Michael J. Kane wrote:
> Yesterday morning's CNN on-line poll asked how the origin
> of humans should be taught in science classes (I don't believe
> it specified whether the classes were primary, secondary, or
> post-secondary classes). The choices were to teach
> creationism (presumably Biblical) only, evolution only, or
> both. The results were as follows:
>
> 1) Creationism only: 17%
> 2) Evolution only: 46%
> 3) Both: 36%
>
> The results speak for themselves.
I strongly suspect that the real situation isn't quite that bad. Remember
that these results are from a self-selected sample, which encourages
participation by people who feel strongly about an issue. Just last weekend
I talked with a man who is strongly antiabortion - but is also appalled that
his daughter's (private) school teaches creationism. I'm quite convinced
that the creationist is almost as rare as he is wrong.
> My question is: If we allow for alternative ways of knowing
> (AWK) into our psychology curricula, then why not allow
> religious (mainstream or otherwise) views on human and
> universal origins to enter biology and physical science
> curricula?
>
> Why is it okay to allow mystical perspectives into psychology
> but not into the "harder" sciences? Or do the AWK folks
> think that we should discuss creation stories in BIO 101?
Careful...I think in many cases that may be exactly what they think.
Remember that according to the devout postmodernist, science is "nothing
more than a text". While that is more obviously false with respect to the
physical sciences than it is with respect to psychology, I suspect that if
you can convince yourself that it's true (that science is "just a text") for
psychology, you're well on the road to believing it in general.
I'm also not confident that their social differences will keep the
postmodernists and the religious fundamentalists from noticing and acting on
their philosophical similarities forever.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
