Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists


"Reed" <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126012200.755963.301160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> John Harshman wrote:
>> Reed wrote:
>>

<snip preamble>

>
> Thanks for your feedback. Teaching philosophy of religion (which I
> have done at an (American) state university) is not considered advocacy
> of religion: you discuss the various arguments for the existence of
> God and the problem of evil, etc., as well as the strengths and
> weaknesses of these arguments.

Fine so far ...

> In France, where I am currently living,
> the public schools routinely teach a course on the Bible in primary
> school - including learning the main Bible stories. This is done
> because any well-educated Westerner must have a basic understanding of
> the Bible in order to understand much of Western art, literature, and
> culture.

Not strictly true. It's not necessary to have Biblical studies in order to
appreciate the role of Christianity within the cultural history of Europe.
An understanding of how Christianity influenced European art, literature and
history is important, but this doesn't mean that it such an understanding
lies with learning via Bible stories.

> Note that France is far more radically secular in government
> than the US: students and teachers can not wear crosses, headscarves,
> or any other obvious religious symbols.

So is the UK (even more so than France ... the UK is recognised as possibly
the most secular country in the region) and we still have mandated religious
assemblies etc. Comparing Europe to the US is a case of apples and oranges,
as we shall see.


> I have taught a philosophy of science course in which I invited another
> professor, an ID proponent, to present his arguments.

I don't follow. By 'arguments' do you mean the theological case for a
designer (i.e. metaphysics) or the standard ID diatribe against evolutionary
models/materialism? If it's the latter then this is no different to what
the ID proponents are proposing to introduce in US schools, in the science
classroom.

I'm surprised you've managed to find an ID proponent outside of the US as
well. As the ID movement was borne out of political necessity (due to the
banning of creationism and the direct mention of deities in the science
classroom by SCOTUS) it's virtually unheard of outside of the US. This is
mainly because without similar constitutional seperations of church and
state existing in Europe most creationists are honest enough to refer to
themselves as such.

>It was all very polite, professional, and
> interesting for the students. While it is no doubt pretty clear to
> students where I stand, I never announce my stance - I just concentrate
> on the arguments for and against, as objectively and persuasively as
> possible.

Again, I don't follow. Are you talking about the theological/philisophical
arguments for a designer or something else?

In general, I assume that the positions and people I
> disagree with have rational reasons and motivations, and I strive to
> present their positions accordingly. If my proposed high school
> philosophy course is tied to an approved curriculum and textbook, the
> discourse will be structured to avoid the avocacy issue. Discussing
> ID along side of evolution will be no more of an advocacy for either
> side than discussing marxism along side of free market capitalism.

Except with Marxism/Capitalism you are discussing ideology. Evolutionary
theory is not ideology, it is science. If you start with that sort of
comparison then you are already travelling down the wrong road.

The whole point of the 'debate' is that ID does not present an effective
structure for scientific investigation. If you want to discuss the
philisophical implications of a 'designer' then this is not a problem, but
you cannot present it alongside evolution as ID in a comparitive fashion as
the foundation for comparison has never existed. Evolutionary models simply
don't deal with the philisophical boundaries you are proposing.

In discussing epistemology it is prefectly acceptable to discuss how the
concept of 'theory' arose and debate the issues surrounding the various
movements from positivism, logical positivism, falsificationism, Kuhnian
paradigm's, Lakatos, Feyerabend and the rest. None of this detracts from
the fact that with evolutionary models you are still dealing with facts. ID
does not deal with facts, it is a politically motivated religious sleight of
hand designed to undermine a specific US constitutional premise. It has no
other purpose than that.

>>
>> 2. It costs money to develop a new course, and to pay the new teachers.
>
> The point of my proposal is to shift the focus of the debate from the
> evidential detail, e.g. whether or not the fossil record supports the
> theory of evolution, etc. to the fact that the heart of the issue is
> philosophical, and not empirical at all:

I'm afraid it's all about the evidence as far as evolution is concerned.
Why would you want to move away from that?

The heart of the issue is that ID is a trojan horse, you may as well discuss
creationism and Biblical faith and be done with it.

slides about the complexity of
> the blood clotting cascade are really a side issue. Deliberately frame
> the main issue as philosophical: the IDers are claiming that
> evolutionary science is biased and bad; whereas evolutionary scientists
> are making the same charge against the IDers. The issue of what counts
> as good science or pseudoscience is a philosophical issue beyond the
> competence of this schoolboard to decide.

Which is why they should trust the work of 1000's of biologists, geologists,
physicists, cosmologists, geneticists etc ad nauseum _around the world_ who
confirm that evolutionary models not only work but help us understand our
environment.

The proposal is to compromise
> and allow inschool discussion of the issue on these terms.

Why?

If we can
> then shift the discussion of the board meeting to the issues of finding
> a space in the curriculum, finance, and who will teach such a course -
> our side has won a great victory.

How? You've just given the ID supporters exactly what they wanted, which is
a specific place to spout their nonsense.

Yes these are difficult questions -
> but our side can always come up with serious proposals. Keep in mind
> that philosophy and theory of knowledge courses are standards of the
> curriculum in most European programs and all International
> Baccalaureate programs.

..... and? They still don't include discussions about ID. Perhaps because
ID doesn't constitute scientific knowledge. Discussions about the designer
can remain on the table, but that's not the same as stating this is a
scientific case. Those discussions about God can remain with theology and
everyone is happy. As soon as you start making actual comparisons with
evolutionary models then you have given the ID crew exactly what they've
been asking for, which is legitimisation of their concepts of at least being
on par with evolutionary theory.

Placing ID into an 'advocacy' role within a course that examines the
'Philosophy of Science' still provide ID with the claim that they are
somehow a part of the process of actual science. They are not. They know
this.

The proposal is intended to put the other side
> on the defensive and defuse the charge that our side is against
> fairness.

So we educate people that science is not about 'fairness' but evidence.
Teach that as part of the Philosophy of Science.

>
>>
>> 3. It takes time away from legitimate classes. What are you going to
>> cancel in order to make room in the curriculum?
>
> As mentioned above, this can all be discussed, including the option of
> making the course an elective. A big part of the problem here is that
> you obviously don't see a philosophy of science course as "legitimate",
> whereas I have the view that it is as legitimate as any higher math or
> advanced science course. And, as I have already mentioned, school
> systems think that philosophy should be a required subject.

I certainly view it as a legitimate course, simply not what you are
proposing. Even the philosophy of science class has to draw the line
somewhere otherwise you'll also be inviting UFOlogists, Raelians, Reichian
Orgone theorists and Homeopaths in to also 'advocate' how their
contributions to science has been overlooked.

>
>>
>> 4. If this really were a fair examination of the subject, the
>> creationists would never let it get off the ground. You think they want
>> their kids actually thinking about their beliefs?
>
> In my experience, which is considerable, IDers sincerely believe that
> they have reason and Truth on their side. They are eager for public
> debate, and, in terms of who they do or do not persuade, generally do
> pretty well. They are publicly committed to the position that reason
> and fairness favor their side - they will have to publicly act
> accordingly or risk public hypocrisy. They are wrong, however. I'm
> willing to bet that reason and fairness favors our side in the forum I
> am proposing.

And gives them exactly what they are looking for.

>
>>
>> > 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. 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.
>>
>> I would like to see some evidence for this assertion.
>
> Unfortunately I can't cite stats here. I can only say that over years
> of engaging this issue, I've encountered a number of bright, reasonable
> people who are atheists, but they simply can't buy the claim that
> genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection alone accounts for the
> diversity and complexity they observe. It's not that they conclude,
> therefore God or aliens did it, they just think there is a missing
> mechanism or piece of the puzzle that will make more sense of all.

This is hardly support for ID if they don't believe 'God or aliens' did it.
This is exactly what ID proposes.

I
> have one friend who is a highly sophisticated programmer that has spend
> a great deal of time on trying to get genetic algorithms to do anything
> very interesting. He says it was that experience more than anything
> else that convinced him something was missing. Science fiction writer
> James Hogan is another of these. See
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743488288/ref%3Dnosim/rds-20/103-1942552-8266209
> There are I think also a considerable number of intelligent people who
> are theists, but not terribly religious, but who find a similar
> weakness to evolutionary science. Don't get me wrong: I disagree with
> these people - but their reservations are not stupid or irrational.
>

Scientists have reservations about theories as well. Yet they still go with
the evidence until it demonstrates the previous theory was barking up the
wrong tree. As nothing has come along to show that evolutionary models are
wrong then we are still stuck with the only 'alternative' being reduced to
'goddidit'.

Hardly a great foundation for an elective course.

>
>
>>
>> > 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. 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.
>>
>> That reason has also been used as an argument. But using it would
>> invalidate your course, wouldn't it? Or do you want another course
>> featuring equal treatment of HIV denial, holocaust denial, and moon
>> landing denial, team taught by believers?
>
> That's a good point, but I think as a practical matter, these other
> groups simply don't have the clout or votes to get their material
> considered in a school board meeting - they are welcome to try.
> Besides, I think it's a good idea to consider such material in a theory
> of knowledge course anyway.
>
> Peace
>


.

Relevant Pages
Loading