I understand public schools legislation with this label was passed in Texas last year that includes provisions that are ambiguous as well as some protected by Supreme Court decisions (implying otherwise). If nothing else, it at least provides students a "nose in the door" for the intelligent design promoters. My understanding is that in spite of Kitzmiller, the promoters have not lost their zest or ingenuity. Accordingly, my thinking that legislation with the following aspects is needed and appropriate (and of course comment is invited):
(1) Given the now known time span, i.e., millions/billions of years, evolution and big bang theories are scientifically supported descriptions of the process of development of the myriad life forms and the process of development of the vast physical cosmos. But science gives no clue about the origins of either life or cosmos. (2) In science courses, it should also make clear what has scientific support, and what does not (acknowledging that among scientists, agreement is tenuous about the meaning of "science"). Thus, in addition to teaching evolution and big bang theories, where there is focus on the development processes -- it should also be taught that zero scientifically supported explanations exist about the beginnings of life forms (some accidental "spark"?) or of the physical cosmos (where did the initial mass/energy come from?). In this context, there should be recognition that scientific knowledge continues to expand, e.g., medical science, astronomy, but still provides no clue about beginnings. (3) In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between religious sects, and about religion-based views on the origin and development processes of life forms and of physical matter, including intelligent design theory. Of course, such teaching must treat religion and religious views as neither truth nor as ignorance, nor promote religion generally nor any particular set of religious beliefs, nor promote any negative views about religion. Also, essential is encouragement of our ubiquitous curiosity about beginnings (what are we doing here anyway?). Perhaps some emphasis might be given to where the science-based theories and intelligent design are consistent: for example, intelligent design, albeit non-scientific, presents a rational explanation of how the origins occurred (for every effect there must be a cause).
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
