The Evolution of Bias
In college, I went to hear a speaker who was making the argument that the theory of evolution had become a religion. Its proponents, he explained, attempted to shout down all dissent crying scientific heresy. The speaker never alluded to creation, God or even Pat Robertson. Yet when he finished he was forced to suffer angry question after angry question asking why he wanted to establish a theocracy. It was clear that none of the inquisitors had even heard the talk and were only there to head off a possible threat to their what...their faith?
These are interesting times, the Men of Science say they dethroned the oracles so that we all could be freed from the tyranny of religious ideas. Now it's clear it was really just a game of King of the Hill, and the Men of Science have found those thrones to be just as pleasurable as the oracles did...and just as corrupting.
If you never realized that evolution may be wrong, then the New Millennium Oracles have done their work well. The theory of evolution is just that; a theory. There is much of value in it, as well as many holes and shortcomings. Just what you would expect from one possible description of how life came to be. The leadership of the people of Georgia want to underline the fact that this is a theory. Feel free to question their motives. Feel free to assume their biases as you pay heed to your own. But please do read the words of the sticker they want to add to their scientific text books: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. " Every word is either true or good advice for anyone interested in science.
How a statement of fact, coupled with an appeal to intellectual prudence, can be seen as an unconstitutional promotion of religion by the state is quite curious. But one man, who happens to be a judge, has determined the following: advising people against putting too much faith in a possible truth is not acceptable. It is not acceptable because that would promote religion. In other words, discouraging faith is advocacy of faith.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. George Orwell is somewhere grinning.
Posts
6 comments:
"This textbook contains material on ancient Roman history. Ancient history is based on artifacts that have survived the centuries, and is not a complete record of the past. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
I completely agree that the necessity of this sticker is debatable and the idea could be taken to quite silly extremes. But the point remains that neither the original sticker, nor any derivative could reasonably be seen as promoting a particular religion. I could not argue against your faux warning by claiming that it unconstitutionally promotes anything. I could merely say that it seems unecessary. The ruling by the judge in this case seems unsupportable.
It's the basis upon which each sticker is unnecessary that makes the judge's point.
Mine is unneccessary despite the popular misunderstanding that history—ancient or otherwise—is simply all the facts of the past, neat and complete, no new research, analysis, or conclusions necessary. Here’s perhaps a more-likely “fer example”:
"This textbook contains material on U.S. history through 1865. History is based on the objects and documents people since then have created and preserved. It is not a complete record of the past. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Minorities, "heritage-not-hate"rs, feminists: Each could have "special interests" in such a sticker, but none of these interests would be based upon religion—or, to get right down to it, creationism.
Cobb County’s sticker not only was, as you imply, unneccessary, it was, as you also allow, fundamentally biased and motivated by creationist faith—a faith to which the 2,300 people who signed the petition that led to the county’s sticker are of course entitled, but not at the cost of public science instruction uninfluenced by faith-based caveats.
The sticker, in fact, was a successor to decades of Cobb County’s kowtowing to creationists:
“Since 1979, the Cobb County School District had maintained a policy acknowledging that evolution conflicted with some students' family teachings, and, accordingly, did not require any study of the origin of human species for students to graduate from high school. Teachers were asked not to discuss human evolution, and it was common practice in some science classes to remove pages dealing with evolution from textbooks.”
This alone shelves all the obligatory “activist” outcries following Thursday’s decision squarely in the Pot Calling Kettle Black Dept. There’s more here http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364110405 , including the precedent upon which the judge based his decision:
“He cited the so-called Lemon test, based on a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause if it does not have a secular purpose, advances or inhibits religion, or ‘creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion.’
Persuaded that the Cobb [school] board wanted to promote critical thinking among students and not offend parents who do not believe in evolution, Cooper held that the stickers passed the first part of the Lemon test -- that they had a secular purpose.
But the history behind the stickers doomed their chances on the Lemon test's ‘effect’ and ‘entanglement’ prongs.”
I, as I’m sure you’d expect, would go the judge one further and call the sticker what it is—disingenuous—but all in all, it’s enough to know two prongs can make a right.
To clarify my point: I did not say that the stickers were unnecessary, but that that was debatable and that a debate is all this issue warrants; not judicial action. To decide necessity I would have to know more about the presentation of the material in the text books. Having some experience with teaching science I know that the material can be slanted with a faith-based evolutionary mindset that does a disservice to scientific inquiry. However, I would be vastly overstating my expertise if I were to assume that the Georgia text books did the same thing. So, I'm afraid I must play the moderate on the "necessity" angle and take no real position. Pat Bucanan, forgive me.
However, I must admit to being unconvinced that the Lemon test has been met. Point two says religion must be advanced or inhibited and point three requires "excessive" entanglement of church and state. I believe both these points stand or fall on the assertion that the religious beliefs of the promoters of the sticker are to be judged and not the sticker. The sticker, clearly, does not violate either point, but the unexpressed ideas in the supporter's heads may.
Striking initiatives down based on the opinions of their promoters should not be, and as far as I know is not, tolerated. I can open a government supported homeless shelter even though I'm doing it because I believe it is my Christian duty. I just can't promote any specific religion in the process if I want government money. The government does not judge my philosophical intent, as that would be folly, it can only monitor my actions and see to it that they are allowable.
This issue should be resolved in the marketplace of ideas through public discourse. There are no grounds for governmental interference. Americans should be free to accept or reject ideas as they see fit. Stainless steel Mike3000 said there is bias on the creationist side of this debate and I think that is a reasonable assumption, just as reasonable as assuming bias on the other side as well. On this issue there is very little objective fact, let the people decide what they want to believe.
Hey everyone, sorry I'm late to the big dance.
I've been watching this debate from afar, and thought I'd jump in and ruin the dynamic.
I agree with Mike3000 (or MC3K as he's known in the hood), and I also go to the site referenced for my justification. The "Lemon" test, with its clause "advances or inhibits religion, or ‘creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion" is in effect. Because I know of no other secular argument for the history of life than evolution, it sets up a zero sum game with creationist beliefs. If you harm one, you promote the other. This is where the precedence comes in. By putting a warning label on the front of a book specifically designed toward evolution, you are trying to advance the religious belief, thus you "advance" a religion, and "entangle" the government with religion. While most of the sticker isn't in itself anything new, we all learn what a theory is, what a law is, etc, the fact that this little reminder is targeted at one aspect of a book can only mean that its meant to affect the borders of the afore mentioned zero sum game. It's obvious, and the judge did what he's supposed to do in these cases. I have no idea who this judge is, but the great thing about "activist judges" is that one man's activist is another mans "constructionist." You can bet that had the judge ruled in favor of the sticker, there would be just as many accusations of "activist" judges hurled by the other side. Should the holes in evolution be taught? Absolutely, just as the flaws in other theories should be examined. But this targeted sticker has a clear religious origin.
The Constitution of the United States has a clear religious origin.
I accept the point that the judge did what he's supposed to do and understand that he also did what he's expected to do (though I don't believe its what he HAD to do). Which highlights the point I've been trying to make. There is an unfounded bias in our current jurisprudence against religion in matters of state. There is no freedom from religion clause in our Constitution, but over the past 40 years that has become a mainstream misunderstanding. This particular ruling is perfectly consistent with that mainstream - a stream that currently flows on the humanist side of the acceptable spectrum. My motivation for taking this ruling to task is to argue for our legal decisions to move back toward the historical center. A center that does not assume that questioning of one idea is the same as the promoting of another.
But why are we wasting our time on this...there's just two hours till Idol!
Post a Comment