On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Gibbens, Daniel G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
This is quite wrong. Science gives clues about both. There are various
plausible and internally consistent explanations. But unlike post-big-bang
and post-arising-of-life, the explanations are more varied and speculative.
This is quit different, I think, from saying no clue.
(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.
See above. And learn about string theory and brane theory and the various
pathways for life to develop. And the recent advances in the lab.
(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).
Can't present that as rational, unless you are using a variant of rational,
which may be ok. If you were going to inquire as to beginnings in such
courses, should they not also be required to include the various scientific
explanations? Even if speculative and based on belief? Also, while it may
be rational to infer that causes exist for observed effects, it is not
rational to therefore posit that one particular cause is right or supported
-- or that there is only one cause -- the divine watchmaker fallacy is just
that--specious.
If you are going to do creation stories, you should include the Hopi, the
various Hindu stories, Buddhist, Celtic, Norse, Inanna, various African
stories, and all sorts of others, right? They are all just as rational as
any other, from a constitutional perspective, I think.
___
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.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
___
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.
