Re: [asa] Lousiana Coalition for Science formed to fight Creationist bill

>>> Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz> 6/12/2008 11:33 PM >>> asks,

From the perspective of an outsider it appears to me that public
education in the US, and in the state of Louisiana in particular, is
indeed in pretty bad shape. However, I do not see that legislative
action of the type proposed will improve the situation. The specific
proposed legislation (or at least the sample that Don C has presented)
may appear quite bland, but it has deep implications. Why is this
legislation proposed if it is not aimed to restrain the teaching of
evolution in Louisiana schools? Am I not correct that both the promotion
of religious doctrine, and discrimination with respect to religious
beliefs, in public schools, are already ruled out by the US
Constitution as it is currently interpreted? If so, why is the proposed
legislation worded in the way it is?

***

Ted replies:

Well, Don, it isn't hard to understand your puzzlement. You're right--the
currently received interpretation of the First Amendment to our Constitution
forbids public schools from teaching religion or non-religion (not from
teaching *about* religion, however, though many schools don't do much along
those lines), in the sense of promoting or inhibiting specific religious
beliefs. The wording in this bill, I am guessing (I'd call it an educated
guess, since I've followed the origins controversy for a long time, but it's
still just a guess without any inside information behind it), is
intelligently designed to head off potential legal challenges, by being
explicit about the motives of its sponsors and supporters. Of course, when
you have to be explicit about your motives it's often b/c many people are
suspicious of them.

The basic American problem, Don, is as follows. When public schools came
on the scene in the mid-19th century, it was with the general understanding
that they would not teach controversial subjects and they would not
undermine religion. Evolution was not on the agenda then, but it has been
since ca. 1900, and there's the rub. For lots of Americans, evolution is
not religiously neutral (and frankly, to some extent I agree with them), and
thus teaching evolution in public schools violates religious neutrality.
So, here we find ourselves in the 21st century, with an unresolved
Constitutional issue that isn't going to go away in my lifetime (here I make
an exception of my normal refusal to speculate on the future), and
unless/until judges are appointed to the Supreme Court who alter the
received interpretation of the First Amendment, we will have public schools
advancing what tens of millions of Americans regard as atheism or a close
substitute--with no other publicly funded educational alternative available
to that huge number of citizens. That's why this isn't going away.

The legislation, IMO, is written to provide cover to those teachers and
school boards who just flatly resent the monopolistic situation described
above. These legislators, responding to various pressures (in some cases)
and/or acting on their own beliefs (in other cases), are looking for ways to
allow science teachers to tell students that evolution isn't as true as the
scientists say. They know they can't advance religion in public schools,
but they also know (in their hearts) that evolution is false, and they fear
that it undermines religion (at least their religion--and they are better
judges of that than any court). Thus, they want some way to mitigate the
promotion of false science with public funds. That is how they see it.

And, Don, I think they're entitled to see it that way, and entitled to be
pretty angry about this. If (say) the official schools in NZ taught that
the Maoris were all stupid and lazy (and no, I don't believe that for one
minute, I simply made up something outrageous), then I bet the Maoris would
rightly be calling for either the removal of that teaching from schools or
else for the establishment of alternative official schools that would not
teach the false view. If (say) the courts in NZ said they couldn't do
either of those things, well, you see the situation here.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:13:38 -0400