Re naturalism as the undiscussable new dogma in state-funded faith-based schools, retired doctor Jon Garvey says at Hump of the Camel:
A commenter at UD, OldArmy94, remarks:
“Does that mean that The Third Way of Nagel, et al, is also outta luck?”
It’s a good point, and the answer must be, “Yes”. Nagel, an atheist and leading philosopher, has come to believe that NeoDarwinian evolution is untenable (ie he rejects it as an insufficient account), and proposes a non-naturalistic (but still atheistic) alternative. That defines him, in UK government terms, as a creationist. To discuss his important (and best-selling) book in an A-level class would render the academy liable to loss of funding. Do you not find that bizarre?
One might also question the status of other non-religious “Darwin dissidents” – a number, like James Shapiro, because they see the accepted mechanisms as woefully incomplete, have gone as far as rejecting NeoDarwinism, which is currently the “established scientific theory.” They believe in evolution of various other kinds and in varying degrees of importance compared to RM & NS – but then so do YECs. At which point are these views anathema in class? Crick’s panspermia must be censored, as it’s creationism by definition… Better not to mention Wallace at all, even though he co-founded the theory, since he didn’t think it sufficient and rejected naturalism.
How did one particular variant of evolutionary theory come to be so sacrosanct and unchallengable? Is such canonical status good for science? “Scientists take nothing on trust, but are always ready to question everything…” Ya-da. Teach the kids to accept what’s established, and don’t even mention anything else – that’s what will make them scientists.
I’m more interested, though, in coming at this from the most sympathetic Christian viewpoint, given that these regulations are for Faith Academies established and encouraged by law. …
Bluntly, he ends up saying,
You want the money, you have to agree that only kooks have a problem with naturalistic Neodarwinism as Ultimate Truth.
I’d recommend these Academy Schools not take the money We have been through this in Canada, on other issues, and it always ends badly for the faith group. Not often, but always. Not immediately, but over time. Doctrinaire zealots get hold of the government, and the faith-based school that accepted money gets its collective neck wrung. Of course governments could try to compel faith-based schools anyway but if the school accepted no money, the government may face constitutional issues regarding what it can compel people to assent to against their conscience.
They bought you, they own you, and they can tell you what to do, for political reasons, even if it makes no sense and violates your conscience, and forces you to assent to what you know to be untrue and untenable. – O’Leary for News
Here’s the approach I recommend instead, starting the morning off with one of my favourite American folk songs:
Follow UD News at Twitter!