We agree on this much. But, there’s more to this picture, IMO. See below please for elaboration.
1 Like
Correct. The board was largely or entirely (I don’t recall which) replaced in the next election–when one of my own students was actually running. The new board, resentful of the big financial hole the trial had created and the animosity the issue had fomented among citizens in the district, simply did not appeal the verdict. Thus, the case died.
2 Likes
My own analysis of the verdict, as given in my article (linked above), suggests that a potentially constitutional activity (in light of Judge Jones’ ruling) would involve discussing aspects of ID that raise questions about the “nature of science,” not teaching ID as an alternative to evolution. The latter is what the decision prohibits. If you read my article, you will see that I have never believed ID actually to be an alternative to evolution. Yes, the defense team believed that; yes, at that time many ID proponents believed that is what ID was/is. But, I have never believed that.
What I do believe, is that one can easily find refereed scholarly literature in which the claims of ID are advanced and debated. (This is a stark contrast to the scientific literature, in which almost no articles can be found advancing ID.) That literature is in fields related to philosophy of science (including philosophy of biology), rhetoric, and a few other fields less directly pertinent to science education. IMO, some of the questions and ideas addressed in this literature bear on the “nature of science,” a general topic that many states require science classes to address–however those states typically do precious little to spell out specifically what teaching “nature of science” actually entails. IMO, a public school science teacher might decide to acquaint students with that conversation, in order to show them that philosophical aspects of science are subject to legitimate debate. No one should understand me to say that anyone should mandate anything of this sort; I simply believe that a teacher who saw genuine merit in discussing how science works, and how some of its philosophical boundaries aren’t fixed and determined for all time, might introduce students to aspects of the debate in that refereed literature.
Whether or not anyone agrees with me on this, please don’t miss the distinction I drew at the start of this comment. If you miss that, then you don’t understand me at all!
3 Likes
The case didn’t die. It became legal precedence and lives on legally. Anytime any school board or school administration does anything remotely close to bringing creationism into public schools, the Dover case will be brought out. Ask Ken Ham, FFRF just sent 1000s of letter to schools warning them not to go to the Ark. They cited Dover.
1 Like
@TedDavis The nature of science is not on trial here. The Constitution is quite clear on the separation of church and state. TE, ID, OEC, and YEC is based on religion. Therefore TE nor ID is 1) not science and 2) not allowed in public school science education.
Please give me the name of any public school teacher who attempts this and I will forward to FFRF for a complaint letter to be sent the teacher’s Superintendent of Schools.
My final point of clarification (thus far) is to tell you a story–a true story.
Not long after the Dover trial and the publication of my article about it, I was invited to present a talk based on my article here: About | The Seattle Forum on Science Ethics and Policy
They told me that they wanted a speaker who could analyze this issues with some detachment, and that they were having a hard time finding such. I imagine that was the full truth, especially considering that they are based in Seattle, the backyard of Discovery. (And yes, I told DI that I was coming to talk about this, invited them to send people to hear me, and they didn’t follow through.)
Anyway, it was a large audience (ca. 200) in an old lecture hall. By show of hands in response to my questions in the Q&A, roughly half identified themselves as biology faculty or students or post-docs. (Quite a few of the others were from the philosophy department, including world famous philosopher of science Arthur Fine, who congratulated me afterward for giving “a great talk.” I had never met him, but I did notice an older gentleman on my left who kept smiling during my talk. I sensed that either he liked what I was saying a lot, or else was just having moments of levity about how bad my ideas were.)
Seeing how many biologists were present, I asked them to keep their hands raised if they had read part or all of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Most of the hands stayed up. Then I posed to them another question: would it be acceptable for a public school biology teacher, perhaps in an honors or AP section, to require students to read a few chapters of that book, including the conclusion? Many hands stayed up. If so, I said, then it would be educational malpractice not to discuss matters related to “design”, since Darwin himself often compared his hypothesis to special creation, not only in the conclusion but especially there. The audience seemed somewhat taken back and not fully persuaded, but I think the point hit home.
My ideas on this are closely tied to my view that the history and philosophy of science ought to be more strongly represented in science curricula, in order to give students a better understanding of science than they would otherwise receive. Yes, instructional time is a zero-sum game; some traditional science topics would have to come out, to implement this–and that discussion need not have any bearing on the ID issue. Nevertheless, that is what I did myself as a private school science teacher long ago, and what I did at Messiah College when I taught elementary physics 30 years ago. If one agrees with this view of science education, then one can see how I might make that suggestion about assigning Darwin’s magnum opus.
Thus, in my view, to teach biology most effectively, one ought not to be prohibited from teaching Darwin’s own book. In turn, one ought not to be prohibited from discussing matters related to creationism or ID–since Darwin himself repeatedly raises those issues in that book. This is quite different from the activity prohibited by Judge Jones, but I doubt many school districts will sign up for it. Too bad for them.
3 Likes
This is called intimidation, Patrick, not education. I gather you would not permit public school teachers to assign the Origin of Species? See above.
1 Like
@TedDavis In most states the science curriculum is very tight and specific. I think that an AP Biology teacher would subject him/herself to big problems straying to far from the state approved AP Biology curriculum. In my school district in New Jersey, parents would be enraged if anything was taught that don’t optimize the likelihood of getting their child a 5 on the AP Test and thus college credits.
It is a WARNING. We are the watchdogs and have deep pockets and will not sit idly by while some TE, ID, YEC, or OEC believer attempts to violate the US Constitution by pushing religion on our children.
Sure, if it is recommended by the State approved curriculum, which I am sure it is cited as a reference. But discussion of Darwin’s religious views would clearly be not allowed in a public school.
I don’t doubt this at all, Patrick, not at all. IMO, this is just an indicator of the great difficulty faced by educators who admire highly creative, well designed alternative science curricula that make significant use of history and philosophy of science in science teaching. Here’s an example: Harvard Project Physics - Wikipedia
International organizations exist to advance such efforts, including the journal Science & Education: Science & Education | Home
Here’s the slides from a talk given at (I think) Boston University a few years ago by Michael Matthews, then (I think) editor of that journal: https://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2013/12/BU-HPS-1.2-M-Matthews.pdf
Whether or not this type of innovation would fly in NJ, you can see some of its aims and attitudes from these links.
That’s the context in which my views on teaching evolution must be understood.
3 Likes
I think you’re wrong here, Patrick. Any more than it would be impermissible to discuss the religious views of Mahatma Gandhi, George Washington, Susan B Anthony, or Martin Luther.
@TedDavis How about we have the Vice President come and teach Biology at the local High School?
No Martin Luther isn’t talked about in public schools. Martin Luther King is. And schools are closed on his birthday.
I have no comment on Pence. Do you have a comment on this, from a Jewish organization?
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/tools-and-strategies/religion-in-public-schools/curriculum
Please note the distinctions in this carefully written piece. I’m making similar distinctions in my statements about “discussing aspects of ID” vs “teaching ID as an alternative to evolution.” If anyone fails to see this, then either I have not yet stated my position with sufficient clarity, or the reader is not open to the validity of this distinction.
1 Like
Yes, We are suing them. In Lakewood NJ. For attempting to insert Judaism into the public schools.
No I don’t see the distinction. Your motives make suspect that you are just making another end around attempt to inserting your particular brand of creationism TE (religion) into secular education.
@Patrick you are misunderstanding @TedDavis and his motives here. Trust me on this one. Let it go, and do some background reading on Ted. You’ll see you are misfiring here.
1 Like
I like @TedDavis He is a great guy. I always enjoy talking with him. When I was allowed to post at Biologos, he and I had great discussions. I really like his work on the history of science. He is a real historian. Glad he is here at PS. His front row seat at the Dover trial is very factual and informative.
2 Likes