anything as
crude as all life being poofed into existence at once.
This whole area is rife with potentially false dichotomies. And short of
presenting empirical observation as no greater source of knowledge than
religious revelation, there could be justified complaints of violation of
the Establishment clause in making such simplistic comparisons.
>
>6. There is a good chance that in most cases students will be properly
>taught,
That is highly optimistic given our current high school science curricula.
Qualified philosophy teachers might be even harder to find than science and
math teachers.
>and the cause of science education and evolution theory will be
>advanced. Moreover I think that, in general, students will find this
>course among the most interesting in their curriculum.
>
>7. It is also a much needed opportunity to introduce philosophy into
>the high school curriculum. In the course of public policy, we all do
>philosophy - most of the debate between evolutionists and
>anti-evolutionists is philosophy of science rather than science itself.
>So we all do philosophy, the only question is, do we do it
>self-consciously and well, or do we do it poorly, typically lapsing
>into semantic confusion, talking past one another.
I certainly agree with that.
>
>I want to return to point 3 above. It's true that most of the main
>movers and shakers of ID have a religious motivation and are
>creationists in disguise. And it's even more true that school boards
>are primarily motivated by a religious agenda. And perhaps those facts
>are sufficient on First Amendment grounds to find that sticker and
>equal treatment laws serve no reasonable "secular" purpose - which is a
>basic Constitutional test.
>
>But I think that sooner or later evolution proponents will have the
>face the fact that the secular purpose test is a rather flimsy basis to
>ban ID from the classroom.
That the courts allowing ID to be taught in science classes is a distinct
possibility is the correct conclusion, though basing it solely on the
"secular purpose" prong of the Lemon test is overly simplistic and bluelaws
are not the best example in any case.
>First of all, there are many cases in the US
>where a law was passed for primarily religious reasons, but later
>upheld because some secular purpose was concocted to support the law,
>e.g. the many blue-laws in the US banning the sale of goods on Sunday -
>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law for a good history of these
>laws. Even though these laws were clearly primarily motivated by
>religious belief, courts ultimately upheld their legality.
>
>There are in fact a solid core of ID proponents who are not religious
>but who genuinely think that evolution is bad or questionable science -
>the number of such proponents is not inconsequential.
Really? What evidence do you have of the existence of this sizable group
and, more importantly, of their motivation?
>Also IDers are
>well-organized, well-funded, and have increasing political clout.
>Moreover, they are working very hard to present ID as a purely secular
>hypothesis. We simply cannot count on courts continuing to rule against
>ID on purely First Amendment grounds.
That is certainly true.
>Whether its blue laws or "In God
>we Trust" on our bills - I simply have no great confidence that the
>courts won't eventually find some semblance of a secular purpose to
>justify anti-evolution laws. In the end we must justify banning ID from
>the science classroom for the same reasons that we ban giving equal
>time to the theory that HIV does not cause AIDS, the holocaust denial,
>or the moon landing hoax. All of these views have people with PhDs or
>some other degree supporting them, yet none have anything to do with
>religion or First Amendment issues.
Funny how the IDeologists seem to be caught up in the whole "HIV does not
cause AIDS" business though, isn't it?
Anyway, in a democracy it is doubtful at best that you can keep taxing
people (often the single largest tax they pay) to educate their children in
ideas with which they disagree. Beyond the tactical grounds you give,
simple justice may require that some accomodation be made for the
sincerely-held religious beliefs of others, no matter how wrong-headed
professional educators and the "intellectual elite" these people already
resent find them to be.
The horns of the dilemma is that, on the one hand, society has an interest
in and a right to foster an educated citizenry for its own well-being and
protection while, on the other hand, an enlightened society owes its
citizen maximal freedom for their own personal beliefs.
Metaphorically, we have the right to draft children into the army of the
thoughtful but we should also offer some sort of "alternative service" that
respects their own ethical beliefs.
I have often pointed out that philosophy courses, including philosophy of
science courses, are a place within public schools where ID can be
constitutionally addressed. I think you are on the right track but your
presentation just goes to show that there are no easy fixes to complex
problems.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: 10 Commandments and the Law
- Next by Date: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
- Previous by thread: Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
- Next by thread: Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
