[Vision2020] Mandating Religion In Science Class

Sun Nov 6 21:09:01 PST 2005

I am so disappointed in our current closed minds. We have so many more choices in education and so many want to shut off their minds to any reaching of new thought. Some of you categorize so you don't have to think out of our little box and I keep looking for the pope to send the inquisition to keep us in line. It can go both ways ya know!

I liked what this site said, if you don't think the thought police will be around to see if you read it!

http://worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=11145

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tbertruss at aol.com 
  To: metzler at moscow.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 4:46 PM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Mandating Religion In Science Class

  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 continue 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051106/8858efc7/attachment-0001.htm