I don't see an establishment clause problem, or any other. Yes, the university may teach that intelligent design is false, in an approved course. As a pragmatic matter, colleges are not primary and secondary schools. Content of college courses may cover a broader range of materials and opinions than high school courses may. I don't recall the cases on the point. But consider the havoc that would ensue a decision that state colleges could not teach the germ theory of disease, in order not to run afoul of Christian Scientist beliefs, and you begin to see the difficulty. This is an upper-level course, I presume.
Further, since intelligent design advocates argue that ID is not a religious teaching, they cannot fairly claim religious discrimination if a professor claims it to be false. Certainly if a few schools can tolerate courses that suggest intelligent design may not be false, other schools may present the other side. There has been no action taken against any university-level ID course, especially on the basis of establishment, and we shouldn't expect there to be any action.
Don't let the mantle of "mythology" throw you. In rhetoric there is a school of criticism called myth criticism, which analyzes all sorts of myths, especially the true and accurate ones. In higher academia, "myth" means a story to which people grant credence and organize activities around. (For example, at one time I subscribed to the myth that American Airlines has a flight leaving Dallas-Ft. Worth each morning at 7:00 a.m., give or take ten minutes depending on the season and other schedule concerns; arriving in Chicago two hours later, one could be downtown for a meeting by 9:30 a.m., or 10:00 a.m. very comfortably. Adhering to that myth, I was late for a couple of meetings, but missed no meeting in more than 100 attempts. It's a myth, but one that is subject to scientific and other testing.)
College is the place for such classes. Philosophy departments and religious studies departments are especially suited for hosting such classes, with faculty specifically trained in such issues.
The difficulty with the class is trying to figure out just exactly what "intelligent design" is, in substance. I suspect there is not much more in the philosophy and religion journals than there is in biology journals describing intelligent design's modern holdings.
Another place intelligent design might be discussed is in history of science classes, studying especially the work of William Paley, whose book on divine design in nature, Natural Theology, provided a sort of research map for Charles Darwin between 1831 and 1836.
Do you know who is teaching the course, and whether there are any recommended texts?
Ed Darrell
Dallas
"Christopher C. Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Christopher C. Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design
next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies
class, and it's titled, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design,
Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." (The chairman of the
department, in explaining the class, said this, "Creationism is mythology .
. . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it
sound like science. It clearly is not.") It's the next step in the
intelligent design/evolution fight.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course
Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem
here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot teach
that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass directly o! n
the truth or falsity of religious teaching. The University's teaching of ID
as "myth" seems to suggest that it will teach (or at least imply) that ID is
false. (Surely, no one would miss the point if some professor taught a
class entitled, "Special Topics in Religion: Christianity and other
Religious Mythologies" or "Wicca: How Could It Be Something Other Than
Mythology?") To the extent the class teaches ID is false, it is
unconstitutional, no?
The conclusion that this class is unconstitutional will surely be embraced
by those who support intelligent design. And this the counterintuitive
point: shouldn't it also be embraced by those who are earnest opponents of
it? After all, opponents of ID object to it principally because they see it
as inherently religious. It's therefore unconstitutional when taught by the
government as true. But doesn't the same principle act to protect ID from
being taught by the government as false? ! (The obvious analogy is perhaps
prayer - the government should have no power to encourage it, but also
should have no power to discourage it.)
Chris Lund
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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.
