Ted Davis wrote:
>>>><drsyme@cablespeed.com> 01/10/06 11:59 AM >>>asks:
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>What if the Dover school board had wanted to get ID into
>the public schools, by proposing that ID be taught in
>philosophy classes instead of science classes? Assuming
>the motivations otherwise were the same, would ID in
>philosophy classes violate the establishment clause?
>
>***
>
>Ted replies:
>
>This issue was directly address last spring at a public symposium nearby.
>The speaker was the lead plaintiff attorney from the ACLU, and his opinion
>is as follows: ID can be discussed in philosophy or religion classes, as far
>as the ACLU is concerned; in those classes, other philosophical and
>religious perspectives can also be discussed. Thus, the ACLU opposes only
>ID in science classes.
>
>This IMO is highly ironic: it's OK to discuss ID in class, as long as it
>isn't the class whose subject is most closely related to the issues
>contested by advocates of ID.
>
>
Why should one allow a discussion of ID in a class which is about
science ? And remember even in philosophy classes it must still not
violate the establishment clause. But at least, unlike in a science
class, it can be claimed to have a primary secular purpuse which is
neither a sham nor insincere.
>His opinion is part of the basis for my opinion, namely that ID is a
>legitimate topic in secular journals and books devoted to philosophy of
>science; and philosophy of science can be discussed in science classes.
>This is where Judge Jones went wrong and ruled too broadly, BUT NEITHER THE
>DEFENSE NOR THE PROSECUTION made this point, so he can't be blamed for
>this.
>
>Furthermore, Ed Larson agrees with me--at least he agreed with me as the
>trial was still on, before Jones' ruling. (I don't know what he thinks
>right now, after the ruling.) And, which is a great surprise to many no
>doubt, Eugenie Scott of NCSE also conceded to me one day in the court
>gallery that a science teacher can discuss ID in class, as long as they have
>a clear secular purpose for doing so. Thus the Dover ruling might go beyond
>even what Eugenie Scott thinks.
>
>
Again, remember that the ruling says 'require'.... In other words, a
teacher may still discuss ID in a science class, as long as he does not
violate the establishment clause but the board may not require the
teacher to do so.
David
> And yet, as Janice just reported, a California school board apparently
> was just sued by a group of parents backed by Americans United for
> Separation of Church and State for doing this very thing -- a case
> that Pim has indicated he and other Panda's Thumbers support. Who
> knows how that case will turn out, but when you have establishment
> clause jurisprudence that focuses on mushy things like "intent" and
> "perception," this is what you get.
When Edwards v Aguillard proposed that it would be ok to teach
scientific alternatives, the creationists moved quickly to create 'ID'
to match this description. The judge however saw this as insincere and a
sham. Teaching ID as a philosophy while pushing a particular religious
claim surely seems to violate the establishment clause.
One cannot circumvent the establishment clause by merely calling
something philosophy. Read the syllabi involved.
>Ted's point:
>Yes, Pim, *in Dover* the claimed purpose was indeed "a sham," and that's a
>shame b/c ipso facto it's a miserable test case for the legitimate
>discussion of philosophical aspects of and problems with evolution. That's
>why TDI ran a mile away from the case.
>
>
There are some 'problems' with evolution but few if any that cause
imminent harm to theory of evolution. The case for common descent is all
but a fact, the recent work on genetics has all but confirmed
evolutionary theory. While there surely is a disagreement on mechanisms,
and their relative importance, evolutionary theory is well founded in fact.
>But it would not be a sham, if (e.g.) I were teaching high school physics
>again (as I did a quarter century ago) and I wanted to talk about the "fine
>tuning" of the universe, in the context of talking about the big bang (which
>some high school teachers do). Nor would it be a sham to discuss the issue
>of Scientific American from a couple of years back, in which they proclaimed
>rather ambitiously and unobjectively on the cover that the multiverse
>hypothesis was well established--and then to criticise this from the design
>perspective, since many physicists and cosmologists themselves take that
>view (e.g., George Ellis, John Polkinghorne, Alan Sandage, and ASAers
>Jennifer Wiseman, Owen Gingerich, Deb Haarsma, and Joan Centrella).
>
>
Criticizing something from a design perspective? Such as 'God would
never do this'? It's hardly a sham to mention the concept of fine tuning
but the conclusions that this is 'evidence for design' just misses the
point.
>That would be a perfectly legitimate secular intellectual enterprise, but
>since an emphasis on "fine tuning" is part of ID (a part, admittedly, that
>the many creationist supporters of ID want to forget about b/c it requires
>one to assume the general validity of the big bang), Judge Jones says that's
>now out of bounds.
>
>
Really?... And you do remember that all Jones ruled is that the board
cannot require the teaching of ID. I think you are protesting too much
here because I doubt that your argument passes muster when compared to
Judge Jones' ruling.
>The trial is just one more piece of evidence, to me, that our current
>notion of what counts as public education in this nation is part of the
>problem, not part of the solution.
>
The trial shows that local school boards cannot get away with teaching a
scientifically vacuous idea as a scientific theory.
Received on Wed Jan 11 12:37:30 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 11 2006 - 12:37:30 EST