[Vision2020] Mandating Religion In Science Class

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Michael et. al.

The subject heading indicates the focus of this post.  I am not referencing 
the discussion of Plantinga or Scott, because the orientation of this 
discussion was not kept focused on the current court battle and central issue of 
control of the science curriculum by religious interests.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/IDpa.html

"The members of this school board have made their own religious beliefs part 
of the high school's science curriculum," said Eric Rothschild, a partner at 
Pepper Hamilton, a law firm headquartered in Philadelphia.  "This policy is not 
only unconstitutional, it is bad science."

Michael wrote:

I can understand trying to nuance how these points of view are communicated, 
but requiring that the point of view of half the American populace not BE 
ALLOWED “in the classroom” is nothing short of statist mind control.  How’s that 
for a controversial statement!
------------------------------------

Are you joking...?  Must be!  You could find numerous points of view that 
half the population follow that may not be included in numerous classes.  So 
what?  Maybe half the music students in Music Appreciation want the course to 
focus entirely on Madonna, Britney Spears, Rap, Hip Hop and Metal.  Does that mean 
the academic curriculum should drop Mozart and Beethoven?  Maybe half the 
population believes in astrology, UFOs and faith healing?  Does this mean science 
and medicine classes must teach these "theories" as though they are 
legitimate science?

No is attempting to require what you state above, at least no one I have 
heard about.  Students, even the teacher, may discuss Intelligent 
Design/Creationism informally in science classes.  The issue is whether it should be mandated 
as a formal part of the science curriculum.  In fact, the "mind control" is 
coming from those seeking to teach religion in science classes, however cleverly 
disguised as an open minded investigation of alternative theories of the 
origins of the universe or life.  

If this religious agenda is successful, we could see Intelligent 
Design/Creationism mandated to be taught as "science" in science classrooms everywhere, on 
an equal par with evolutionary science, or if not perfectly equal, with the 
goal to imply that to believe in Intelligent Design/Creationism is somehow just 
as scientific a view as to understand evolutionary science.  Imagine if it 
was mandated that any class (in public schools, including public universities) 
teaching anything about the Bible must include statements from the world of 
science that contradict the Bible?

This battle is about legally requiring the formal curriculum of science to 
include nonscientific theories, based on the desires of believers in certain 
religions to undermine the academic independence of science as a discipline to 
determine what is or is not an accepted theory of science, based on the 
methodology of this discipline.

Michael wrote:

So with all this in consideration, it would not seem silly to include some 
subject matter on different metaphysical frameworks in the science classroom.  I 
think there are other complicated considerations like this one, but this one 
example should suffice for now.  Because of this, I don't think it is 
necessary to call Creationism a 'science,' as such, outside of its potentially potent 
ability to inform scientific hypothesis formation-just as does the broader 
evolutionary narrative that most scientists currently assume.   
------------------------

The comments above do not directly and honestly face what is occurring in 
this debate.  You write "...it would not seem silly to include some subject 
matter on different metaphysical frameworks in the science classroom."  There are 
numerous science teachers who indeed would feel very silly, and resentful, at 
being required by law to teach as "science" in biology class the theories of 
Intelligent Design/Creationism, theories which the teachers in question do not 
believe are legitimate science.  And many mainstream scientists involved with 
and observing this legal battle are far beyond thinking it "silly," they are, 
to quote a lawyer advocating for this control over science curriculum, 
"worried."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/religion/12732377.htm

Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Christian law firm from Michigan that 
is defending the Dover school board, said of his opponents, "If they lose in 
Dover, they're worried they will start to see these kind of [efforts] all over 
the place. And I think they're right."  

Michael writes:

"I don't think it is necessary to call Creationism a 'science,' ..." 

What does this mean?  This statement does not clarify whether you think it 
should be mandated that Intelligent Design/Creationism be taught as a formal 
part of the science curriculum, nor does it pin down whether you think any 
Intelligent Design/Creationism theories are scientific theories, with the same 
status as a theory of science as the theory of evolution.

Michael wrote:

Certainly, in a classroom where ‘origins’ of human live are being discussed, 
it is going to be relevant and interesting for everybody to talk about the 
two dominant yet competing points of view (whether it is an intro to biology or 
intro to ethics). 
----------------------

What is appropriate for formal academic curriculum in an ethics course is 
quite different from that for a science class.  Ethics is not a science.  You are 
too intelligent and educated not to understand the difference, so your casual 
lumping of ethics and science into one basket in this statement is 
astounding.  

Unless a scientist can fulfill the demand for a scientific theory of 
Intelligent Design/Creationism that can be subjected to the methodology of science 
sufficient to make the theory, with empirical investigations, publishable in a 
legitimate scientific journal as serious science, just as theories about the Big 
Bang origins of our universe are published as legitimate science, I will c
ontinue to believe that Intelligent Design/Creationism involves speculative 
theories that have not achieved enough empirical validation and/or 
logical/mathematical sense, according to the standards of scientific methodology, to be taught 
as science, and thus should not be mandated to be taught in science 
classrooms.

Michael wrote:

Is it important that the Christian View be inherently 'scientific' or is it 
sufficient that the Christian View be merely "tenable"and "relating to 
science?"  
----------------------------

I already answered this question indirectly.  Any theory of Intelligent 
Design/Creationism, to be taught as science , should fulfill the standards for a 
scientific theory, that any theory is subjected to in the discipline of science.

Perhaps you'd like to express your stand, if you have one, on the current 
legal battle, which may go to the US Supreme Court, on what must be mandated to 
be taught in science classrooms regarding Intelligent Design/Creationism?

This debate is about the independence of the academic discipline of science 
to pursue truth according to the standards of scientific methodology.  I do not 
want to return to the days when what is taught in science classrooms is 
controlled by a religious agenda, no matter what religion.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/religion/12732377.htm

"We're very, very concerned about it," said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive 
officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the 
world's largest general scientific society. "There are national implications, of 
course. This is part of an ongoing movement to bring religion into the science 
classroom." 
-----------------------
Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051106/59271fe1/attachment-0001.htm