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

Well Ted how would you know whether I have got my pants on or not?!!!!!!!

A good posting and I suspected your views before, but regard differences
with me as trivial

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <smburke@orion.naz.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

> Stephanie,
>
> These are excellent questions about a very important issue. Thank you for
> asking them!
>
> I teach several courses about science and religion at a Christian college,
> and used to teach a few of the same things at a Christian high school in
> Philadelphia many years ago. I've never been a YEC (not even when I
> taught
> at the high school), and I have no *scientific* sympathy for YECism. I do
> have some cultural and spiritual sympathy for individual YECs, some of
> whom
> are genuinely open to other ideas and also have high standards of honesty
> in
> conversation with those who disagree with them. I only wish that were
> more
> generally true, that there were no "party line" to be defended at all cost
> in front of the loyal host.
>
> Personally I am an agnostic about some aspects of mainstream evolution (I
> just shocked the pants off of many of my friends on this list). That is,
> I
> do not believe that anyone has really demonstrated whether classical
> Darwinian evolution really does account for the kinds of things that Behe
> and company describe as "irreducibly complex," and I'm even more agnostic
> about various theories of the origin of life--there is no real science of
> that as yet, IMO. But being agnostic about certain aspects of the
> standard
> scenario, while sufficient to get me barred from being elected to the NAS
> (not that this would ever happen anyway), does not make me agnostic about
> most aspects of the standard picture of the history of life and everything
> else--aspects that YECs simply cannot accept. For example, I am convinced
> that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, that the "big
> bang" happened, that the heavier elements out of which living things are
> made were produced in stars, that humans and other animals are probably
> related historically through common descent, and that natural selection
> has
> a lot to do with this. I list those propositions roughly in order of
> decreasing confidence on my part. I've believed the earlier parts as long
> as I can remember thinking about them, and the later parts for about two
> decades. Thus, YEC was never really an option for me to consider--it
> simply
> flies in the face of too many things that I believe are actually true.
>
> So, how do I handle teaching evolution? Well, I don't teach
> evolution--that
> is, I'm not a biologist, I haven't studied biology formally since 10th
> grade
> (although I have formally studied the history of biology and natural
> history
> more broadly). I do teach students *about* evolution, that is, I take a
> mainly historical approach to ideas such as I mentioned above, in keeping
> with my professional expertise as an historian of science.
> Especially I focus on how the developing ideas interacted (and to some
> extent, interact in the present tense) with Christian understandings of
> these issues. Note please that I used a plural noun--"understandings,"
> since there have been and still are multiple Christian understandings of
> these things. That is, I take a "multiple models" approach to teaching
> about origins. My goal is not to clone myself--it would be arrogant and
> educationally unproductive to do that. I simply want my students to
> *understand* the issues better and to show evidence of independent
> thought.
> If they come in as YECs and leave as YECs (as quite a few of them do), I
> can
> accept that; I have some very bright, highly informed friends who are
> YECs,
> I can't do their reasoning and evaluating for them. But I do my best to
> disabuse my students of the many "mythologies" that come with this
> issue--and they come from all sides.
>
> Having never taught in a public high school, it's hard for me to say what
> should be taught. But I can say this much. If we have to live with the
> present understanding of the First Amendment (as requiring a Jeffersonian,
> extra-consitutional "wall of separation between church and state" rather
> than a Madisonina, constitutional "disestablishment of religion"), there
> is
> not all that much helpful that we can do. Serious limits are placed on
> serious conversation--on geniunely pluralistic conversation. But there is
> some hope to be able to discuss these issues seriously, even in this
> overly
> restrictive view. Last month I heard an ACLU attorney say, flat-out, that
> ID could be discussed in a public high school philosophy class, since it
> related to philosophy of science; but that it is not science and could not
> be discussed in science classes. He's right, incidentally, that ID is
> mainly a philosophical critique of science--it's no accident that several
> of
> the leading ID people (Meyer, Nelson, Dembski, for starters) have graduate
> degrees in philosophy or philosophy of science. But he's wrong about
> where
> it can be taught. In Pennsylvania, for example, the science standards
> call
> explicity for instruction in science classses about "nature of science,"
> which is educational jargon for philosophy of science. Hence, IMO, some
> ID
> concepts/claims *can* legitimately be discussed in public high school
> science classes. That is, to some limited extent, one can "teach the
> controversy" as the ID folks would put it. In science classes, not in
> social studies or philosophy or somewhere else. But this is a very long
> way
> from teaching creationism, at least from teaching garden-variety
> creationism
> according to which the earth and the universe are a few thousand years old
> and millions of organisms (esp including humans) were separately and
> specially created.
>
> To teach those ideas in public schools, IMO, would require a new
> definition
> of what counts as public education--that is, a new definition of what
> types
> of schools could receive tax dollars either directly (as present public
> schools do) or indirectly (through large vouchers that would in effect pay
> most or all of the cost of instruction). I'd like to see that, b/c I
> believe it is genuinely constitutional while genuinely respectful of
> religious beliefs (instead of the sometimes pretended neutrality of public
> schools); on the other hand, it would probably only increase the
> proliferation of YEC, which I would view as a very unfortunate result.
> Judging from most of the curriculum materials that I have seen from
> Christian schools, the average Christian family would not be well served
> by
> improving our interpretation of the Constitution--that is, on this one
> specific issue if not also on some others. Most fundamentalist
> Christians,
> for example, don't really want the kind of pluralistic conversation that
> is
> needed for good education on this issue; just as most public school
> administrators presently won't allow it either. So I hope against hope.
>
> Let me answer these questions more directly:
> 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?
>
> Ted: Yes. Teach the history of creationism--that can be done factually
> and
> IMO without inappropriate bias, although to be frank most YECs would say
> that my version of a factual history of creationism is loaded with bias.
> In
> other words, I don't share their high view of YEC, so I can't teach about
> it
> fairly. This would be analogous to teaching factually and fairly about
> the
> role of religion (including Christianity) in American history--but many
> religious parents don't want their children taught some of that, either.
> Facts often get in the way of beliefs. (I am pointing out a great irony
> in
> all of this: while some secular parents want all religious references kept
> out of public schools, b/c they find all such references offensive an
> opposed to intellectual nourishment, some religious parents want all
> favorable references to religions other than their own left out of the
> schools they send their children to. Nevertheless, I think that both
> types
> of parents need to have the same right--to pick schools that are more or
> less close to their beliefs on this and lots of other, non-religious
> issues
> such as educational philosophy and pedagogy, curriculum content (classical
> vs technical vs other special emphases). It's tyranny all around, for the
> state to dictate the nature of what counts as public education, and for
> the
> state then to deny parents the right to use their own tax dollars at
> schools
> that fail to meet the state's secular expecations.
>
> 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?"
>
> Ted: See above. If we mean, teach YEC as a legitimate scientific
> alternative to mainstream evolution, my answer is an unqualified "YES," it
> would violate the First Amendment. YEC is so clearly and obviously
> motivated solely by a particular religious belief (a fundamentalist
> interpretation of Genesis) that it has to be considered religion and not
> science. No argument with the courts on that one, unless we alter what
> counts as a publicly funded school (which I favor), in which case one can
> teach Hindu creation stories as alternatives to mainstream science if one
> wants to.
>
> In short, I want students to *think* and to be *well informed.* Talking
> about creationism can help achieve that, whereas teaching it often does
> not
> (with a few exceptions). Most "creationists" in my experience simply want
> a
> science that agrees with a very specific interpretation of the Bible,
> whether or not the facts support that "science." That's not a good
> educational attitude in any context, IMO.
>
> ted
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 17 17:46:56 2005