Evolution in schools; legal trap (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, May 31, 2012, 14:31 (4560 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt objects to the line: "If we restrict ourselves to a narrow interpretation of sharing with students only that information that is readily testable and observable, we limit the breadth of what we can share with our children." In itself I find this acceptable when linked to your later comment: "...science ceases to work without assertions of materialism. Discussion about the underpinnings of science is the job for philosophy, and alternative theories to evolution can certainly be discussed in a comparative religions class."-Evolution is, of course, only one aspect of this, but what you have written makes perfect sense to me: "science should be science alone" ... i.e. it should be taught as the study of the material world, and it should not impose philosophical conclusions on its findings. Comparative religion should be taught within the framework of philosophy, and if it is in conflict with science, this too should be made clear. In ALL lessons, however, including science, students should be constantly reminded of the distinction between absolute truth, knowledge and belief. In my view, teachers should never attempt to impose one particular faith (including the atheist faith in materialism) on students. Their task is to present current forms of knowledge and belief. -Incidentally, one problem is that when sceptics dismiss the design argument as "unscientific", the word itself is given totally negative associations. If it ain't scientific, it can't be true, it's fairytale nonsense, pie in the sky. That is pure prejudice, since science has so far proved incapable of solving profound mysteries such as the origin of life and the nature of consciousness. We simply do not know whether materialism holds all the answers, and belief that it does is a matter of faith, not science.-I do have problems with your final paragraph, though: "discussing alternative theories in the classroom [..] does nothing more than relegate God to a second-class engineer, and completely detracts from the fact that God is supposed to be a spiritual focal point for your own moral guidance and personal development." -Firstly, the theory of evolution is perfectly acceptable to many theists, but no matter which theory you embrace, God can hardly be called a second-class engineer, since even the greatest of human engineers have failed to come anywhere near emulating his creative genius. But more importantly, one of the most vehement objections many of us have to the established religions is the damage they have done over the centuries through their bigotry. The bloody wars between religions (Christianity / Islam v. everyone else) and religious sects (Catholics v. Protestants, Sunnis v. Shias) continue in full force even today, all in the name of "God". This is not to ignore the enormous good they have done by their charitable works and by the support they give to individuals, but moral guidance and personal development can go in different directions, and those directions often depend upon the people who do the teaching. In my view, all theories should be taught ... scientific ones in science classes, philosophical ones in philosophy classes ... but God should NOT be used in the classroom as a spiritual focal point for moral guidance and personal development. For you and me, God is a theory, and his nature and will ... if he exists ... are a matter of human interpretation. Morality and personal development are fundamentally social matters ... i.e. how we relate to our fellow creatures. Unquestionably many religions offer sound advice on the subject, and if we cut out all the dogma, it boils down to "do as you would be done by". This can and in my view should be taught and implemented quite independently of any version of God.