Re: [asa] Book TV on C-SPAN 2

These are good questions. Let's first of all address my disappointments with
West's treatment of these issues. Perhaps for the sake of rhetoric he
oversold the issue, both in case of Eugenie Scott as well as Ken Miller. And
in fact, on the video I heard him make a claim that Judge Jones, in his
groundbreaking ruling, argued that there is in fact a preferred and correct
religious interpretation since he pointed out that evolutionary theory and
religious faith need not be at odds.

In Kitzmiller, the judge addressed the claims by ID creationists that the
teaching of evolution was antithetical to a belief in a God

<quote>Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a
bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that
evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to
religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific
experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by
the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it
deny, the
existence of a divine creator.
</quote>

Such a confusion runs across ID creationist writings

<quote>The authors also take Jones's seemingly innocuous statement that
evolution is compatible with belief in God and interpret it as an
unconstitutional endorsement of religion (p 68–70). Following that logic,
ruling that Copernican theory is compatible with belief in God would also be
unconstitutional. I doubt any court would accept such a strained
interpretation.</quote>

See:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol26/3984_itraipsing_into_evolution_i_12_30_1899.asp

In other words, pointing out that science is not necessarily in conflict
with religious faith, hardly seems to be unconstitutional. Pointing out that
people, often based on religious faith, considered the earth at the center
of our universe or solar system, hardly seems to be an endorsement or
indictment of religion. It's a simple fact

Similarly with Eugenie Scott, her position seems quite straightforward

<quote>If evolution is presented as antithetical to religion (which is
precisely how organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research
present it), it is no wonder that a high percentage of Americans reject it.
Actually, as suggested by the selections in Voices for Evolution, mainline
Christianity can accommodate evolution, though it is doubtful that Biblical
literalism can. As teachers and scientists, we need to leave an opportunity
for the religious individual to work out the accommodation according to his
or her beliefs, and not slam the door by inserting extra-scientific
philosophical statements about purpose and meaning into our discussions of
evolution. I will discuss this in greater detail below.
</quote>

leaving an opportunity for the religious individual to work out the
accommodation according to his or her beliefs seems a far better solution
than insert the supernatural as a scientifically testable explanation.

I am not a constitutional scholar but I do not see a necessary problem with
the establishment clause when in a science class one points out that science
and religion need not necessarily be at odds, although there may be
religions that position themselves in a conflict approach. Without endorsing
any particular viewpoint, such a statement can surely have a secular purpose
without being a sham. I am not sure if a better approach would be to state
that while some religions perceive a contradiction between scientific fact
and theory and their personal faith, many other religious faiths have no
problem reconciling science and religion.

Is this similar to endorsing a particular view? Is there no valid secular
purpose to the statement? Personally I do not see it as endorsing any
particular religious view, it does not even state that a religious view
which does not accept the fact of evolution is a wrong position, however it
does present the best scientific explanation and addresses some of the
concerns people may have in accepting science. Of course, if one believes
that evolutionary science should not be taught because it interferes with
religious faith then quite a different situation arises.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

> 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 religious 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. IMO.
>
> 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 12:26:24 2008