From: Shuan Rose (shuanr@boo.net)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 11:07:01 EDT
Seeking a middle ground here...
Sounds like both of you agree that philosophy, or philosophy of science
should be taught in public schools, maybe with evolution as a specific
topic. Should this be done? Could high school students be able to understand
and appreciate this? I always hear atheists arguing that a Critical Thinking
course be introduced at the high school level, with the unstated premise
that the critical thinking be done about religion and "supernaturalism". No
need for critical thinking about naturalism :-)
A philosophy of science class, in the hands of the wrong teacher, could
easily become a way to smuggle hard core atheism , into public schools. In
the right teacher's hands, it could lead to an informed discussion of all
the views regarding the origin of the universe, from hard core atheism to
YECism.
My understanding is also that textbooks are back pedaling on the "only
naturalistic evolution" approach. Steven Jay Gould tells of a textbook that
says "Evolution is one theory that explains the diversity of life. You way
wish to consider other theories". He considers that as a disgraceful
pandering to the creationist lobby, but at least it opens the door.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Walter Hicks
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:18 PM
To: george murphy
Cc: Hassell, Ian C.; Asa
Subject: Re: The naturalist Philosophy
george murphy wrote:
> What I pointed out is that the primary "idea" being
> presented - is negative -
> i.e., naturalism is wrong (with disregard of the distinction
>between methodological &
> metaphysical naturalism) rather than positive.
And I think that is a valid viewpoint. One does not need to make
whatever distinctions you
want to impose in order to take the position that science works
strictly on the unproved
assumption that the universe obeys a series of physical laws without
any interaction with
anything external to this universe. (Take this as my definition)
>
>
> > I think that is precisely the point that many anti-science folks
>are trying to
> > raise. Science is neat ,but it really rests on pure faith in
naturalism.
> > Scientists point to the many times it has worked in the past and
>then extrapolate
> > that it should be accepted as a universal truth (ignoring all
>current problems, I
> > might add). That is indeed philosophy, not science. Science
>itself only rests upon
> > this philosophy lest it crumble. Why is it necessary to believe
>that science is
> > some magical approach that can figure out everything about God's
>universe while God
> > never interacts with His creation? That is surely theology.
>
> Again you are failing to distinguish between types of naturalism.
The naturalism I stated above -- the basic assumption upon which all
of science rests.-
>
>
> > I think that the suggestion that this be discussed in public schools in
a
> > philosophy class is a fine one. Why would a theologian ever
>disagree with it?
>
> Few schools below the college level offer classes in philosophy.
Sure they do. Check out the textbooks in your local school. The
"philosophy" is taught
within the subjects at the discretion of the teachers and by the
selection of the
textbooks. For an example of textbooks that teach the "theory", check out
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/textbooks/ It is evolutionary
theory that is taught in
these books.
> Maybe they
> should but they don't. In any case, I certainly wouldn't object to
>"the controversy"
> being taught in public schools under the rubric of comparative
>religion, sociology, or
> political science. But the opponents of evolution want it taught
>as science, which it
> isn't. Of course there is scientific controversy about how
>evolution has taken place
> but not about whether it has taken place.
Then why do public school textbooks introduce Darwin and his
theories? Are you saying that
Darwin was establishing the "fact" of evolution rather than his
theory? Evolution is
taught in schools just like Dawkins says. It is "the only game in
town". Where no solid
evidence exists, the theory takes over. How can their be any other
game if you are to
insist that scientific naturalism (defined above) is not open for
discussion within the
science class itself?
Speaking of what is not customarily taught in schools: I was never
taught evolution as a
subject pre college. Why is it such a necessity now? (And I have
always lived in the
ultra-liberal Northeast.) I'm certain that those who have introduced
it so strongly into
the pre college curriculum have nothing but best scientific motives.
No humanist/atheistic
motives could possibly exist ;-)
I think that it is naive in the extreme to believe that humanists do
not consciously push
evolutionary theory in pre college as a means to promote their
atheistic notions.
BTW I do believe in evolution. I just disagree that any theory of
evolution should be
taught in public schools if alternatives to scientific naturalism (as
defined above) are
not allowed.
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 30 2002 - 16:37:54 EDT