There is a common view that religion has been at war with science--and in this case, religion refers to Christianity. There was a Stargate SG-1 episode where the archaeologist Daniel Jackson speculates that Earth in an alternate reality could well be much more advanced than our Earth because the church held back science in medieval Europe. But if the church did so much to hold back science, and the church was pretty much restricted to Europe, why didn't Europe become the most scientifically backward region of the world instead of the most scientifically advanced?
The most reasonable conclusion to draw with regard to science and the church is that the church, on the whole, provided an environment which helped the development of science. A belief in a God who created an ordered universe would naturally be something that would encourage people to look for order in the natural world, and such a search is the foundation upon which science is built. If there were some conflicts, that is hardly surprising. The best of marriages have some conflicts over the course of a lifetime.
In statistics we talk about selection bias. Both news and history have a selection bias in favor of things that seem newsworthy. This can mean we focus on things that seem particularly important or unusual. Focussing on important things can mean we overlook a lot of little things in one direction which together may be more important than one big thing in another direction. Focussing on the unusual can lead us to believe that rare things are really rare are common because they are given so much attention, while common things may escape our attention altogether if they were so common that they were never deemed worthy of mention.
With regard to science and religion, we need to look not only at things that seem important or unusual, but also at the more mundane everyday reality--and this more mundane everyday reality shows us science and religion operating within their respective spheres without a great deal of interaction and with very little conflict. But that is not the impression we get from the things that make news, or the things that make the history books.
I believe it is important to make a distinction between scientists who defend science from religious attacks, and scientists who attack religion. Writing for EDGE THE THIRD CULTURE, John Horgan expressed the view to an official of the Templeton Foundation "that--given all the problems created by religion throughout human history--I didn't want science and religion to be reconciled, and that I hoped humanity would eventually outgrow religion". Given the strong views that John Horgan has regarding religion, it seems reasonable to describe him as being at war with religion. There are others who are not at war with all religion, but do seem to be at war with more traditional Christianity or Judeo-Christianity. The Clergy Letter Project could be seen as an example of the latter position. What is important here is not whether we describe the situation as a kind of warfare--but whether truth is a casualty. More precisely, the important question is whether truthfulness and fair play are casualties of this view of religion.
Because of this war against religion, we need to look at the claims mace by scientists with a critical eye aimed at making the distinction between truth and propoganda. In this regard, it is very important to try to look at the whole picture--or, at least, make a point of giving a fair hearing to oposing views. This is not something that supporters of evolution generally want to do. I was surprised to recently that the inaccurate Haeckel emryo drawings, or similar inaccurate drawings are making a comeback in American biiology textbooks. In my next post, a look at the use and/or abuse of these drawings will make a good first topic in our study of the war between science and religion.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
RELIGION AND THE TWO CULTURES
An Update on C. P. Snow's "The Two Cultures". This is the title of an August 31, 2009 Scientific American internet article by Lawrence M. Krauss. Included with the article are 39 comments from readers over the next two months. Krauss began with some rather bland remarks about public middel school physical science and math teachers without science degrees, the fact that scientific literacy is not a major impediment to success in business, politics and the arts, and the fact that university science requirements are often viewed as something to be gotten out of the way for students outside the sciences. He then stated that there is another factor, and mentioned participating in a panel discussion on science, faith, and religion at the World Science Festival. He then continued:
Why should such an event be part of a science festival? We accord a special place to religion, in part thanks to groups such as the Templeton Foundation, which has spent millions annually raising the profile of "big questions," which tend to suggest that science and religous belief are somehow related and should be treated as equals.
The problem is they are not. Ultimately, science is at best only consistent with a God that does not directly intervene in the daily operations of the cosmos, certainly not the personal and ancient gods associated with the world's great religions. Even though, as physicist Steven Weinberg has emphasized, most people tend to adhere to only those bits and peices of scripture that appeal to them, by according undue respect to ancient religious beliefs in general, we nonetheless are suggesting that they are on a par with conclusions that have been drawn from centuries of rational empirical investigation.
Snow hoped for a wolrd that is very different from how we live today, where indifference to ,science, has through religious fundamentalism, has sometimes morphed into open hostility about concepts such as evolution and the big bang.
Snow did not rail against religion, but ignorance. As the moderator of my panel finally understood after an hour of discussion, the only vague notions of God that may be compatible with science ensure that God is irrelevant to both our understanding of nature and our actions based on it. Until we are willing to accept the world the way it is, without miracles that all empirical evidence argues against, without myths that distort our understanding of nature, we are unlikely to bridge the gap between science and culture and, more important, we are unlikely to be fully ready to address the urgent technical challenges facing humanity.As Krauss noted, Snow did not rail against religion, while Krauss does. Krauss might argue that he is not railing against religion per se--but against religious ignorance. However, since Krauss seems to see nothing in religion but ignorance, any such claim would be pure sophistry. Most of science has little or nothing to do with matters such as the big bang, evolution, or creationism. In most areas of science, fundamentalists and atheists should be able to work together without their religious beliefs or lack thereof being an issue. We should be able to face the urgent challengers facing humanity while retaining respect for a variety of religous traditions including traditional Judaism and Christianity. But Krauss and the Scientific American editors would appear to disagree.
C. P. Snow was concerned with a problem that may have only existed to a serious extent in Britain. The British elite encouraged their top young talent to basically twiddle their thumbs doing things like studying the classics--and snobbishly spurn the professions in science and technology that would be crucial if Britain were to retain a position of leadership in the world. Scientists have never been relegated to such second class status among the educated elite in America. What we have seen in America is a lot of average Americans who didn't want their children taught evolution in the public schools because evolution conflicted with these people's religious beliefs.
Many of the comments on this article are quite interesting. Comment 15 by gopher16 includes: "Ignorance of science is one thing, attacks on science and the teaching of science are another (which often stem from the initial ignorance or misinterpretation). The evangelical right finds it all too easy to be paranoid and believe they are under attack by the likes of Dawkins and even Krauss. Apathy towards science becomes antagonism, perpetuating the conflict. Many scientists, myself included believe that a person of faith (I know, another euphemism) is not necessarily incompatible with either being a scientist or accepting the results of good science to be valid. Of course, such a central position brings down the wrath from both extremes. For example, the Christian Right (like Krauss did from the other side) accuse of us cherry-picking what we want to believe and what we don't about religion. So be it. Faith is more than a literal adherence to any documents. Faith (not necessarily religion which becomes an institution) is a personal issue. Faith can and should be questioned, and like knowledge in general, should grow. Bottom line: for me, at least my personal faith does not adversely affect my thinking as a scientist. My total experience is instead amplified. That said, I actively resist any attempts to pervert the teaching of science in the public schools and promote the teaching of 'good' science both in and out of the classroom."
Just because you think people are out to get you doesn't mean you're paranoid. People may really be out to get you. The evangelical right is not being paranoid when they believe they are under attack from the likes of Dawkins and Krauss--because people like Dawkins and Krauss really are attacking them. Gopher doesn't make the outright claim that Dawkins and Krauss aren't attacking the evangelicals. Very few people would believe such a claim. Instead gopher sneaks in such an assumption as part of his attack on evangelical paranoia--and most people who are not evangelicals will let him get away with it. Then there is the idea that apathy towards science becomes antagonism. The views of the religious Right are not apathy towards science turned into antagonism. That is simply a fabricated excuse Krauss made up to justify bringing religion into a discussion of C. P. Snow's Two Cultures. The religious Right has neither apathy nor antagonism toward science--except in areas where they see a conflict. In areas where they see a conflict, it was always antagonism towards the views they find objectionable, not apathy turned to antagonsim. This is not the kind of thing that C.P. Snow was talking about.
What does it really mean to pervert the teaching of science in the public schools? And what does it mean to promote the teaching of "good" science? These are important questions which we should address. Is a balanced treatment of different ideas about evolution perverting the teaching of science in the public schools--or is allowing only one view to be expressed the perversion? Is telling people what to believe a way to promote the teaching of "good" science in and out of the classroom, or does the teaching of "good" science in and out of the classroom involve presenting different views and allowing students to make decisions for themselves?
It seems fairly obvious that teaching a balanced view would be better than teaching evolution as the only way if we are not, in fact, the product of evolution. But even if we are the product of evolution, it is far from obvious that teaching evolution as the only way is better than teaching different views and encouraging students to evaluate the evidence for themselves. Which is more important: teaching one particular conclusion that scientists have made, or teaching the scientific way of thinking? Prohibiting any questioning of evolution when evolution is taught in the public schools seems like a terrible message to send future scientists with regard to open mindedness in science.
In comments 6 and 7, katherinebiel stated "Science is accomplished by breaking a problem down into measurable variables. Whether or not a person believes in God is not a part of this "art' ". But she did state that a belief in God slpos over the parameters of the study, and claimed that God would have to go into the random error category of the study. She also claimed that "putting an all powerful natural world breaking deity into an experiment......It would make the results of experiments uninterpretable if we always concluded that an experiment worked, or didn't work because God intervened."
In a drug study, any miraculous healings by God would be treated as random error--and there would typically be a lot of stuff that would fall into that same random error category in such a study. In most scientific work by people who believe in God, acts of God would not be among the parameters of the study. But if you were to look for a connection between a belief in divine healing and what happens to people who are sick, then certainly a belief in divine healing would be one of the parameters of the study. Even if the results for a given individual are unpredicatable, we might find a statistical pattern, which is all we are able to find in many areas of scientific research. We might also look for evidence of healings that could not be explained in any other way that we know.
But there are other ways in which a belief in God may influence scientists. A belief in God may lead a biologist to believe that an organ with no known function must actually have a function--but we just don't know what that function is. This may push such a scientist to keep looking for such a function when another scientist might give it up as a lost cause. Typically we might expect a belief in God to lead scientist to believe in an ordered universe, and encourage them to keep looking for evidence of such order.It is very hard to see that such views would be deterimental to science. By contrast, there can be a problem with scientists who believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution, you believe that things are in a state of flux. If things do not seem to make sense, you may believe that things might only make sense in terms of what will exist in the future or what did exist in the past. This may make you too willing to give up when it comes to looking for answers in the present.
There is more to Katherine's comments. "I'm sad that although so many people seem to hate science, they use the discoveries of science in their lives every second of every day, and to further their belief systems." Katherine did not say she was sad that people who use science seem to hate science--she said she was sad that people who seemed to hate science made use of science. There seems to be a sentiment on the part of evolution supporters that people who do not accept evolution, are rejecting not just evolution, but all of science--and that such people should be denied any of the benefits of modern science. Earlier we saw gopher16 complain that extremists on the right and left accuse people like him of cherry-picking what they want to believe or not belive about religion. But supporters of evolution do something very similar. I do not believe science should be viewed as something that is all or nothing. Wanting to deny people who reject evolution the benefits of totally unrelated areas of science cannot be justified, but it seems to be a fairly common sentiment amopng the supporters of evolution.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
IDOLATRIES OF THE MIND
The Clergy Letter--from Unitarian Universalist Clergy--An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many sources, including "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit." While most Unitarian Universalists believe that many scared scriptures convey timeless truths about humans and their relationship with the sacred, we stand in solidarity with our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters who do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. We believe that religious truth is of a different order than scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information, but to transform hearts. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the teaching of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach in the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions, and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular religious perspective in an environment that is supposed to be free from such indoctrination. We the undersigned, Unitarian Universalist clergy, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and other scriptures may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science, and religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary forms of truth.
The letter mentions "timeless truths of the Bible and other scriptures", but when it comes to criticizing a literal interpretation of the scriptures, it is only the Bible that is mentioned. There is also the matter of the Unitarian Universalist clergy objecting to fundamentalists trying to influence school boards, claiming it is a breech in the separation of church and state. But hundreds of Unitarian Universalist clergy signed this letter which is clearly an attempt on the part of these clergy to influence school boards. Isn't that also a breech in the separation of church and state? If the public schools should be free of religious influence, should that not apply just as much to influence by Unitarian Universalists as it does to influence by fundamentalists?
I recall a joke about Unitarians as people who believe in at most one God. But even that is no longer true, since Unitarians now openly embrace the option of polytheism. Unitarians seem to believe that fundamentalists are ridiculous for their literal belief in the Bible. But many people believe that Unitarians are ridiculous for claiming to be a religion, when they apparently do not actually believe in anything. There is no freedom of religion if we are not allowed to believe that we are right and other people are wrong. This applies to fundamentalists and to Unitarians. But there are situations where the religious beliefs of other people need to be treated with respect, even if we happen to consider them to be ridiculous. Once again, this applies to both fundamentalists and Unitarians--and the public schools are one place where the principle of respectful treatment applies.
Separation of church and state is not something that is found in the US Constitution. What is found in the Constitution are first Amendment restrictions that apply only to acts of Congress, and fourteenth Amendment requirements that the states provide equal protection and due process. Since the fourteenth Amendment is the true Constitutional basis for any Federal court rulings in this area, I believe discussions should be formulated in terms of equal protection and due process.
When modern Christians talk about idolatry they usually mean it in a rhetorical sense. "We shouldn't make becoming a success into an idol" would be an example. From this perspective, it sounds as if the Unitarian Universalists are saying we should not make literal interpretation of the Bible into an idol. But there is more to it than that. The reference to idolatries of the mind and spirit is part of a quotation in which the Unitarian Universalists appear to be quoting themselves. According to Joseph Priestly, perhaps the most influential of all Unitarians, a belief in a divine Christ was a corruption of Christianity. He saw Unitarians as waging a religious battle against a belief in the divinity of Christ. Priestly wanted to use science and reason to argue his case. Unitarians basically believe that Christians who accept the trinity are polytheistic pagan idolators, and those clergy who signed the Unitarian Universalist letter want to enlist the support of school boards in their effort to combat what they see as idolatry. Far from wanting a separation of church and state, the Unitarian Universalist clergy who signed the letter actually want to get school boards to take their side in a religious war.
I find it interesting that Joseph Priestly wanted a kind of separation of church and state in which it was the state which was expected to stay out of religion and education. I rather like that particular view of the separation of church and state. If we are to have public education, I think our goal should be religious neutrality. We should not have politically appointed members of a Supreme Court deciding which religious views should be given protected status and which religious views should be banned from the schools. Chaplains in the military offer a reasonable example of what can be done when the goal is neutrality rather than separation. It is a shame that we are unwilling to show a similar respect for different religious views in our public schools.
The letter mentions "timeless truths of the Bible and other scriptures", but when it comes to criticizing a literal interpretation of the scriptures, it is only the Bible that is mentioned. There is also the matter of the Unitarian Universalist clergy objecting to fundamentalists trying to influence school boards, claiming it is a breech in the separation of church and state. But hundreds of Unitarian Universalist clergy signed this letter which is clearly an attempt on the part of these clergy to influence school boards. Isn't that also a breech in the separation of church and state? If the public schools should be free of religious influence, should that not apply just as much to influence by Unitarian Universalists as it does to influence by fundamentalists?
I recall a joke about Unitarians as people who believe in at most one God. But even that is no longer true, since Unitarians now openly embrace the option of polytheism. Unitarians seem to believe that fundamentalists are ridiculous for their literal belief in the Bible. But many people believe that Unitarians are ridiculous for claiming to be a religion, when they apparently do not actually believe in anything. There is no freedom of religion if we are not allowed to believe that we are right and other people are wrong. This applies to fundamentalists and to Unitarians. But there are situations where the religious beliefs of other people need to be treated with respect, even if we happen to consider them to be ridiculous. Once again, this applies to both fundamentalists and Unitarians--and the public schools are one place where the principle of respectful treatment applies.
Separation of church and state is not something that is found in the US Constitution. What is found in the Constitution are first Amendment restrictions that apply only to acts of Congress, and fourteenth Amendment requirements that the states provide equal protection and due process. Since the fourteenth Amendment is the true Constitutional basis for any Federal court rulings in this area, I believe discussions should be formulated in terms of equal protection and due process.
When modern Christians talk about idolatry they usually mean it in a rhetorical sense. "We shouldn't make becoming a success into an idol" would be an example. From this perspective, it sounds as if the Unitarian Universalists are saying we should not make literal interpretation of the Bible into an idol. But there is more to it than that. The reference to idolatries of the mind and spirit is part of a quotation in which the Unitarian Universalists appear to be quoting themselves. According to Joseph Priestly, perhaps the most influential of all Unitarians, a belief in a divine Christ was a corruption of Christianity. He saw Unitarians as waging a religious battle against a belief in the divinity of Christ. Priestly wanted to use science and reason to argue his case. Unitarians basically believe that Christians who accept the trinity are polytheistic pagan idolators, and those clergy who signed the Unitarian Universalist letter want to enlist the support of school boards in their effort to combat what they see as idolatry. Far from wanting a separation of church and state, the Unitarian Universalist clergy who signed the letter actually want to get school boards to take their side in a religious war.
I find it interesting that Joseph Priestly wanted a kind of separation of church and state in which it was the state which was expected to stay out of religion and education. I rather like that particular view of the separation of church and state. If we are to have public education, I think our goal should be religious neutrality. We should not have politically appointed members of a Supreme Court deciding which religious views should be given protected status and which religious views should be banned from the schools. Chaplains in the military offer a reasonable example of what can be done when the goal is neutrality rather than separation. It is a shame that we are unwilling to show a similar respect for different religious views in our public schools.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND CULTURAL LITERACY
There is an important distinction between teaching science for the sake of teaching science, either pure or applied, and teaching science as a part of cultural literacy. To illustrate this difference, let us consider the nucleus of an atom. The nucleus has a positive charge which attracts negatively charged electrons. Should we let it be at that, or should we go into more detail regarding the make-up of an atomic nucleus.
According to Wikipedia, "Cultural literacy requires familiarity with a broad range of trivia and implies the use of that trivia in the creation of a communal language and collective knowledge. Cultural literacy stresses the knowledge of those pieces of information that content creators will assume the audience already possesses." Among the things we are expected to know for cultural literacy is the added detail that atomic nuclei are made up of positively charged protons and eclectically neutral neutrons. But for basic cultural literacy we are not expected to know about the strong nuclear force that holds a nucleus together. So for the sake of cultural literacy we must teach students about the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, but we do not need to address the question of what holds the nucleus together.
The situation is almost the exact opposite for real science education. For many purposes there is no obvious reason why we couldn't just tell students the nucleus is positively charged without getting into any more detail beyond simply noting that the positive charge of the nucleus is different for different chemical elements. But if we do want to talk about the nucleus as being made up of protons and neutron, we absolutely must address the question of what holds the nucleus together. The problem here is that with in any atomic nucleus that has more than one proton the electrically repulsion of the protons should tear the nucleus apart unless there was something else holding the nucleus together. Critical thinking in science demands that students ask why this does not happen, and ignoring the question encourages students not to do critical thinking. We could simply say there is another force that more than counterbalances this electrical repulsion and this force holds the nucleus together. It is not necessary to provide any kind of a detailed answer, but it is necessary to address the question.
Now let us shift our focus to biology. I recently saw a television program on one of the educational channels. A female chimp offered herself to one high ranking male after another without success, before mating with one of the lower ranking males. We were told that she did not have the characteristics of the more desirable females, and we are also told a silly story about how her mother had told her there would be days like this, when she would be turned down by one male after another. But the silly story was not just silly--it was very bad science. Chimps aren't people. Even if it might be reasonable for a human female to be turned down by a number of males, that is not something we would expect among animals. We would expect the males to mate with every possible female capable of having offspring. That is a behavior that should be strongly favored by natural selection, and so we would expect that behavior to be universal or at least very nearly universal.
Critical thinking demands that we ask the question: Why did male after male turn her down when we would expect males to mate with every possible female? I can think of only two possible answers. (1) The behavior may we see may actually be quite rare, but even rare behavior or other rare traits could be common in a small group of related individuals. So the first thing we should do is check to see if males rejecting females in this way is really normal chimp behavior, or simply normal for a very abnormal group of chimps. Assuming this is normal behavior for chimps, we are left with (2) Just as there had to be some attractive force to counterbalance the electrical repulsion of protons in a nucleus, so too there must be some selective advantage for the males who refuse to mate that will counterbalance the obvious disadvantage of missing out on an opportunity to have offspring. My guess is that high ranking males who mate with a low ranking female lose status with high ranking females--and the disadvantage involved in such a loss of status could be greater than the advantage involved in mating with a low ranking female. This could explain why the male behavior is not eliminated by natural selection. It would still be a challenge to explain how the system of female and male behavior came about in the first place, and it is far from obvious that the advantages of retaining status are greater than those a male would get from mating with a number of low ranking females. But at least there is some reasonable hope that something like this could make biological sense.
Sometimes when we read about evolution, we do encounter this type of careful reasoning. But that is the exception rather than the rule with regard to evolution as it is presented to the general public. More often what we will encounter is the type of thing we saw in the Christian clergy letter. According to the clergy, God gave us minds capable of critical thought. If we assume that to be true, what could be wrong with teaching evolution as one theory among many--and then allowing students to use their minds that are capable of critical thought to evaluate for themselves what they believe to be true?
In this context, I think it is useful to make brief mention of the Unitarian Universalist letter. That letter consists of a couple of introductory sentences, followed by a few sentences that are largely copied from the rabbis, and then a few concluding sentences copied from the Christians. I find the differences between the rabbis and the Unitarian Universalists to be quite interesting. The rabbis spoke of the principles of science, while the Unitarian Universalists made no mention of the principles of science, speaking only of the results of science: As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many sources, including "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit." They conclude with the same last line as the Christians asking that science remain science and religion remain religion--but by their own statement they certainly believe in mixing science into their religion. In any case, the science they embrace is the science of results or the science that is found in cultural literacy, rather than science as science which would be the principles of science which the rabbis name as an appropriate subject to be taught in the public schools.
The distinction between teaching science as science and teaching science as a part of cultural literacy is an important one when we look at evolution and public education. It would not make a very impressive argument to say we simply must teach evolution in the public schools, in spite of the strong objections of Fundamentalists, because our children need to understand why Douglas Adams refers to Arthur Dent as an ape descendant in his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The only possible justification for saying that we must teach evolution as The Only Way would have to be an argument that this knowledge is really essential for people to have. And even if we want to teach evolution for an essentially religious reason such as a Unitarian Universalist desire to "warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit" we must pretend that we are doing it for purely scientific reasons.
Actually I rather like the idea of trying to avoid idolatries of the mind and spirit, but I don't see the results of science as being of much help in that regard--and I see reason as something that can just as easily lead us into such idolatries than to warn us against them. What we need to protect us from idolatries of the mind and spirit is humility. When science is taught as science, much of what we learn is humility. We should not be too quick to assume that what we believe to be true really is true. But when we learn science as part of cultural literacy, we often learn to be arrogant. We may learn to grossly exagerate the value of what we learn, and we may learn to close our ears and our eyes to any evidnce that we may be wrong. Basically, we may very well learn habits of the mind and spirit which could forever prevent us from ever being good scientists--and it is quite likely we learn these bad habits from teachers claiming to be acting in the best interests of science.
According to Wikipedia, "Cultural literacy requires familiarity with a broad range of trivia and implies the use of that trivia in the creation of a communal language and collective knowledge. Cultural literacy stresses the knowledge of those pieces of information that content creators will assume the audience already possesses." Among the things we are expected to know for cultural literacy is the added detail that atomic nuclei are made up of positively charged protons and eclectically neutral neutrons. But for basic cultural literacy we are not expected to know about the strong nuclear force that holds a nucleus together. So for the sake of cultural literacy we must teach students about the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, but we do not need to address the question of what holds the nucleus together.
The situation is almost the exact opposite for real science education. For many purposes there is no obvious reason why we couldn't just tell students the nucleus is positively charged without getting into any more detail beyond simply noting that the positive charge of the nucleus is different for different chemical elements. But if we do want to talk about the nucleus as being made up of protons and neutron, we absolutely must address the question of what holds the nucleus together. The problem here is that with in any atomic nucleus that has more than one proton the electrically repulsion of the protons should tear the nucleus apart unless there was something else holding the nucleus together. Critical thinking in science demands that students ask why this does not happen, and ignoring the question encourages students not to do critical thinking. We could simply say there is another force that more than counterbalances this electrical repulsion and this force holds the nucleus together. It is not necessary to provide any kind of a detailed answer, but it is necessary to address the question.
Now let us shift our focus to biology. I recently saw a television program on one of the educational channels. A female chimp offered herself to one high ranking male after another without success, before mating with one of the lower ranking males. We were told that she did not have the characteristics of the more desirable females, and we are also told a silly story about how her mother had told her there would be days like this, when she would be turned down by one male after another. But the silly story was not just silly--it was very bad science. Chimps aren't people. Even if it might be reasonable for a human female to be turned down by a number of males, that is not something we would expect among animals. We would expect the males to mate with every possible female capable of having offspring. That is a behavior that should be strongly favored by natural selection, and so we would expect that behavior to be universal or at least very nearly universal.
Critical thinking demands that we ask the question: Why did male after male turn her down when we would expect males to mate with every possible female? I can think of only two possible answers. (1) The behavior may we see may actually be quite rare, but even rare behavior or other rare traits could be common in a small group of related individuals. So the first thing we should do is check to see if males rejecting females in this way is really normal chimp behavior, or simply normal for a very abnormal group of chimps. Assuming this is normal behavior for chimps, we are left with (2) Just as there had to be some attractive force to counterbalance the electrical repulsion of protons in a nucleus, so too there must be some selective advantage for the males who refuse to mate that will counterbalance the obvious disadvantage of missing out on an opportunity to have offspring. My guess is that high ranking males who mate with a low ranking female lose status with high ranking females--and the disadvantage involved in such a loss of status could be greater than the advantage involved in mating with a low ranking female. This could explain why the male behavior is not eliminated by natural selection. It would still be a challenge to explain how the system of female and male behavior came about in the first place, and it is far from obvious that the advantages of retaining status are greater than those a male would get from mating with a number of low ranking females. But at least there is some reasonable hope that something like this could make biological sense.
Sometimes when we read about evolution, we do encounter this type of careful reasoning. But that is the exception rather than the rule with regard to evolution as it is presented to the general public. More often what we will encounter is the type of thing we saw in the Christian clergy letter. According to the clergy, God gave us minds capable of critical thought. If we assume that to be true, what could be wrong with teaching evolution as one theory among many--and then allowing students to use their minds that are capable of critical thought to evaluate for themselves what they believe to be true?
In this context, I think it is useful to make brief mention of the Unitarian Universalist letter. That letter consists of a couple of introductory sentences, followed by a few sentences that are largely copied from the rabbis, and then a few concluding sentences copied from the Christians. I find the differences between the rabbis and the Unitarian Universalists to be quite interesting. The rabbis spoke of the principles of science, while the Unitarian Universalists made no mention of the principles of science, speaking only of the results of science: As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many sources, including "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit." They conclude with the same last line as the Christians asking that science remain science and religion remain religion--but by their own statement they certainly believe in mixing science into their religion. In any case, the science they embrace is the science of results or the science that is found in cultural literacy, rather than science as science which would be the principles of science which the rabbis name as an appropriate subject to be taught in the public schools.
The distinction between teaching science as science and teaching science as a part of cultural literacy is an important one when we look at evolution and public education. It would not make a very impressive argument to say we simply must teach evolution in the public schools, in spite of the strong objections of Fundamentalists, because our children need to understand why Douglas Adams refers to Arthur Dent as an ape descendant in his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The only possible justification for saying that we must teach evolution as The Only Way would have to be an argument that this knowledge is really essential for people to have. And even if we want to teach evolution for an essentially religious reason such as a Unitarian Universalist desire to "warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit" we must pretend that we are doing it for purely scientific reasons.
Actually I rather like the idea of trying to avoid idolatries of the mind and spirit, but I don't see the results of science as being of much help in that regard--and I see reason as something that can just as easily lead us into such idolatries than to warn us against them. What we need to protect us from idolatries of the mind and spirit is humility. When science is taught as science, much of what we learn is humility. We should not be too quick to assume that what we believe to be true really is true. But when we learn science as part of cultural literacy, we often learn to be arrogant. We may learn to grossly exagerate the value of what we learn, and we may learn to close our ears and our eyes to any evidnce that we may be wrong. Basically, we may very well learn habits of the mind and spirit which could forever prevent us from ever being good scientists--and it is quite likely we learn these bad habits from teachers claiming to be acting in the best interests of science.
Friday, November 25, 2011
THE CHRISTIAN CLERGY LETTER
With over 12,000 signatures the Christian clergy letter is the main letter in the Clergy Letter Project, as well as being the first. This letter deserves particular attention. I have copied it from Wikipedia (Clergy Letter Project), adding numbers for easy identification of different sentences.
The Clergy Letter--from American Christian clergy--An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science (1) Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. (2) While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold in to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. (3) Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible--the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark--convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between the Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. (4) Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth, its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. (5) We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. (6) We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. (7) To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. (8) We believe that among God's good gifts are minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. (9) To argue that God's loving plan for salvation precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty for reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. (10) We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. (11) We ask that science remain science, and religion remain religion, two very different, but complimentary forms of truth.
Unlike the rabbi letter, which reads like a carefully crafted legal brief, the Christian clergy letter reads more like a sermon or a declaration of faith. It begins in (1) by acknowledging that there are areas of dispute and disagreement over the interpretation of scripture. No problem here, and we might notice that a similar point was made in the rabbi letter. The Christian clergy letter continues in (2) by claiming that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not read the Bible literally. There is no counterpoint to this claim in the rabbi letter--and I see a big problem here. I neither know nor care whether the claim is true--but I object strenuously to anything resembling a suggestion that the public schools don't need to show respect for the religious views of what is only a small religious minority in this country.
Sentence (3) refers to beloved stories of the Bible--the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark--conveying timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation. But the letter does not say what timeless truths are being conveyed. All three stories convey the message that God is a being that is higher than we are. The story of Adam and Eve conveys the message that we are not to pursue knowledge if that is against the Word of God. The story of Noah and the ark conveys the message that, like Noah building the ark, we are to follow the Word of God even if doing so goes against all reason. We do not have to acknowledge that these stories convey timeless truths, but if we wish to do so, like over 12,000 American clergy who support evolution, let us at least be honest about what those truths are.
In (5) the letter affirms the belief that the timeless truths of the Bible may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. But it is simply unreasonably to expect that the coexistence will always be a comfortable one. And if we wish to talk about coexistence, we should be honest about what the timeless truths of the Bible are, as well as being honest about the discoveries of modern science.
In March 1860, seven different liberal Anglicans published a book called ESSAYS AND REVIEWS which sold more copies in two years than Darwin's book did in twenty. According to Wikipedia, one of the authors, Baden Powell, restated his claim that (i) God is a lawgiver, (ii) Miracles break the lawful edicts issued at the creation, and so (iii) A belief in miracles is atheistic. Baden liked Darwin's masterful book would bring about an entire revolution in opinion in favor of the self-evolving powers of nature. But Baden's argument that a belief in miracles was atheistic was pure sophistry. The belief may be wrong, but obviously a belief in a God who performs miracles is a belief in a God, and no belief in a God, no matter how erroneous it might be, is an atheistic belief. Such sophistry by supporters of evolution was there in the beginning, and it has continued to this day.
The more than 12,000 clergy who signed the Christian letter stated in (6) "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." They signed a statement of their belief regarding a scientific matter with no more scientific expertise than the clergy who oppose evolution; this is something the rabbis were very careful not to do. The clergy refer to evolution as a theory--but one of the major complaints against the teaching of evolution in the public schools is based upon it being taught not as a theory, but as a scientific fact. The clergy continue (7) "To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Here we see clergy attacking even the teaching of the balanced view of evolution and creation advocated by Clarence Darrow during the Scopes trial as ignorance and transmitting ignorance to children.
Up to this point while the Christian clergy have been harshly critical of a belief in literal creationism, the criticism has been of a secular nature. But in (8) and (9) see criticism that is blatantly religious. "(8) We believe that among God's good gifts are minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. (9) To argue that God's loving plan for salvation precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty for reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."
I think any reasonable person would have to acknowledge that what we see in Christianity today is not simply a willingness on the part of many churches to accept evolution, but what we are seeing is many churches and clergy that make evolution a part of their religious teachings--and view a belief in literal creationism as sinful. The Baptist Standard has an Internet article dated February 6, 2009 titled "Evolution Sunday says dichotomy between faith and science is false." It begins "While many Christians view evolution as a threat to religion, a growing number of churches view Darwin's 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his seminal work The Origin of Species as something to celebrate." I don't think Reform Jews would ever celebrate a Pork Sabbath to affirm their belief that it is no longer necessary to follow the strict kosher laws of the Orthodox Jews--but that seems very much like what many liberal Christian churches are doing with regard to evolution.
There are people who look at evolution as science, and not religion. Perhaps the rabbis who signed the rabbi letter would be included in this group. But it was not these people who fought the battle to have evolution taught in the public schools, and it is not these people who have determined just how evolution is taught in the public schools. There is an honesty on the part of real scientists that is woefully lacking on the part of most supporters of evolution. This is a matter which I plan to pursue in future posts.
The Clergy Letter--from American Christian clergy--An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science (1) Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. (2) While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold in to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. (3) Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible--the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark--convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between the Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. (4) Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth, its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. (5) We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. (6) We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. (7) To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. (8) We believe that among God's good gifts are minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. (9) To argue that God's loving plan for salvation precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty for reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. (10) We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. (11) We ask that science remain science, and religion remain religion, two very different, but complimentary forms of truth.
Unlike the rabbi letter, which reads like a carefully crafted legal brief, the Christian clergy letter reads more like a sermon or a declaration of faith. It begins in (1) by acknowledging that there are areas of dispute and disagreement over the interpretation of scripture. No problem here, and we might notice that a similar point was made in the rabbi letter. The Christian clergy letter continues in (2) by claiming that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not read the Bible literally. There is no counterpoint to this claim in the rabbi letter--and I see a big problem here. I neither know nor care whether the claim is true--but I object strenuously to anything resembling a suggestion that the public schools don't need to show respect for the religious views of what is only a small religious minority in this country.
Sentence (3) refers to beloved stories of the Bible--the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark--conveying timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation. But the letter does not say what timeless truths are being conveyed. All three stories convey the message that God is a being that is higher than we are. The story of Adam and Eve conveys the message that we are not to pursue knowledge if that is against the Word of God. The story of Noah and the ark conveys the message that, like Noah building the ark, we are to follow the Word of God even if doing so goes against all reason. We do not have to acknowledge that these stories convey timeless truths, but if we wish to do so, like over 12,000 American clergy who support evolution, let us at least be honest about what those truths are.
In (5) the letter affirms the belief that the timeless truths of the Bible may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. But it is simply unreasonably to expect that the coexistence will always be a comfortable one. And if we wish to talk about coexistence, we should be honest about what the timeless truths of the Bible are, as well as being honest about the discoveries of modern science.
In March 1860, seven different liberal Anglicans published a book called ESSAYS AND REVIEWS which sold more copies in two years than Darwin's book did in twenty. According to Wikipedia, one of the authors, Baden Powell, restated his claim that (i) God is a lawgiver, (ii) Miracles break the lawful edicts issued at the creation, and so (iii) A belief in miracles is atheistic. Baden liked Darwin's masterful book would bring about an entire revolution in opinion in favor of the self-evolving powers of nature. But Baden's argument that a belief in miracles was atheistic was pure sophistry. The belief may be wrong, but obviously a belief in a God who performs miracles is a belief in a God, and no belief in a God, no matter how erroneous it might be, is an atheistic belief. Such sophistry by supporters of evolution was there in the beginning, and it has continued to this day.
The more than 12,000 clergy who signed the Christian letter stated in (6) "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." They signed a statement of their belief regarding a scientific matter with no more scientific expertise than the clergy who oppose evolution; this is something the rabbis were very careful not to do. The clergy refer to evolution as a theory--but one of the major complaints against the teaching of evolution in the public schools is based upon it being taught not as a theory, but as a scientific fact. The clergy continue (7) "To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Here we see clergy attacking even the teaching of the balanced view of evolution and creation advocated by Clarence Darrow during the Scopes trial as ignorance and transmitting ignorance to children.
Up to this point while the Christian clergy have been harshly critical of a belief in literal creationism, the criticism has been of a secular nature. But in (8) and (9) see criticism that is blatantly religious. "(8) We believe that among God's good gifts are minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. (9) To argue that God's loving plan for salvation precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty for reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."
I think any reasonable person would have to acknowledge that what we see in Christianity today is not simply a willingness on the part of many churches to accept evolution, but what we are seeing is many churches and clergy that make evolution a part of their religious teachings--and view a belief in literal creationism as sinful. The Baptist Standard has an Internet article dated February 6, 2009 titled "Evolution Sunday says dichotomy between faith and science is false." It begins "While many Christians view evolution as a threat to religion, a growing number of churches view Darwin's 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his seminal work The Origin of Species as something to celebrate." I don't think Reform Jews would ever celebrate a Pork Sabbath to affirm their belief that it is no longer necessary to follow the strict kosher laws of the Orthodox Jews--but that seems very much like what many liberal Christian churches are doing with regard to evolution.
Next the Christian clergy say "(10) We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of evolution as a core component of human knowledge." If over 12,000 Christian clergy are going to join together to tell school boards in this country what to teach as part of the science curriculum, I think we have a responsibility as a nation committed to religious freedom not to do what they are telling us to do. What these clergy are asking is very different from what the opponents of evolution are asking. The opponents are asking that something they find offensive not be taught, or be taught in a way that shows a greater degree of multicultural sensitivity. What the 12,000 Christian clergy are saying is that believing in anything but evolution or even questioning whether evolution is true is sinful--and they are asking is that our public schools teach what has clearly become a religious belief for many Christians as the only way in science classrooms throughout our nation.
The clergy conclude by saying "(11) We ask that science remain science, and religion remain religion, two very different, but complimentary forms of truth." That is what these clergy say, but their actions only serve to blur the distinction between science and religion--or at least that would be true if we were to believe that evolution was ever more of a science than a religion. Whatever else the dispute between evolution and creation may be, it is clear that is also an internal dispute withing Christianity. The American public schools have an absolute responsibility not to take sides in this dispute.
There are people who look at evolution as science, and not religion. Perhaps the rabbis who signed the rabbi letter would be included in this group. But it was not these people who fought the battle to have evolution taught in the public schools, and it is not these people who have determined just how evolution is taught in the public schools. There is an honesty on the part of real scientists that is woefully lacking on the part of most supporters of evolution. This is a matter which I plan to pursue in future posts.
Monday, November 21, 2011
EVOLUTION SUNDAY AND THE CLERGY LETTER PROJECT
Every year for the past few years, numerous churches celebrate Evolution Sunday on the Sunday closest to Darwin's birthday. As far as I know there is no Gravitation Sunday on the Sunday closest to Newton's birthday or Relativity Sunday on the Sunday closest to Einstein's birthday. If we are to believe that evolutionary biology is just like any other field of science, why is there an Evolution Sunday when no other field of science is so honored by these churches?
To answer my own question, people who opposed evolution on religious grounds pushed, and people who supported evolution pushed back. More specifically, people who oppose the teaching of evolution in the American public schools pushed, and people who want the public schools to teach evolution and only evolution as an explanation for our origin pushed back. Evolution Sunday is an outgrowth of the Clergy Letter Project organized by biologist Michael Zimmerman in response to a local school board which had passed some anti-evolution policies, and after he heard Christian fundamentalist television clergy insisting that decisions about teaching evolution in schools was equivalent to a choice between heaven and hell. At first the letter was limited to Christian clergy. According to Wikipedia, Zimmerman stated that "Since it is fundamentalist Christian ministers who have been shouting to the American people that they must choose between science and religion, it seems reasonable to have thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy assert otherwise. It simply wouldn't be very persuasive to have the leaders of other religions saying to Christians that Christian fundamentalist ministers are not speaking for all Christians...the Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Sunday are not designed to change the minds of fundamentalists. Rather, our goal is to educated the vast majority of Christians who, if told they have to choose between religion and modern science, are likely to opt for religion." It is interesting to note that didn't seem to have any personal problem with leaders of other religions expressing a view about who should be allowed to speak for all Christians, but only refrained from including non-Christians in the Project for tactical reasons. Obviously, he changed his mind later, adding a Jewish rabbi letter, and a Unitarian Universalist clergy letter. A rabbi letter makes some sense since there appear to be increasing numbers of Jews who are outspoken against Evolution as the Only Way. But I can only see the Unitarian Universalist letter as giving Unitarian and Universalist clergy the opportunity to preach at faith communities other than their own. I really don't think there are a lot of Unitarians or Universalists who need to be convinced to come on board in support of evolution.
All three letters can be found in the Wikipedia article "Clergy Letter Project". The rabbi letter is quite different from the other two. "The Clergy Letter--an open letter from American rabbis--An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science As rabbis from various branches of Judaism, we the undersigned, urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the teaching of evolution to be in conflict with their personal beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach of the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective homes, religious institutions, and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular perspective in an environment that is supposed to be free from such indoctrination. The Bible is the primary source of spirtual inspiration and of values for us and for many others, though not everyone, in our society. It is, however, open to interpretation with some taking the creation account and other content literally and some preferring a figurative understanding. It is possible to be inspired by the religious teachings of the Bible while not taking a literalist approach and while accepting the validity of science including the foundational concept of evolution. It is not the role of the public schools to indoctrinate students with specific religious beliefs but rather to educate them in the established principles of science and in other subjects of general knowledge."
Strictly speaking, the rabbis as school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. In context, however, I believe their concern is not that evolution be taught, but that creationism not be taught. I think indoctrination is a rather strong term to refer to teaching creation as only one possible explanation for our origin. But I can go along with the idea that even mentioning creation as a possible explanation for our origin is unacceptable in the public schools, as long as we take the same position with respect to even mentioning evolution as a possible explanation of our origins. The rabbi letter says that teaching creation is religious indoctrination which would violate the separation of church and state if done in the public schools. Beyond the issue of what is done in the public schools, the rabbi letter simply seems to be saying that it is legitimate for people to interpret the scriptures literally or not. No criticism is directed at anyone based upon whether they interpret the scriptures literally or not. I am quite sure that if I wanted to become a Jew and wished to join one of the rabbis' congregations, that the rabbi would not tell me what I had to believe with regard to evolution or creation but leave the matter up to me. I am also sure I could also be a member of the congregation without feeling I was under attack based upon my personal views regarding evolution or creation. Which suggests a question. Could a person be a member of one of the Christian or Unitarian/Universalist congregations and not feel under attack regardless of the person's views on evolution or creation? I think not. I think a person who believed in literal creationism would be made to feel just as uncomfortable in one of these congregations as a person who believes in evolution would be made to feel in many fundamentalist congregations.
According to the rabbi letter, "Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools." This is an acknowledgement that the Christian clergy letter does not make. But there is still a problem. As we might express it in the language of the Bible, a lot depends upon whose ox is being gored. As long as people are required to support public education with their tax money, whether they like it or not, nobody should be expected to put up with anything that would be too offensive on religious grounds. For these rabbis, this almost certainly means not teaching Christianity in the public schools. For fundamentalist Christians this means not challenging the truth of the Bible in the public schools. These rabbis do not appear threatened by the teaching of evolution in the schools, but object to anything resembling the teaching of creation in the schools, presumably because of a concern that it would open the door to things down the road that would truly be offensive to them. Fundamentalist Christians object to the teaching of evolution because they see it as challenging the truth of the Bible. Obviously the major concerns of both these rabbis and fundamentalist Christians could be answered by simply not teaching anything about our origins in the public schools. People who want evolution taught to their children could do so in their homes, religious institutions, or in private rather public schools. But that even handed approach which would treat everybody in an equal fashion is not good enough for those who insist that the public schools teach evolution and only evolution as the explanation for our origin.
My wife is Jewish. She told me that when she was in the public school as a student, there was a teacher who didn't like Jews and purposely scheduled tests for Jewish holidays when Jewish students would be absent, and then did not allow make up tests for them. If that was legal then, it certainly would not be legal now--even if the tests were not purposely scheduled to fall on Jewish holidays. If we want to know what accommodations would or would not be reasonable for Christian fundamentalist students in the public schools, we might well start by asking what accommodations are and are not made for Jewish students. One accommodation that is made involves religious holidays--these are considered excused absences, with a guaranteed right to make up missed graded work. Another accommodation involves diet, with a much greater effort to satisfy religious dietary requirements than would be made for mere secular dietary preferences. On the other hand, the official Jewish Sabbath begins Friday at sunset. Numerous schools activities such as football games are scheduled for Friday night during the official Jewish Sabbath.
To answer my own question, people who opposed evolution on religious grounds pushed, and people who supported evolution pushed back. More specifically, people who oppose the teaching of evolution in the American public schools pushed, and people who want the public schools to teach evolution and only evolution as an explanation for our origin pushed back. Evolution Sunday is an outgrowth of the Clergy Letter Project organized by biologist Michael Zimmerman in response to a local school board which had passed some anti-evolution policies, and after he heard Christian fundamentalist television clergy insisting that decisions about teaching evolution in schools was equivalent to a choice between heaven and hell. At first the letter was limited to Christian clergy. According to Wikipedia, Zimmerman stated that "Since it is fundamentalist Christian ministers who have been shouting to the American people that they must choose between science and religion, it seems reasonable to have thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy assert otherwise. It simply wouldn't be very persuasive to have the leaders of other religions saying to Christians that Christian fundamentalist ministers are not speaking for all Christians...the Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Sunday are not designed to change the minds of fundamentalists. Rather, our goal is to educated the vast majority of Christians who, if told they have to choose between religion and modern science, are likely to opt for religion." It is interesting to note that didn't seem to have any personal problem with leaders of other religions expressing a view about who should be allowed to speak for all Christians, but only refrained from including non-Christians in the Project for tactical reasons. Obviously, he changed his mind later, adding a Jewish rabbi letter, and a Unitarian Universalist clergy letter. A rabbi letter makes some sense since there appear to be increasing numbers of Jews who are outspoken against Evolution as the Only Way. But I can only see the Unitarian Universalist letter as giving Unitarian and Universalist clergy the opportunity to preach at faith communities other than their own. I really don't think there are a lot of Unitarians or Universalists who need to be convinced to come on board in support of evolution.
All three letters can be found in the Wikipedia article "Clergy Letter Project". The rabbi letter is quite different from the other two. "The Clergy Letter--an open letter from American rabbis--An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science As rabbis from various branches of Judaism, we the undersigned, urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the teaching of evolution to be in conflict with their personal beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach of the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective homes, religious institutions, and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular perspective in an environment that is supposed to be free from such indoctrination. The Bible is the primary source of spirtual inspiration and of values for us and for many others, though not everyone, in our society. It is, however, open to interpretation with some taking the creation account and other content literally and some preferring a figurative understanding. It is possible to be inspired by the religious teachings of the Bible while not taking a literalist approach and while accepting the validity of science including the foundational concept of evolution. It is not the role of the public schools to indoctrinate students with specific religious beliefs but rather to educate them in the established principles of science and in other subjects of general knowledge."
Strictly speaking, the rabbis as school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. In context, however, I believe their concern is not that evolution be taught, but that creationism not be taught. I think indoctrination is a rather strong term to refer to teaching creation as only one possible explanation for our origin. But I can go along with the idea that even mentioning creation as a possible explanation for our origin is unacceptable in the public schools, as long as we take the same position with respect to even mentioning evolution as a possible explanation of our origins. The rabbi letter says that teaching creation is religious indoctrination which would violate the separation of church and state if done in the public schools. Beyond the issue of what is done in the public schools, the rabbi letter simply seems to be saying that it is legitimate for people to interpret the scriptures literally or not. No criticism is directed at anyone based upon whether they interpret the scriptures literally or not. I am quite sure that if I wanted to become a Jew and wished to join one of the rabbis' congregations, that the rabbi would not tell me what I had to believe with regard to evolution or creation but leave the matter up to me. I am also sure I could also be a member of the congregation without feeling I was under attack based upon my personal views regarding evolution or creation. Which suggests a question. Could a person be a member of one of the Christian or Unitarian/Universalist congregations and not feel under attack regardless of the person's views on evolution or creation? I think not. I think a person who believed in literal creationism would be made to feel just as uncomfortable in one of these congregations as a person who believes in evolution would be made to feel in many fundamentalist congregations.
According to the rabbi letter, "Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools." This is an acknowledgement that the Christian clergy letter does not make. But there is still a problem. As we might express it in the language of the Bible, a lot depends upon whose ox is being gored. As long as people are required to support public education with their tax money, whether they like it or not, nobody should be expected to put up with anything that would be too offensive on religious grounds. For these rabbis, this almost certainly means not teaching Christianity in the public schools. For fundamentalist Christians this means not challenging the truth of the Bible in the public schools. These rabbis do not appear threatened by the teaching of evolution in the schools, but object to anything resembling the teaching of creation in the schools, presumably because of a concern that it would open the door to things down the road that would truly be offensive to them. Fundamentalist Christians object to the teaching of evolution because they see it as challenging the truth of the Bible. Obviously the major concerns of both these rabbis and fundamentalist Christians could be answered by simply not teaching anything about our origins in the public schools. People who want evolution taught to their children could do so in their homes, religious institutions, or in private rather public schools. But that even handed approach which would treat everybody in an equal fashion is not good enough for those who insist that the public schools teach evolution and only evolution as the explanation for our origin.
My wife is Jewish. She told me that when she was in the public school as a student, there was a teacher who didn't like Jews and purposely scheduled tests for Jewish holidays when Jewish students would be absent, and then did not allow make up tests for them. If that was legal then, it certainly would not be legal now--even if the tests were not purposely scheduled to fall on Jewish holidays. If we want to know what accommodations would or would not be reasonable for Christian fundamentalist students in the public schools, we might well start by asking what accommodations are and are not made for Jewish students. One accommodation that is made involves religious holidays--these are considered excused absences, with a guaranteed right to make up missed graded work. Another accommodation involves diet, with a much greater effort to satisfy religious dietary requirements than would be made for mere secular dietary preferences. On the other hand, the official Jewish Sabbath begins Friday at sunset. Numerous schools activities such as football games are scheduled for Friday night during the official Jewish Sabbath.
So we see that Orthodox Jewish students who choose to attend the public schools would be guaranteed the right to a basic education that would not be in conflict with their religion--but that a lot of the extras that are available to other students would not be available to a student who kept the traditional Jewish Sabbath. At least this would be true if these students were not bothered by the teaching of evolution. Christian and Jewish students who see evolution as being in conflict with their religious beliefs are treated rather like my wife was by the teacher who hated Jewish students. Evolution is taught in your face with supporters of evolution objecting to even the slightest multicultural accommodation being made for students who find evolution to be in violation of their religious beliefs. This level of bigotry towards people who believe in the literal truth of the Jewish scriptures is not found in the rabbi letter. But as far as the Christian clergy letter is concerned....I think this post is long enough already, so that is a matter that I will leave for my next post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)