My life before back room chatting seems but a dream--a previous incarnation lived eons ago. Thank you, Chatzy! Thank you for showing me the meaning of life.
(Somehow I deleted this post and had to redo it. Does anyone know how if it's possible to switch the order of the posts or change the dates on them?)
Friday, July 25, 2008
Slowing to Gawk at a Train Wreck
Intelligent Design in Science Classes? Really?
Note:
Since I believe in keeping religion out of curriculum with every ounce of my conscience, I encourage those who disagree with me with every ounce of theirs to forgive me my faulty premises, assumptions, and blatant propagandizing.
As I sit through the break during [unspecified class], I find myself compelled to post my thoughts regarding a conversation we had in class. By some digression, the conversation moved from how to deal with contentious issues within a large discussion, to the nature of “faith” (framed in Christian terms such as “church,” of course, rather than religiously neutral ones). Waking up in within the conversation I, like Dante, found myself in a wood so dark, I would descend into the darkest substrata of my subconscious (or hell) to avoid navigating it. Eventually, though, I reemerged and found I finally had a comment to contribute. I advocated for a distinction between religiously contentious issues and academically contentious ones in large discussions, concluding ultimately that it is not the province of public schools to provide a forum for religious discussion. Crudely paraphrased, [unspecified person] replied, “That’s true, unless of course, state and local legislation requires you to, such as intelligent design becoming part of science curriculum.” I wanted to say “what about for a teacher that opposes religion in public schools as zealously as some people argue for it and would consider a career change before helping to manifest such a vision of ‘education.’” Obviously, I didn’t. I knew this person wasn't advocating for it but merely suggesting that I remain cognizant of the possibility it could happen. Still though, I couldn't stifle my visceral reaction to that possibility, hence the spewing forth that is this posting.
To start, I will acknowledge my limitations when it comes to awareness of current events. I remember some nonsense within the past few years about interest groups advocating that intelligent design become part of science curriculum. If I recall correctly, the basis of their argument was that the theory of evolution attempted to account for the origin of the human species and that to be pluralistic and "balanced," intelligent design deserved a place beside it. Anybody feel free to correct me if I misrepresented their argument. All I remember was chuckling at the way this whole mess was satirized by depictions of intelligent spaghetti monsters and such. However, I never thought the ridiculousness could have made it any further than this. Has it?! Are some districts really teaching intelligent design?
Somebody please tell me “No, Ben. This isn’t happening,” because if it is happening, I’m done here folks. I will not work in a state that allows intelligent design to be a part of the curricula of its schools. I oppose this as zealously as many advocate for it. And, I’d like to be clear: I’m not basing my position (solely) on the idea of separation of church and state. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great idea but, for the purposes of this posting, I’ll take for granted the argument many critics of my position frequently make: that separation of church and state “language” doesn’t appear in the Constitution but in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists. Let’s also assume the veracity of the argument that the idea is not in any way mentioned or implied within the first amendment, bill of rights, or any other part of the constitution. I’ll try to limit my separation of church and state tirade to this: I’m still more inclined to listen T.J. when it comes to the philosophical foundations of a functioning democracy than Pat Robertson, or almost any one else, theologian or otherwise.
Even if separation of church and state is not stipulated by the Constitution, where in the text does it guarantee religion, specifically Christianity, unchallenged hegemony over all other societal institutions? Is nothing secular sacred? A public school is not a church nor should it ever be. A church is a church.
I’d like to be clear that I’m not arguing against creationism, intelligent design, or the rights of people to believe in them. It’s ludicrous, however, to argue under the guise of “intellectual pluralism” for the place of a religious idea in the curricula of any class, let alone a science class. Intelligent design is not scientifically founded, at least no more so than scientific findings are rooted in faith. Would any proponent of the "intelligent design in school argument" agree to have the theory of evolution taught as a faith-founded religious doctrine in their children’s Sunday school?
And whose creation story do we have to teach? Whose do our students have to learn? I’m not sure to what degree the concept of intelligent design is religiously unaffiliated, but are the people who argue for its inclusion in school curricula unaffiliated? How are they going to ensure a religiously pluralistic discussion of intelligent design, especially when there are religions that have little or nothing to say about creation? Do they even feel like they need to ensure this pluralism? The day my son or daughter has to write a paper on the “theory” of intelligent design is the day we relocate to Europe.
This tirade is becoming more and more self-indulgent and, since I’m not adding anything to the discourse on this topic, I’ll distill the remainder of what I wanted to say to this:
I WILL NOT TEACH IT!!!
Note:
Since I believe in keeping religion out of curriculum with every ounce of my conscience, I encourage those who disagree with me with every ounce of theirs to forgive me my faulty premises, assumptions, and blatant propagandizing.
As I sit through the break during [unspecified class], I find myself compelled to post my thoughts regarding a conversation we had in class. By some digression, the conversation moved from how to deal with contentious issues within a large discussion, to the nature of “faith” (framed in Christian terms such as “church,” of course, rather than religiously neutral ones). Waking up in within the conversation I, like Dante, found myself in a wood so dark, I would descend into the darkest substrata of my subconscious (or hell) to avoid navigating it. Eventually, though, I reemerged and found I finally had a comment to contribute. I advocated for a distinction between religiously contentious issues and academically contentious ones in large discussions, concluding ultimately that it is not the province of public schools to provide a forum for religious discussion. Crudely paraphrased, [unspecified person] replied, “That’s true, unless of course, state and local legislation requires you to, such as intelligent design becoming part of science curriculum.” I wanted to say “what about for a teacher that opposes religion in public schools as zealously as some people argue for it and would consider a career change before helping to manifest such a vision of ‘education.’” Obviously, I didn’t. I knew this person wasn't advocating for it but merely suggesting that I remain cognizant of the possibility it could happen. Still though, I couldn't stifle my visceral reaction to that possibility, hence the spewing forth that is this posting.
To start, I will acknowledge my limitations when it comes to awareness of current events. I remember some nonsense within the past few years about interest groups advocating that intelligent design become part of science curriculum. If I recall correctly, the basis of their argument was that the theory of evolution attempted to account for the origin of the human species and that to be pluralistic and "balanced," intelligent design deserved a place beside it. Anybody feel free to correct me if I misrepresented their argument. All I remember was chuckling at the way this whole mess was satirized by depictions of intelligent spaghetti monsters and such. However, I never thought the ridiculousness could have made it any further than this. Has it?! Are some districts really teaching intelligent design?
Somebody please tell me “No, Ben. This isn’t happening,” because if it is happening, I’m done here folks. I will not work in a state that allows intelligent design to be a part of the curricula of its schools. I oppose this as zealously as many advocate for it. And, I’d like to be clear: I’m not basing my position (solely) on the idea of separation of church and state. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great idea but, for the purposes of this posting, I’ll take for granted the argument many critics of my position frequently make: that separation of church and state “language” doesn’t appear in the Constitution but in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists. Let’s also assume the veracity of the argument that the idea is not in any way mentioned or implied within the first amendment, bill of rights, or any other part of the constitution. I’ll try to limit my separation of church and state tirade to this: I’m still more inclined to listen T.J. when it comes to the philosophical foundations of a functioning democracy than Pat Robertson, or almost any one else, theologian or otherwise.
Even if separation of church and state is not stipulated by the Constitution, where in the text does it guarantee religion, specifically Christianity, unchallenged hegemony over all other societal institutions? Is nothing secular sacred? A public school is not a church nor should it ever be. A church is a church.
I’d like to be clear that I’m not arguing against creationism, intelligent design, or the rights of people to believe in them. It’s ludicrous, however, to argue under the guise of “intellectual pluralism” for the place of a religious idea in the curricula of any class, let alone a science class. Intelligent design is not scientifically founded, at least no more so than scientific findings are rooted in faith. Would any proponent of the "intelligent design in school argument" agree to have the theory of evolution taught as a faith-founded religious doctrine in their children’s Sunday school?
And whose creation story do we have to teach? Whose do our students have to learn? I’m not sure to what degree the concept of intelligent design is religiously unaffiliated, but are the people who argue for its inclusion in school curricula unaffiliated? How are they going to ensure a religiously pluralistic discussion of intelligent design, especially when there are religions that have little or nothing to say about creation? Do they even feel like they need to ensure this pluralism? The day my son or daughter has to write a paper on the “theory” of intelligent design is the day we relocate to Europe.
This tirade is becoming more and more self-indulgent and, since I’m not adding anything to the discourse on this topic, I’ll distill the remainder of what I wanted to say to this:
I WILL NOT TEACH IT!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
