Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

Stephanie Burke wrote (in part):
>
>As "scientists teaching in the Christian perspective" how do you personally
>handle teaching evolution, which most view as being in direct opposition to
>the origins of life as outlined by the Bible?

It seems the main problem that gets us in trouble is we
don't understand the difference between philosophy and
science. That is something that should be made clear
in teaching science. Religious interpretations of
scientific data (and that includes atheism because that
is also based on faith) do not really belong in a discussion
of science. I suppose that cosmology may be somewhat
borderline, but even there, the speculations about purpose
or lack thereof should not be part of any _scientific_
discussion. Science cannot measure purpose. There is
no function to describe it.
 

>What SHOULD be taught in public schools?  Creationism?  Evolution?  Or a
>combination of both?

Evolution. However, _not_ evolution according to Dawkins.
The notion seems to be

if evolution is true, there is no God
evolution is true
therefore there is no God.

The logic is ok, but the premise is not. Creationist
consistently get stuck there. Dawkins also seems to
be largely stuck there or is using it for his own
purposes, I don't know which.
  
>
>Is there a way to present creationism in a non-biased, non-partisan way which
>will not be misinterpreted by public school administration as forcing certain
>religious views upon students?

Creationism can be discussed in a philosophy class along
with Hindu, Buddhist, atheist and other views. To a
certain extent, it takes more maturity than most high
school students would have. In my senior year, I was
thinking deeply, but it is hard for me to estimate even
how I would have responded. At any rate, if it is taught
at all, it should be in that forum.

>
>Is it a violation of the First Amendment to teach creationism in
>governmentally funded public schools?  Do you view this as an issue of the
>"separation of church and state?"

The law does involve interpretation. However, the general
sprite I think is to prevent the tyrany of the majority.
It would be wrong to suppress anyone although we may disagree
strongly with them.

The constitution probably cannot prevent
mass infection due to political or religious ideology. But
it certainly can set some limits on its impact. The main
trouble we have now that did exist at the time of the writing
is that the promulgation of false information is far faster
than it was at that time.

Ideas need to be sifted, and we
are often inundated with enormous quantities of data, facts
and figures and rarely have the time to make the necessary
critical assessments. This is why I think the last century
saw more damage than all of human history. Lies promulgated
by ideologues are dangerous with modern communication (and
most of that was only by radio and newspapers!).

So there is no short answer to this question. Maybe a
better question is whether our constitution can still
protect us from the will of a minority bent on gaining
control.

Finally and most important, amongst the noise and flashing
lights, will we still hear God's quite voice?

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Wed Mar 16 21:03:19 2005