Pim, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle here. I watched the latter part of West's talk (I missed the first half b/c I lost track of time), and I heard some of the parts you object to. You suggested that we go to this URL:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/taking-john-wes.html
I did go there, and found Genie Scott saying this:
<After one such initial brainstorming session, one teacher presented students with a short quiz wherein they were asked, “Which statement was made by the Pope?” or “Which statement was made by an Episcopal Bishop?” and given an “a, b, c” multiple choice selection. All the statements from theologians, of course, stressed the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution. This generated discussion about what evolution was versus what students thought it was. By making the students aware of the diversity of opinion towards evolution extant in Christian theology, the teacher helped them understand that they didn’t have to make a choice between evolution and religious faith.”>
The second sentence here is pretty important.
There is a similar emphasis on the AAAS web site, insofar as those sections about evolution and faith are designed to advance the "compatibility" view of science and faith, as vs either of the "warfare" positions--that is, the Dawkins version (anti-religious) or the creationist version (anti-science).
My sense is, Pim, that you and I both hold some sort of compatibilist position ourselves. I like what the AAAS does with this, mostly, and like that fact that the teacher in Scott's example was trying to get students to see some views that maybe they weren't seeing at home or in church. Education ought to involve that to some degree. But, John West IMO is raising an absolutely legitimate point. Like most of the ID proponents I talk to, he believes that "Darwinism," i.e., evolution that is not designed/purposeful in a scientifically detectable way, is simply not compatible with Christianity. I will leave to one side here the question of whether West is right or not about this--we all know how long that conversation can become, and how many philosophical and theological and even scientific matters relate to it. The point is that a kind of indoctrination can enter into this type of teaching, a type involving what appears to be the tacit endorsement of a particular religio!
us viewpoint by a public school science teacher, with help from the AAAS and the NCSE. West is asking whether this might violate the currently received view of the First Amendment (caution: these are my words for what I think he's getting at, and perhaps he'd put it differently), and I think it's a fair question.
Why is this a fair question? B/c the "compatibility" view is essentially a religious position, or at best a philosophical position with religious components. A lot of Christians and many secular humanists (Scott is a secular humanist herself, but she might not fit into this description) reject the "compatibility" view, frankly, and for what amount to religious reasons. Why should they be happy with a curriculum or teacher who advances it implicitly or explicitly as the best religious view of evolution? Doesn't that seem like a violation of the establishment clause?
Now, IMO, there is no such thing as full religious neutrality in education. As I've said many times before, for two decades, I don't believe that the "wall of separation between church and state" is constitutional (though the Supreme Court says it is, which makes it so at least for the time being), and I am convinced that unless and until we can bring a genuine religious and philosophical plurality into publicly funded educational options, that we are advancing an unconstitutional religion of secularism.
(This is precisely what I was getting at in the review I wrote many years ago of 3 ID books, available athttp://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/miller.htm. See the final lines, which the NCSE would not print in the form in which you find them. I've also talked about this elsewhere. I noticed that West also mentioned the religious content in Ken Miller's book, but his point goes in the opposite direction from mine. I lamented the fact that most schools won't touch that good stuff, while they'll use the rest of the book; but West is worried that some schools *will* use the religious parts of Miller's book. This just reinforces my point about the absence of neutrality.)
But, as you know, Pim, the Court doesn't agree with me about this. They say that the wall is part of the constitution, and as long as they say that, then public schools are going to have to keep from endorsing particular religious views. They can't really do that, as I've said, but they have to try. So, West IMO has a fair point.
If however the public schools can actually handle a genuinely pluralistic conversation about this, in which students are shown a much bigger variety of positions--including (gasp) ID and YEC and Dawkins and I suppose (if we must) Eastern religions (though frankly that's a red herring, since Eastern religions don't typically have much to say about this particular issue) -- then the compatibility position should absolutely get some air time, if for no other reason than the fact that a lot of leading scientists and theologians believe it (b/c they are right, but we already know that, Pim, don't we). Barring that--and I don't see public school science teachers lining up for that--then we're stuck. The Court has put us in a box on this one, an artificial box of its own construction I would say, but it's got hard walls and those walls are preventing schools from making any progress. Even when they try, as in Scott's example, they are doing something that is probably illegal. I!
MO.
What is your opinion, Pim? I know you've thought about this issue a lot, and I expect you can respond to some of these talking points.
Ted
PS. I copied John West blindly, and he's cordially invited to chime in. :-)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 26 09:49:49 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 26 2008 - 09:49:49 EST