[betty boop]

This isn’t about “censorship.” This is about ensuring science is presented as science and theology as theology and philosophy as philosophy.

But how can we talk about science without acknowledging its fundamental philosophical presuppositions? Such as materialism, naturalism, determinism, positivism? The scientific method — methodological naturalism — is based in these doctrines.

Further, is a historical science like Darwin's macroevolution theory "science" in any strict sense? Certainly, it's not "science" in the same way that physics is science. It is not primarily based on direct observation, falsification tests, replicable experiments, predictive power, and so forth. It has a mythic element to it that no one wants to discuss. Certainly not in public school classrooms!

You want to separate the knowledge disciplines into nice, neat little separate boxes. The only reason you think this possible is that you do not see how mutually dependent these disciplines are.

The German language makes this particularly clear. Its word for "science" — Wissenschaft — means all knowledge, in the broadest sense. Wissenschaft subdivides into two main categories, Naturwissenchaften — the "natural" sciences" (physics, chemistry, biology, et al.) and Geisteswissenchaften— the "humane sciences," the humanities, or sciences of Spirit (philosophy, psychology, history, the arts, et al.). Wissenchaft is the master term that contains and integrates its two subdisciplines.

Not to mention that scientific theories and discoveries often have outcomes that affect the humane sphere of persons and societies. Is this aspect something we want to see discussed in a science class? I'd say, yes. Moreover, scientific theories often have implications for ontology and epistemology, even if a theory didn't explicitly intend such a result. All rest on a cosmology, or worldview, of some kind.

So you can see, science is simply "filthy" with philosophy!

In the end, the question boils down to: What do we want for our children? Do we want them to be well-informed, critical thinkers, or do we want well-trained parrots — taught to accept the "received wisdom" and mindlessly repeat it?

You wrote:

Unless and until you can provide a forum for all creation stories/theories/etc. in a science forum (thus ending it as a science forum) you can’t make this a 1st Amendment issue.

I'm sorry, freedumb2003, I can't make heads or tails of this statement. Would you kindly try restating it?

[count-your-change]

“This isn’t about “censorship.” This is about ensuring science is presented as science and theology as theology and philosophy as philosophy.”

And to enforce..ahhh...”ensure” the above we'll enlist the services of the ACLU, etc.,???

But where are we going to put Darwinism? Under the heading of “unexplainable caprice” as did Salthe.

[tacticalogic]

But how can we talk about science without acknowledging its fundamental philosophical presuppositions? Such as materialism, naturalism, determinism, positivism? The scientific method — methodological naturalism — is based in these doctrines.

Why is methodological naturalism explicitly differentiated from philosophical naturalism?

[Alamo-Girl]

But how can we talk about science without acknowledging its fundamental philosophical presuppositions? Such as materialism, naturalism, determinism, positivism? The scientific method — methodological naturalism — is based in these doctrines.

Precisely so. It's not simply a matter of different disciplines examining the same thing with a different tool.

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!