Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Great law review article on the problem of Darwinism in the schools

arroba Email

In “This Is the Trap the Courts Built: Dealing with the Entanglement of Religion and the Origin of Life in American Public Schools” (Southwestern University Law Review, 2008 37 SWULR 1), Jana McCreary, who doesn’t seem to be proceeding from a theistic perspective, offers some cautionary thoughts on lobbying for Darwin in the schools:

Excerpt: Over eighty years ago, debates began concerning what we should teach our schoolchildren regarding origins of life in their science classes. 1 The debate continues today, and even a new twist has been added: intelligent design. 2 But new twist or old, courts seem to fear offering any theory to schoolchildren that might have been part of the original creationism movement. Courts are concerned that the government not endorse or show any preference over a religions idea regarding the origin of life. 3

But each time we present a theory of life’s origin to our schoolchildren, we are showing preference. And by actually looking at the theories and what they represent, as well as looking at what religion provides for people, we can see that the government, even in limiting the teaching to only evolution, is endorsing a religious ideology. A message exists behind this endorsement – the same message people feared would exist if we allowed schools to teach biblical creationism theories or even intelligent design theory

You have to pay to read more, which may be well worth the price (US$15) if your local school board is fronting Haeckel’s embryo fraud because it is a “good explanation” of Darwin’s theory.

A couple of excerpts:

This Article argues that by endorsing the teaching of only evolution, the government is, in essence, endorsing a view on religion: that a higher power does not exist. In doing so, Part II first defines both religion and science and shows the overlap and crossover of the two. It next identifies and defines varying theories of life’s origin by using the fundamental understanding of each theory.

78% of evolutionary biologists do not believe that a higher power exists. Given how small a proportion of the public that is, in relation to their narrow discipline, It is short-sighted to believe that their view does not leak into the textbooks.

Of course, defining science too narrowly works for those who support teaching only evolution when considering the origin of life. [FN51] But this viewpoint actually will lead, eventually, to greater questions involving the constitutionality of teaching the origin of life. This narrow view of science discounts too much the other explanations for the origin of life and chooses one explanation – a nontheistic one – over others.

There is no good theory of the origin of life, and we are nowhere near one. It is unclear to some of us why origin of life is even on the curriculum in high schools – except as science projects or essay prizes – unless it is intended to inculcate the view that “science will find the answer someday” – in this particular case, that’s a dubious proposition, considering the issues.

“The newest theory among the many is intelligent design. [FN118] Contrary to the arguments promoted by many, intelligent design does not rely on a particular religious belief …

Nope. Any conclusion that order in the universe is real rather than an illusion of our evolved brains or the outcome of infinite failed multiverses is on the design side.

“In case after case, courts focus on the creationism theory and conclude that because of the historical debate that exists, reference to the theory, if nothing more, in the very least sets up a religious effect. [FN458] But what courts have missed is how evolution, at its fundamental core, likewise shows religious effect. By looking at the core concept of evolution and what the theory represents, a religious message – a theistic message – is being conveyed. Because repeatedly courts have allowed the teaching of evolution when they have not allowed the teaching of other theories, the government has shown a preference for one religious message over another, thereby endorsing a religious view. And that directly violates the First Amendment.

Like we said. Worth your US$15.

Finally its starting to be figured out. I always insist that as long as the gov't bans creationism it is in effect and indeed saying its not true since the purpose of any class dealing with these subjects is about truth. if you ban a conclusion in a class taught to discover accurate conclusions then the state has said officially the banned conclusion is false. A line of reason. Its too bad if God/Genesis is true! the state is not to insist its not true or even give a opinion. Mind their own business. Censorship of conclusions is state sponsored truth enforcement. This is immoral and illegal and in opposition to the truth. this is a great thread theme. Creationists should grab hold of these ideas to bring into the classroom the historic and well supported ideas of creationism(s). Its your country. if you ban a opinion because your saying its religious and yet teaching about conclusions then logically you have said the religious opinion is false. This is illegal for the state to enforce such a view. bring more cases and lawyers for the good guys. Robert Byers
Joe, Okay, let's say there is a race of beings, much like us, who are struggling with the same questions of the OOL and the origins of species. Their evidence is much like ours and there are differenting interpretations. So . . . They decide to create computer simulations of their world. So they can explore these issues and see if they CAN reproduce some of proposed mechanisms. And let's say there are different teams and different simulations working on different parts of the whole. How do we know we're not in one of those simulations? Partly designed for sure since their scientists would have to guess at some aspects of the history of their planet. And maybe, possibly, we're at the end of some replaying of parts of their own history where some clever historian is trying to answer a question like: what if Germany had lost the second world war? Or what if some country had invented a nuclear bomb before 1970? Or . . . . Could we be in a computer simulation? Jerad
Ralph, Intelligent Design is NOT limited to biology. Read "The Privileged Planet" and essays by Walter Bradley. Also no one knows if the designer(s) operate outside of natural laws. To Jerad- The physical evidence for the designer(s) exitence is the design, ie living organisms, atoms, molecules, the laws that govern this universe... Joe
They would realize that because of this restriction, the theory of evolution and other topics such as cosmology can not make any statements about the existence or non-existence of any entity that operates outside of natural causes.
Exactly so. It's kind of tricky to do 'science' accounting for entities that operate outside of natural causes. You can't pin them down or restrict them or measure them or time them or find laws they abide by or rule out effects not down to them. Makes it kind of tough to study them I should think. Especially if you've got no physical evidence for their existence. Jerad
Why do we keep flogging this dead horse of evolution? We should instead be pushing for schools to teach what science is, how it works, and what it can and can't do, along with basic logic. If students really understood that science operates (currently although not historically) under the absolutely unprovable assumption of naturalism, none of the topics of science should cause any problems. They would realize that because of this restriction, the theory of evolution and other topics such as cosmology can not make any statements about the existence or non-existence of any entity that operates outside of natural causes. See my discussion at Forget Evolution. RalphDavidWestfall
So it's free now? News
Googling gives me http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/lr/37_1mccreary.pdf ian4851

Leave a Reply