Posted on 01/04/2006 12:55:35 PM PST by A. Pole
Will the federal courts, and the people who rely on the federal courts to enforce secular ideals, ever get it? The anti-school-prayer decisions of the past 40 years—not unlike the pro-choice-in-abortion decisions, starting with Roe vs. Wade—haven’t driven pro-school-prayer, anti-choice Americans from the marketplace of ideas and activity.
Neither will U.S. Dist. Judge John Jones’ anti-intelligent-design ruling in Dover, Pa., just before Christmas choke off challenges to the public schools’ Darwinian monopoly.
Jones’ contempt for the “breathtaking inanity” of school-board members who wanted ninth-grade biology students to hear a brief statement regarding Darwinism’s “gaps/problems” is unlikely to intimidate the millions who find evolution only partly persuasive—at best.
Millions? Scores of millions might be more like it. A 2004 Gallup Poll found that just 13 percent of Americans believe in evolution unaided by God. A Kansas newspaper poll last summer found 55 percent support for exposing public-school students to critiques of Darwinism.
This accounts for the widespread desire that children be able to factor in some alternatives to the notion that “natural selection” has brought us, humanly speaking, where we are. Well, maybe it has. But what if it hasn’t? The science classroom can’t take cognizance of such a possibility? Under the Jones ruling, it can’t. Jones discerns a plot to establish a religious view of the question, though the religion he worries about exists only in the possibility that God, per Genesis 1, might intrude celestially into the discussion. (Intelligent-designers, for the record, say the power of a Creator God is just one of various possible counter-explanations.)
Not that Darwinism, as Jones acknowledges, is perfect. Still, “the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent scientific propositions.”
Ah. We see now: Federal judges are the final word on good science. Who gave them the power to exclude even whispers of divinity from the classroom? Supposedly, the First Amendment to the Constitution: the odd part here being the assumption that the “free speech” amendment shuts down discussion of alternatives to an establishment-approved concept of Truth.
With energy and undisguised contempt for the critics of Darwinism, Jones thrusts out the back door of his courthouse the very possibility that any sustained critique of Darwinism should be admitted to public classrooms.
However, the writ of almighty federal judges runs only so far, as witness their ongoing failure to convince Americans that the Constitution requires almost unobstructed access to abortion. Pro-life voters and activists, who number in the millions, clearly aren’t buying it. We’re to suppose efforts to smother intelligent design will bear larger, lusher fruit?
The meeting place of faith and reason is proverbially darkish and unstable—a place to which the discussants bring sometimes violently different assumptions about truth and where to find it. Yet, the recent remarks of the philosopher-theologian Michael Novak make great sense: “I don’t understand why in the public schools we cannot have a day or two of discussion about the relative roles of science and religion.” A discussion isn’t a sermon or an altar call, is it?
Equally to the point, what does secular intolerance achieve in terms of revitalizing public schools, rendering them intellectually catalytic? As many religious folk see it, witch-hunts for Christian influences are an engrained part of present public-school curricula. Is this where they want the kids? Might private schools—not necessarily religious ones—offer a better alternative? Might home schooling?
Alienating bright, energized, intellectually alert customers is normally accounted bad business, but that’s the direction in which Darwinian dogmatists point. Thanks to them and other such foes of free speech in the science classroom—federal judges included—we seem likely to hear less and less about survival of the fittest and more and more about survival of the least curious, the least motivated, the most gullible.
I did not talk specifically about scientific method, but yes, scientific method was developed in the Middle Ages using scholastic concepts - it is in History of Philosophy 101 :). Science with the whole organizations and rules was created by the Roman Catholic Church.
Why a stretch? This "laying of philosophical groundwork" was the creation of scientific method.
Thank your for making my point. Evols simply want to brainwash kids, not educate them.
And that worries you? It's not as though ID is being taught. Just a simple statement. If the kids want to read the book, they can. If not, they won't. (And frankly, how many kids do you think would read the book if it's not required for class?)
Like I said, evols only want to brainwash kids, not educate them.
Home schooling bump.
I am not championing Lysenko. I just said that his was better than some other stuff. When someone gets better grade than another it does not mean that the grade is good. For example D is better than F.
BTW, there are could be some grains of truth in his work. So maybe he should get D+ or C- :). I suspect that there could be some mechanism for inheriting the acquired traits.
The matter of "should ID be discussed in a SCIENCE room" shoudn't even be discussed by a local school board. ID is not SCIENCE in any manner. If you want to introduce your spirituality based topics into the school curriculum, do so in a theology or philosophy class and I'll have no problem with it. Whether or not you like it, our courts DO have a certain amount of power over the incorrect decisions of local governments. As a biologist, it's an affront to the science to introduce completely unscientific notions into a scientific class and theory just because there may be gaps or specific problems with a theory. Can't just fill in the gaps with the latest scientifically unproven and unprovable religious belief.....not in MY science class.
....and school boards ARE infallible and SHOULD be able to introduce whatever they want into any class they want, no matter the relevance to the class?
This is not a belief, this is a fact. But using the scientific method is not enough to be part of science. You need to get your work be reviewed, approved and published by the recognized in the recognized official channels. Then it becomes the integral part of the body of science. Contradictory claims/theories have to be compared and debated in proper formal manner as the scientific knowledge is believed to be universal, objective and binding all, same way the details of Catholic doctrine.
Science is a living integrated organized and visible institution which branched out from the organization and practice of medieval Roman Catholic Church.
It is true that some scientific concepts you can find in ancient times or in cultures on other continents, yet at most this alternative scientific practice took form of secret societies like Pythagoreans, some Hindu or Buddhist monastic orders. In less organized forms there were private schools centered around gifted teacher like Platonic academy. Or you had the continues body of knowledge fused with the religion like in Egyptian priestly cast.
Then you could find some little organization in transfer of crafts/trade methods withing families or workshops. This is not science either.
Still you can find the interesting remains of science origin - ceremonial dress, some quaint rules like celibacy for scholars long after Middle Ages passed, (Oxford and Cambridge scholars well until XIX century), the key titles like PhD - Doctor of Philosophy derive straight from Medieval times (why the doctor of Chemistry is called a doctor of philosophy?), and much more.
The buck has to stop somewhere. The question is who is ruling in the country? Autocratic monarch? Aristocracy? The people? Or do we have theocratic system when the body of priests or scientists enforces doctrinal rules?
When you put science as the final criterion you get scientistic pseudo-theocracy like Soviet Union ruled by the doctrine of "Scientific" Socialism or National Socialism ruled in the name of biological doctrine of race.
That the naive decision of some little local school board raises such resistance and anger among secularists it is a sign of raising pseudo-theocracy. The devotees of the doctrine which is to rule do not suffer any exceptions or dissent.
US Constitution and other founding documents are clear - the power belongs to the people. And religion has special protected status in it.
In the deep recesses of my mind I remember a phrase, ...misguided compassion..." from earlier readings of Darwin, but going back and rereading chapter 4 where he goes on at length about sympathy et al I am unable to get the same sense of conflict.
Still, it gives no pleasure to consider that the deeply religious man is to be pitied.
What's an "evol"?
How does what has happened here support the proposition that kids are to be brainwashed, not educated?
...and it HAS, with a court saying that a school board doesn't have the right to inject religious beliefs into a science class. Funny, you espouse the "rights of the People" a whole lot while ignoring the rights of those that don't follow your religious beliefs.
When you put science as the final criterion you get scientistic pseudo-theocracy like Soviet Union ruled by the doctrine of "Scientific" Socialism or National Socialism ruled in the name of biological doctrine of race.
Leave the former USSR out of it. That's a red herring slippery-slope argument to try to label me as a follower of communist beliefs, but it won't stick because the truth is the absolute defense. However, when you put SCIENCE as the final criterion for a SCIENCE class.....you get a science class. When you introduce non-scientific religious notions into a science class as if it's a viable alternative to actual scientific thinking, you corrupt that science and the teachings of the scientific method. ID does not in any manner belong in a science class and a school board calling an apple a Volkswagon, doesn't make the fruit a car.
That the naive decision of some little local school board raises such resistance and anger among secularists...
I am not a secularist in any manner...just a biologist that doesn't think that non-scientific religious beliefs belong in a SCIENCE room. I'd fully welcome ID into a philosophy or theology class in a public school any time some less naive school board wants to add ID to the curriculum.....and I have no problem with kids praying in school if they want to, even if that prayer is led by non-students, so long as it involves ONLY those that want to participate and is not an intercom-led prayer for ALL students. Hint: blanket statements about "secularists" will never get you anywhere.
And religion has special protected status in it.
Religion has no special protected status in the Constitution. The first amendement is about the rights of the People like you and me, not of the right of "religion". Your right to choose your religion as you see fit without the government making a law against your religion or FOR another religion...your right to freely choose your religion has special protected status, not your religion.....just as my right to not be religious is protected. However, that has nothing to do with some local school board trying to inject non-scientific religious beliefs into a SCIENCE room, where they do not belong....put it in theology or philosophy.
It does when this is a statement being read in science class.
Apparently the parents (read: voters) in the district agree with my assessment or else they wouldn't have booted the board members out on their ear.
Since you want God taught in the classroom, then you need to send your kids to private school or...
Home schooling bump.
You said it.
Or, move to England where they give you a voucher to send your kids to whatever school you want.
But, here in America, if you send you kids to public school, do not expect them to teach your kids about God. That's not the purpose of public schools.
The judge did NOT forbid instructing children that there are issues of evolution that are not yet explained by evolutionary theory.
The judge did NOT forbid teaching the concepts of Intelligent Design.
The judge DID forbid teaching the concepts of ID as science; but teaching it as philosophy is not restricted.
Mr. Murchinson's misrepresentations of what the judge said and did not say are sloppy at best and blatant lying at worst. It makes it impossible to take what he says seriously.
Why even forbid that in this case, since that was not what the school was doing? If your assessment of the judge's ruling is correct, then nothing has changed for the school.
Why? What specifically about this statement worries you if it is made in a science class?
Since you want God taught in the classroom, then you need to send your kids to private school or...
Who said anything about teaching God in the classroom? I'm merely asking what is so worrisome about telling kids that there are competing ideas? No one is even teaching those competing ideas. What is so scarey about that?
But, here in America, if you send you kids to public school, do not expect them to teach your kids about God. That's not the purpose of public schools.
I see, so in your view, the purpose of schools is to teach children to blindly accept what they are told. Got it.
Someone who is absolutely dogmatic that evolution is the only idea worth considering.
How does what has happened here support the proposition that kids are to be brainwashed, not educated?
By forbidding the mere mention of the fact that there are competing theories. Heavens, we don't want the little darlings not to just swallow what they are being told.
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.