Re: Ronald Bailey: Evolutionary Politics

On 2008-01-08, jspaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <jspaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it matter what presidential candidates believe about biological
evolution? After all, they are running for commander-in-chief, not
scientist-in-chief. For example, why not practice educational
federalism as many Republican candidates suggest and let local school
boards and individual states decide what should be taught in science
classes?

School boards and individual states already decide what should be taught
in science class. The Constitution simply prevents them from teaching
religion in public schools.

This may seem like an initially appealing option until one
considers that schooling is mandatory.

The problem is that creationism and its latest intellectual spawn,
intelligent design, are clearly religious teachings. So a local school
board or state would be imposing religious teachings on all students
if they required the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in
public schools. The U.S. Supreme court acknowledged this fact in 1987
when it ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard against a Louisiana law that
required the teaching of creationism whenever evolutionary biology was
taught. The Court struck down the Louisiana law because it
"impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief
that a supernatural being created humankind." In 2005, a federal
district court found in Kitzmiller v. Dover that the goal of the local
school board's mandate that schools teach intelligent design "was to
promote religion in the public school classroom."

Americans simply would not tolerate it if public schools were required
to teach their kids religious doctrines with which they disagreed.

Sadly, many would tolerate the teaching of religious doctrine that they
agreed with.

One way out of this morass would be a thoroughgoing privatization of
elementary and secondary education.

That would be be one way, but...

But until that glad day dawns,

I'm uneasy with the idea that it is the best way.

it is not acceptable for presidential candidates to argue that
teaching religion in the guise of creationism and intelligent design
in public schools should be just a local matter.

I agree. The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. The
Constitution says you can't promote religion, and the Supreme Court has
ruled that teaching creationism is promotion of religion. Kitzmiller
v. Dover has not necessarily established precedent, but it seems pretty
clear that intelligent design is on thin ice in this regard as well.

Furthermore, as the foregoing court cases highlight, it is essential
that a president nominate federal judges who understand the importance
of maintaining the separation between church and state.

Indeed.

A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity
of evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability
to evaluate evidence. A January 4, 2008, editorial by Science editor
Donald Kennedy correctly argues, "The candidates should be asked hard
questions about science policy, including questions about how those
positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research,
and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins?
Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth?
Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production of new
species, and how? Are you able to look at data on past climates in
search of inferences about the future of climate change?" Kennedy
concludes, "I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their
business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge
and how it will inform their leadership."

Quite reasonable. The current crop of candidates seem mostly terrible.
While there are some outliers on the terrible side, there are few on
the positive side.

Mark

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

Read it at http://reason.com/news/show/124271.html









J. Spaceman


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: History of Intelligent Design
    ... The ID conspiracy to wedge religion into our schools is well ... she has no practical knowledge of science. ... of evolution was unconstitutional because the motivation was based on ... A California judge ruled that teaching evolution in public school ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Top evolutionist prefers Bible reading for his own children
    ... a school in which real religious instruction is given, ... do good without the ethical teaching of the Bible. ... the heavy hand of the Minister of Education. ... a comparative religion class and which is permissible in any public school ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scooter Libby wrote *what*?
    ... > science class, period! ... > Design is religion. ... > creationism) is inserted into the teaching of evolution, ... >>> teaching of evolution. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: NY Times: Jindal should veto
    ... It comes as no surprise that the Louisiana State Legislature has ... evolution in the public schools. ... Supreme Court as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. ... education, if asked by local school districts, to help create an ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
    ... politicians, and the ones for whom religion is their occupation, takes ... I'm amazed that the insistence on teaching it to children isn't seen ... Americans resolve their differences. ... kids from school to "protect" them from the godless education they are ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)