Asking for bread and getting a stone
PZ says many good things on the subject, for instance on what the textbook that inspired De Dora’s educational advice actually said.
…that was a small part of a two page section of the text that summarizes the legal history of efforts to keep creationism out of the public schools. It is not a book that condemns Christianity, carries on a crusade to abolish religion, or calls believers delusional; it is moderate, entirely polite in tone (praise Jesus! It meets the most important criterion of the faitheists!), and plainly describes an entirely relevant legal and social issue for biologists in non-judgmental terms. It does use the accurate, factual term “myth” for what creationists are peddling, and that’s as harsh as it gets. It is exactly what the less rude proponents of evolution teaching should want.
In other words, if textbooks and teachers can’t even do that, they really are well and truly stifled and censored, and education is reserved for people who can afford private school.
[W]hat kind of support does a reasonable and polite statement in a textbook get from the intellectual cowards — a phrase I use in complete awareness of the meaning of each word, thank you very much — who want to run away from any conflict? De Dora whines, ‘well, he has a point’. Pigliucci makes a worthless complaint about knowing our epistemological boundaries, implying that the statement of fact in Tobin and Dusheck is a violation of the separation of church and state…If a science teacher can’t even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000, because philosophers will complain about epistomological boundaries, we’re doomed. If the effect of biology on society can’t even be mentioned in a textbook, then the relevance of the science is being sacrificed on the altar of religious submission. Getting enmired in these pointless philosophical “subtleties” when the facts are staring you in the face is a recipe for the further gutting of science education in this country.
Exactly. And gutting science education is not a good thing to do.
The consequences could be a lot worse than “further gutting of science education in this country.” This is a power struggle in which one group is trying to get their baseless assertions accepted as fact (and treated politically as such), even when the facts plainly say otherwise. To assert that we should refrain from telling people they are wrong even when the evidence is overwhelming is just a recipe for disaster.
One assumes that De Dora is also against the teaching of math in public school. After all, if we teach students that 3 is not equal to 1, that contradicts the Christian idea of the Trinity and therefore violates the separation of church and state!
“And gutting science education is not a good thing to do.”
But America doesn’t need “this snake oil science stuff”, according to the former commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard:
“We should create a competitive climate for investment and for renewables and alternatives that are economical and doable and none of this snake oil science stuff that is based on this global warming, Gore-gate stuff that came down where there was revelation that the scientists, some of these scientists were playing political games.”
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0410/palin-this-snake-oil-science-stuff/
PZ Myers says (from OB’s link above) “We don’t need to teach atheism in the science classroom — and I’ve said often enough that I don’t, and don’t endorse such activities — but we do need to be forthright about the conclusions of science. We cannot give religion so much unwarranted privilege that it is treated as a special category, in which the pronouncements of faith may not be contradicted at all, in even the mildest, politest manner, by a science teacher…but this is precisely what De Dora and Pigliucci are advocating when they rush to support a young-earth creationist who objects to any discussion of the social context of evolutionary biology…”
It is hard to teach young people that the Universe is 13.73 billion years old without implying to the more aware of them that the Book of Genesis is quite wrong on that point. Nor is it such a giant step for creationists to demand that anything that implies that the Bible might be wrong somewhere should likewise be scrapped from science education. In practice, complaints make life hard for educational and other bureaucrats, and they tend to find that the easiest way out is often to give in to them.
For my (senior) human biology classes I used to regularly borrow from a local teaching hospital (ie on an annual basis) a 3-month foetus preserved in a jar of formalin. No student ever complained, but one of their parents did. To the hospital.
As a result of that one complaint, lending out of the specimen was forbidden, and to all educational institutions. My own view was and still is that the complainant, whoever it was, should not have been able to obstruct the experience of hundreds of biology students per year.
If the law in the US really would prevent good science teaching then it that not reason the change the law rather than change how science teaching is done ?
Yikes – good example, Ian. Good example of bad thing.
The law in the US in this area is a matter of the Constitution (of the First Amendment) and jurisprudence, so it’s not a kind of thing that legislators can just change, at least not easily. And if they could, they wouldn’t – legislators are universally of the De Dora school. No US politician wants to stir up this particular hornets’ nest.
And the hornet’s nest thing is important, of course, especially if you’re a mainstream politician. But also if you’re a Supreme Court judge.
Over on my own blog, I’ve just been discussing the court decision that invalidated the legislation for National Prayer Day. That judgment will now be appealed, and whatever the result it will probably be further appealed to the SCOTUS.
I think the judgement should, and probably will, survive. Even if we use the ceremonial deism theory, this is not a case of a statute that falls neatly into it. Prediction: the current result stands.
But “under God” in the pledge of allegiance is another thing. The courts will do almost anything to avoid striking down those words. Last time the issue found its way to SCOTUS, they managed to dismiss the case on a technicality about standing. If they are forced to confront it head on, they will find it very tempting to do whatever they can, however illogical, not to stir up the hornets nest. Prediction: They’ll apply the ceremonial deism theory, which “under God” fits into slightly better. (It’s still not a very good fit when you look at the history, so the ceremonial deism theory will have to be made quite broad in what it captures.)
This will give something to both sides by saying “under God” is not religion in that context, just high-falutin’ rhetoric, but not striking it down. It will also leave both sides vaguely resentful for exactly the same reasons. But it won’t lead to riots or to religious fanatics assassinating judges. From the viewpoint of pollies, and of judges to a lesser extent, that’s the big picture. They want civil peace above all else.
So, my predictions: “under God” survives in SCOTUS when it finally gets there again; National Prayer does not.
Now we’ll see if I’m right. Place your bets. With each other, not me.
I was disappointed when, after De Dora cites the relevant passage, he adds, “I don’t know how much the context proves my argument wrong.” I do.
Any rational Christian will acknowledge that the biblical account of creation is mythical, although they might prefer to call it allegorical. There is no reason why a biology textbook should be asked to accommodate those who will not.
I’ve been more or less assuming the NPD decision would also be struck down, Just Because.