There are indeed Marxists in the academia and in power over what will be taught both in the U.S. and around the world, e.g. Lewontin. But I suspect the objective of the education gate keepers is not usually political per se but rather philosophical. IOW, in an effort to “purify” science from outside influences by methodological naturalism, they have perhaps inadvertently empowered the political movements as well.
Methodological naturalism is simply “the idea that the mode of inquiry typical of the physical sciences will provide theoretical understanding of world, to the extent that this sort of understanding can be achieved. “ Stoljar, Daniel, "Physicalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosoph
If that were the end of, it would be quite innocent. But the metaphysical naturalists take methodological naturalism as proof of their “faith”:
Alfred Whitehead coined the term “scientific materialism” in describing the phenomenon:
Significantly, this view runs counter to more traditional views associated with material substance: "There persists," says Whitehead, "[a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call 'scientific materialism.' Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived."
The assumption of scientific materialism is effective in many contexts, says Whitehead, only because it directs our attention to a certain class of problems that lend themselves to analysis within this framework. However, scientific materialism is less successful when addressing issues of teleology and when trying to develop a comprehensive, integrated picture of the universe as a whole. According to Whitehead, recognition that the world is organic rather than materialistic is therefore essential, and this change in viewpoint can result as easily from attempts to understand modern physics as from attempts to understand human psychology and teleology. Says Whitehead, "Mathematical physics presumes in the first place an electromagnetic field of activity pervading space and time. The laws which condition this field are nothing else than the conditions observed by the general activity of the flux of the world, as it individualises itself in the events."
The end result is that Whitehead concludes that "nature is a structure of evolving processes. The reality is the process." - Irvine, A. D., "Alfred North Whitehead", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
One of the most obvious political ramifications of metaphysical naturalism is equal rights for and as animals. This is the basis of Singer’s assertion that parents ought to be able to kill their offspring within a few months or a year after birth. Likewise is the political initiative which says that children should be able to “off” their parents when they become a cause of suffering to the children. Animals do this – culling the runts and the lame. Likewise it follows that, in the absence of an absolute moral code, anything goes – whether homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and so on.
IMHO, the bright line political battleground centers on the litigation involving the separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows both for freedom of religion and that congress will not establish a state religion. At the moment, from the decision in the 7th which was based on a litany of past USSC decisions, atheism is seen as a religion if it is promoted. The legal theory may turn on whether the state has established atheism as a religion in the education system.
Anyway, that’s my “two cents”…
God help us to regain a Free Republic..
LOLOL!!! So of course, the answers will be "naturalistic" answers! Duh!!!
But the metaphysical naturalists take the problem one step further into absurdity: For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material.
Jeepers. Talk about "stacking the deck!" And then having the temerity to call it a "method!"
Need I point out that every single "metaphysical naturalist" alive is a "closeted philosopher?" Who simultaneously claims for himself the "objectivity" of a scientist?
Who do these guys think they're trying to kid, to fool, with such a "method?"
Thanks for patiently bearing with my rant, dear Alamo-Girl. And thank you so much for your excellent essay/post.