Addressing Religious Beliefs (Intelligent Design) In Class

American School Board Journal ^ | 4/12/06 | Benjamin Dowling-Sender

[Paddlefish]

The catchphrase used by opponents of the theory of evolution these days is that public schools should “teach the controversy.” But what does that mean? Just what is the “controversy,” and how should schools “teach” it?

******

.... Is there a context in the public school curriculum in which religious beliefs about the origin of species can be discussed under the Establishment Clause? That’s the question I’ll address in this month’s column.

*********

Let’s go a step further: I think a science teacher could lawfully explain to students -- without editorializing -- why the theory of evolution is a scientific theory and why creationism is a religious belief. A science teacher could also explain, again without editorializing, that ever since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, there has been a controversy between people who accept the theory of evolution as compatible with their religious beliefs and people who reject it for religious reasons.

I know, I know. It’s easy enough for me to say that the Establishment Clause permits such objective teaching about evolution and creationism. I’m just a lawyer. I’m not the teacher who actually has to do the teaching, and I’m not a school official who will catch the inevitable flak. The culture war has turned instruction about evolution and creationism into a political minefield for teachers, administrators, and board members alike.

Just the same, I firmly believe that the way to address the controversy between evolution and creationism in public schools is not to ignore it. Rather, the right way is to tread carefully and responsibly by teaching evolution as the only genuine scientific theory about the origin of species and also to teach objectively about the religious, historical, philosophical, and political controversy between evolution as scientific theory and creationism as religious belief.

[Paddlefish]

The thoughts of a lawyer in the American School Board Journal. Personally, I think it's pretty accurate.

[dread78645]

Polite ping

[PatrickHenry]

Pretty good article. I'll crank up the ping list.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 360 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[mlc9852]

But we haven't finished arguing the other evo thread yet!

[FormerLib]

If they'd allow elective Religion classes, 90% of this would go away. Once again, it's the government monopoly on education that really gets people steamed.

[MeanWestTexan]

I've found people even more intellectually dishonest than some (SOME -- many are very well intentioned and ernest) of the YEC crowd here --- HIV deniers.

What a bunch of dangerous fools.

At least the dishonest YEC folks don't get people killed.

[M203M4]

Once again, it's the government monopoly on education that really gets people steamed.

Yup. A voucher system for both public and private schools (or homeschooling networks, etc) would solve this immediately. Employers being free to hire - and private universities being free to accept - whichever graduates they want. The problems, both in the education system and the broader headbutting, will go away in a heartbeat. So some children will suffer at the hands of their ignorant parents. Better than dragging everyone down with them.

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[js1138]

We have a thread approaching 7000 posts. Would you like to push it over the top?

[ClearCase_guy]

But science has repeatedly confirmed the counterintuitive theory of undirected evolution based on random variation and natural selection.

"undirected evolution" has been repeatedly confirmed? That's edging toward proving a negative, I think.

[PatrickHenry]

At least the dishonest YEC folks don't get people killed.

That depends. Science enhances our lives, and medical science (which is obviously informed by evolution) saves lives -- millions of them every year. If the YEC folks would behave like the Amish, adhering to their beliefs and bothering no one, that would be fine with everyone. But some of them want a theocracy, and would use political power to shut down science. They would cause the needless deaths of hundreds of millions. Annually. Forever.

[js1138]

Actually there have been people on these threads ranting against medicine and surgery. Not that the practice of medicine is perfect or saintly, but the rants imply that medicine itself is the work of Satan.

I am not exaggerating this.

[mlc9852]

I'll stay on the sidelines this round - lol.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatrickHenry]

A-Girl, I love you madly, and I really appreciate your contributions, but you don't have to thank me every time I ping you. It's just extra work for you, and I suspect you've got enough to do around here as it is.

[PatrickHenry]

Whoa! We just ended up in the backroom. What happened?

[Paddlefish]

FYI, here is an article written by the same attorney for the ASBJ in March. Drawing the Line Between Religion and Science

[Mikmur]

Let me state clearly that I fully agree with Judge Jones that ID is a religious belief rather than a scientific theory and that, therefore, the Establishment Clause prohibits public schools from teaching about ID as a scientific theory. It is not a scientific theory because it cannot be verified or falsified empirically and because it strays from science’s exclusive focus on natural explanations for phenomena in the natural world. Evolution, in contrast, is a scientific theory that has been empirically tested(what??? some intelligent human designed a test?) and that relies on natural explanations for phenomena in the natural world. “To call an idea ‘a theory’ is to accord it high status in the world of science. To pass the bar, a theory must make testable predictions,(such as...?) ...” said Dennis Overbye, deputy science editor of the New York Times, in a recent article.