Didn't mean to kick off a different fight. Yes, I know what Dini's website said originally -- quickly worded, and open to opportunistic misinterpretation by a publicity-seeking legal firm, but the fact remains that Dini asked only that kids explain the scientific version of evolution to indicate that they understood what the scientific consensus is. The Justice Department backed off when Dini changed one word.
The kid had failed to even enroll in Dini's course, so he was ineligible on all criteria. The Justice Department's intervention was unfortunate, I thought -- an attempt to use religion to get around a science requirement, tantamount to the circumstances in Settle v. Dickson.
Dr. Dini, a faithful Catholic (and former priest), was vilified in religious media as some sort of faithless monster. The accusation that he was antagonistic to religion was and remains patently false. The fact of the matter was that the kid had made no demonstration of the academic horsepower required, and I suspect any suit would have been tossed for lack of standing. There was no showing, nor even hint of a showing, that Dini would deny a recommendation to any student who had scored well academically, but believed in creationism -- so long as the student could explain the theory of evolution. Dini was asking academic rigor only.
I could really raise ire by putting it this way: "This is the sort of abuse that scientists have to put up with: If one demands a student demonstrate knowledge, the Justice Department comes down on one."
My original point stands: The religious kid did not abandon science, but instead called in the Justice Department to keep him there.
I suspect few ID advocates will agree with anything else I've said or could say about the situation. I regret that.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Although I defend (and defended at the time) the professors academic freedom to be discretionary in writing letters of recommendation, I dont think that Eds depiction of what actually happened is completely accurate. The TT professor (his name is Dini) would not write a letter of recommendation if a student persisted in believing in creation even if the student had scored 100% in his class and could explain with great articulation and insight neo-Darwinian evolution. In other words, the students performance and intellectual abilities were of no relevance if the student did not offer to his professor the proper confession.
You can read Professor Dinis test for yourself: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htmHere are stories about it (written from different perspectives):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7385/354
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-31-2003-34696.asp
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/dini/
http://www.boundless.org/2002_2003/features/a0000679.html?ResultsOnly=Christmasspending
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02695920.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/fedsdropcase01042303.htm
Frank
On 8/23/05 6:35 PM, "Ed Darrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a report of religious discrimination at Texas Tech University, where a popular and tough biology professor required students to pass his classes in biology before he'd write them a recommendation to medical school. He also required kids to explain evolution to him, to indicate that they understood the science. The protesting student argued it was a religious burden to try to meet those qualifications.
It would appear that religious students are not driven from science so much as they ask science to be changed to accommodate them, from anecdotal evidence.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark, with due respect, I don't think that there is an equivalence here.
The news reports about students being driven away from science rest on
empirical data. There is no empirical data that the questioner at the
beginning of the NYT article was driven away from the natural sciences.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:41 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Unfortunately, it seems likely that many students who are religious have
been driven away from the sciences (in particular the biological
sciences)
by the anti-religious attitudes of some scientists. See, e.g., some of
the
statements quoted in today's NY Times at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-----Original Message-----
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:51 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
The facts are what they are. Many American students have been driven
away from the natural sciences because of the overreaching of some
religionists.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:01 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Michael,
Ask Pascal about the rol! e of faith in inspiring reason. Ask Newton.
For that matter, ask Einstein.
It is nothing but pap and drivel that can be found in the
mischaracterization that those who find design in nature are seeking to
drive high school students away from the natural sciences. Now if you
had said the unnatural ones, of course, that is another matter entirely.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Newsom Michael
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:10:34 -0400
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
There is no secular purpose here. ID is not science. It is a cover
for the theology of a particular religious group. To say that one
should teach religious objections of a particular religious group in
science class clearly violates the EC. There can be no secular purpose
behind this selectivity. The IDers are not asking tha! t the views of
those religious that are comfortable with evolution be taught. It *might* be possible to construct a course on evolution and religion, or
on science and religion (although I think that it would be exceedingly
difficult to construct such a course for primary and elementary school
students). But that is not what the IDers are asking for. They want
special privileges for their religion, and their religion alone. Again,
such special privileges would clearly violate the EC.
They also want to drive American high school students away from the
natural sciences, and there is, alas, some evidence that they are
succeeding. News accounts have reported that in some school districts,
peer pressure by overzealous religious students has caused other
students to opt out of science courses. In a post-9/11 world, this is
nothing short of a disaster. This doggedly persistent quest for special
privileges for a particular re! ligion or religious point of view poses
great danger to our national security. The ! ?values? of the IDers will
not keep terrorists and others at bay, but science might.
But, this is nothing new or revolutionary. The country went through
this in the period 1930 ? 1976 when science clearly trumped religion,
largely for national security reasons. How quickly we forget, it seems.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 12:22 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Well, Ed, I think you are just misreading the decision. The case was
decided based solely on the legislature's non-secular purpose. The
Court did not hold that any particular book or curriculum was religion
and not science. Indeed, no book or crea! tion science curriculum was
even part of the record in the case, which was a facial attack on a
statute not a particular creatio! n science program.
This is why it seems clear that a school board that required Behe's
book to be taught in science class as part of the discussion of
evolution would not violate the EC--provided they were careful to
clearly articulate a secular purpose. Teaching the controversy (i.e.
exposing students to the ID theory) is a secular purpose and Behe's
book is not religion (and Behe is a scientist, not a theologian).
Whether ID is good or bad science education is not an issue the Court
can (or should) decide. It is an issue for school boards and/or state
legislatures to decide.
Cheers, Rick Duncan
Ed Brayton wrote:
Rick Duncan wrote:
Edwards did not hold that "creation science" could not be taught in
the govt schools. Nor did it hold that ! "creation science" was religion
and not science. It held only that the particular law (the "Balanced
Treatment! Act") was invalid because it did not have a secular purpose.
Even here, the Ct accomplished this only by misinterpreting the stated
secular purpose--academic freedom for students--and saying that since
the law did not advance academic freedom for teachers it was a sham.
Scalia's dissent demolished the majority's reasoning on this point.
I don't think this description squares with the decision itself. Here
is the actual holding:
---------------------
1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular
purpose. Pp. 585-594.
! (a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of
"protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of
teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of
"teach! ing all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution
when creation science is not also taught undermin! es the provision of a
comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of
creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a
flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present
science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides
evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that
the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the
teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit.
Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory preference for the teaching of
creation science and against the teaching of evolution by requiring
that curriculum guides be developed and resource services! supplied for
teaching creationism but not for teaching evolution, by limiting
membership on the resource services panel to "creation scientists! ," and
by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses
to be a creation-scientist" or! to teach creation science, while failing
to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to
teach creation science. A law intended to maximize the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would
encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins.
Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting
evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the
teaching of creationism. Pp. 586-589.
(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious
belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative
history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated
by the state legislature, embraces this rel! igious teaching. The Act's
primary purpose was to change the public school science curricul! um to
provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that
rejects the factual basis of evolution! in its entirety. Thus, the Act
is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that
embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a
scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either
case, the Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 589-594. 2. The
District Court did not err in granting summary judgment upon a finding
that appellants had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
Appellants relied on the "uncontroverted" affidavits of scientists,
theologians, and an education administrator defining creation science
as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form" and alleging that
such a viewpoint constitutes a true scientific theory. The District
Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that the postenactment
testimony of these experts concerning! the possible technical meanings
of the Act's terms would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of
the state le! gislature when it passed the Act. None of the persons
making the affidavits produced by appellants participated in or
contributed to the enactment of the law. Pp. 594-596.
-------------------------
The ruling did in fact hold that teaching creation science was a
violation of the first amendment, as the portion in italics shows.
Ed Brayton
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05
_______________________________________________
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 t! o this large list cannot be viewed as
priv! ate. 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.
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad
or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered." --The Prisoner
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get passwor! d, 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.
_______________________________________________
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 t! he messages to others.
_______________________________________________
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 messa! ges that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
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 v! iewed 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
