Addressing Religious Beliefs (Intelligent Design) In Class

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.

You make too much of the law's reach in this issue. By "law" I mean the law as any trial lawyer would practise it in court these days. This is a transcendental issue, and not at all held within the cup of the "law". Dover is politics, not law. Poltics is religion. Religion is public. Like the Scopes ruling, the Dover ruling itself is not law, but legend. Political, religious, public legend.

It was Scope's lawyer Darrow who entered a plea of guilty for Scopes, once he had done the job of establishing a legend. The Judge in Dover heard the siren song of "Legend!" and ruled accordingly. Not law at all.

The practical gist of what I suggest is that EVERY case in these matters is sui generis. A crap shot. There is no law.

Nay, the winner of future cases is the one that comes off more legendary!

Actually, I didn't think that the law had much "reach" at all in the Dover case. Every school board that considers the issue now will decide upon different language and different approaches so that the precedential value of the Dover District Court's opinion is fairly minimal from a legal standpoint. However, the DI article made much of various legal aspects of the post-trial, pre-decision actions of the Board, and they are, at best, seriously misleading and, at worst, (fill in the blank).

BTW, in the History Channel's review of the Scopes trial last Wed., I found this tidbit to be most interesting. Paraphrasing: Most people thought that Scopes was a victory for evolution. It wasn't. After the decision, a number of other states banned the teaching of evolution in public schools. It wasn't until the Russians shocked the US in the late 50's with their space program that the US realized that it had to catch up scientifically and evolution then became the nationwide standard. (I don't know if it's true, but I don't know that it isn't).

Thanks for the honest answers and reply. I am not up to speed to much on Johnson and his HIV/AIDS theory and should probably google it. If memory recalls he is in the Duesberg/Gilbert category?

My eyebrow has been raised a few times with the direction/statements of the DI. I wish they would sometimes just shut up. IMO ID has taken a strange turn lately and it bothers me. I support the ideas and general theoretical model but the way it is being approached reminds me of the way the GOP is handling the illegal immigration issue. Neither one sets well.

Thanks again for your reply. I was afraid that this thread was going to go by and no one was going to talk about the topic, which seems to happen a lot on the ID/EVO threads.

Happy FReepin'

I remember the whole neighborhood going out in the street at night to look for Sputnik -- the Russian's first satellite! That was October 1957. The National Defense Education Act was in 1958 -- that really initiated the FedGov reach into colleges and soon enough, all schools at every level (by 1965 they had reached al the way to pre-K with the Head Start Program). It was in reaction to the Russian missile and space program. The secularist legend-making movie about the Scopes Trial, "Inherit the Wind", was released in 1960. In 1962 the Supreme Court forbade a nondenominational "Regents" in school recitation of prayer in NY (iirc). In 1963 the Supreme Court outlawed any mandatory Bible verse recitation. The "God is Dead" cover of Time magazine appeared in April 1966. He was murdered by the zeitgeist of the fifties and sixties, so it seems.

That timeline supports your theory, and imo, having lived through the fifties and sixties as a student and as the child of an educator and political activist my opinion may be worth something: I agree with you in large part.

However we should consider a few other timeline markers:

In 1916, forty-one years before Sputnik, nine years before Scopes, educator John Dewey published his landmark "Democracy and Education".
In 1927, thirty years before Sputnik, two years after Scopes, Bertrand Russell, reknowned, polymath, philosopher, atheist, published "Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects".
In 1933, twenty-four years before Sputnik, eight three years after Scopes, The Humanist Mianifesto" was composed, signed and announced loudly -- signed by many intellectual luminaries of the time including "educator" John Dewey.
In 1948, nine years before Sputnik, twenty-three years after Scopes, the Supreme Court struck down religious instruction in public schools.

So, while the Race for Space put godless evolutionism on afterburners, it was already making good headway without that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.