Evolution, Biologos, and the Classroom

[John_Harshman]

@AllenWitmerMiller

There are so few of such people

n = 0?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@John_Harshman

n = 0?

Good question! (I don’t think I’ve ever met such a person.)

[John_Harshman]

@Patrick

It just popped up like all the rest. They are really easy to find.

???

Let me start over: Is the FFRF officially involved in trying to get Van Dordrecht ordered not to post on Biologos?

[Patrick]

@John_Harshman

Let me start over: Is the FFRF officially involved in trying to get Van Dordrecht ordered not to post on Biologos?

I made a second complaint to the FFRF legal intake system about Ms. Van Dordrecht’s publications on the Biologos website. I asked them to investigate this and, if appropriate, to write a letter to the California Department of Education to make a formal complaint. It will be up to the California Department of Education to take the appropriate action. Recall that after the first publication, it was decided to give her a pass as she may have been unaware of the Constitutional ramifications. This time no such courtesy will be given.

[John_Harshman]

Did I come in late? What was the first publication? What did the FFRF do at that time? Do you actually know that the FFRF will take action on the current case?

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Patrick

Ms. Van Dordrecht is an employee of the California’s Office of Education. She is required by law to be secular in her work on science education curriculum. That means being neutral on religion/faith. Her actions of writing articles for a creationist website- Biologos is problematic. It is not neutral. She is telling students that science and Christian faith is compatible. She is breaking the law by doing this. She should be silent on matters of science and faith while being an employee who is in a position of influencing science curriculum.

Hmmm…

I am employee of a large state university, and I teach students who may someday end up at the teaching primary and secondary levels. Conceivably, I am shaping future science curricula in so doing.

I also contribute a website that is unabashedly Christian and decidedly not neutral when it comes to the matter of compatibility of science and Christian faith. Worse, I have not argued against the proposition that science and Christian faith are compatible.

Patrick, does this mean that you are going to go back and screen all of my posts here for more transgressions?

When FFRF notifies my employer of these transgressions, will they send me a copy of the letter? If not, could you ask them to send me one? For my souvenir bin?

I was so hoping that it would be Jay Sekulow who would contact me to complain about my interweb offerings about evolution and the like. I don’t know what to think that it may be FFRF who beats him to the punch, in a manner of speaking. Disappointed? Amused? Confused? Who knows …

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Note, do not interpret any of this as endorsing one argument or another. I’m just linking to the two prior conversations of relevance here. In particular, @Art thanks for contributing here.

@John_Harshman

Did I come in late? What was the first publication? What did the FFRF do at that time? Do you actually know that the FFRF will take action on the current case?

Ann Van Dordrecht was discussed once before. @Patrick might have been more clear in the rationale of his objection in the prior thread, maybe: Biologos: People To Ponder. Hopefully @Kathryn_Applegate will make an appearance here again.

@Art

I am employee of a large state university, and I teach students who may someday end up at the teaching primary and secondary levels. Conceivably, I am shaping future science curricula in so doing.

I think he makes a distinction between professors and government employees in charge of education curriculums. We had a long discussion about this a while back here: The Rules of the Game.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@swamidass

I think he makes a distinction between professors and government employees in charge of education curriculums. We had a long discussion about this a while back here: The Rules of the Game .

Actually, I don’t see this distinction in the linked discussion. I rather suspect that Patrick would be at least quite annoyed that a professor at a large state university who receives considerable federal funding will not counsel Christian students that science and their religion are incompatible, or, perhaps worse, train undergraduates who are comfortably YEC in their beliefs.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

Ann Van Dordrecht was discussed once before. @Patrick might have been more clear in the rationale of his objection in the prior thread, maybe: Biologos: People To Ponder

So far I see no indication that Van Dordrecht did anything actually objectionable or that the FFRF took any action at all. What did I miss?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Patrick

This is an employer/employee matter. She is middle level in County government. Her higher ups in California do not want to tangle with FFRF on a church/state separation issues. She will be told to stop publishing on a Christian Creationist website.

Would such an order be legal?

@Patrick

The Department of Education has that power over its employees.

Department at what level and how is this power codified?

@Patrick

She would be stupid not to cease posting to Biologos. She can try to make it a personal freedom of religion issue but she will certainly lose ala Kim Davis.

I don’t see any parallels. Did you read the article? She’s not trying to impose her religious beliefs on anyone.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

So far I see no indication that Van Dordrecht did anything actually objectionable or that the FFRF took any action at all. What did I miss?

I’m not sure you did miss anything. @patrick I think is often very sensitive to abuse of government power. It is possible his is right or that this is a false alarm. I do not see the problem he sees nor do I have the expertise to judge for sure.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

There are so few of such people that there is no standard term that I’ve ever heard about for referring to them.

Thomas Nagel comes to mind here. Also Steve Berlinski. I agree this is certainly a minority group as would Theists that believe in a completely natural origin of life. Since there are exceptions I think the idea that creation science is religion is false even though it is generally accepted as true.

It is certainly true that creation science is used to push a philosophical narrative yet evolution is used in the same way yet no one seems to claim that evolution is atheism disguised in a cheap tuxedo.

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

Thomas Nagel comes to mind here. Also Steve Berlinski.

Nagel isn’t a creationist. He isn’t even an IDer. Berlinski is a theist, but he isn’t a creationist or even, apparently, an IDer. Both of them doubt “Darwinism”, but that’s purely a negative belief, and they place nothing positive in its place. Sorry, still zero.

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

no one seems to claim that evolution is atheism disguised in a cheap tuxedo.

Actually, quite a few creationists make that claim.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@colewd

Thomas Nagel comes to mind here.

Thomas Nagel is an atheist. A creationist believes that divine action(s) produced the universe. How can an atheist affirm a world created by God/god/gods? Thomas Nagel espouses no such view.

@colewd

I think the idea that creation science is religion is false even though it is generally accepted as true.

I’m baffled by that statement, especially in the light of my past involvement in the creation science movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Creation science is as religious as it gets. The fact that a few agnostics (and perhaps even a few atheists) have been intrigued by it in their efforts to deny evolutionary processes or science in general doesn’t change that fact.

@colewd

…no one seems to claim that evolution is atheism disguised in a cheap tuxedo.

For years I’ve heard Christian friends and colleagues complain that “evolution is just atheism disguised so as to sneak godlessness into the classroom.” Whether or not they refer to that specific sartorial preference (a tuxedo) strikes me as beside the point.

[Patrick]

@Art

Actually, I don’t see this distinction in the linked discussion. I rather suspect that Patrick would be at least quite annoyed that a professor at a large state university who receives considerable federal funding will not counsel Christian students that science and their religion are incompatible, or, perhaps worse, train undergraduates who are comfortably YEC in their beliefs.

@Art The rules are quite different at the university level compared with the elementary and high school levels.
You are teaching adults whereas in the public school system, the students are children. The law is very clear at the public school level - no teaching of creationism . Regarding FFRF coming after you, I doubt it. There are no church/state separation issues with Behe at LeHigh, Marks at Baylor, and Swamidass at UWSTL. All have Free Speech Rights to write or say anything they’d like. However, if you are really concerned about this I would ask the appropriate person who handles the federal grants as there is a lot of language in federal grants about religious neutrality.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

Thomas Nagel is an atheist. A creationist believes that divine action(s) produced the universe. How can an atheist affirm a world created by God/god/gods? Thomas Nagel espouses no such view.

I agree that you and John are right on this point. Whats interesting about Nagel is he is atheist yet skeptical of materialist philosophy. Berlinski claimed to be agnostic.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Patrick

However, if you are really concerned about this I would ask the appropriate person who handles the federal grants as there is a lot of language in federal grants about religious neutrality.

As a recipient of federal grants, this is news to me. Can you point me to such language?

The University of Notre Dame certainly isn’t religiously neutral. Are its faculty ineligible for federal grants?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@colewd

Whats interesting about Nagel is he is atheist yet skeptical of materialist philosophy.

That is indeed interesting and noteworthy, Bill. I’ve been surprised at how many of my atheist friends and colleagues—including a well-known atheist paleontologist—reject strictly materialist philosophy. As one such colleague told me, “I don’t assume that there is a God or gods but I do think that there is more to reality than just the material world.” Go figure.

[Patrick]

@Mercer

As a recipient of federal grants, this is news to me. Can you point me to such language?

It is in there, buried and pointed to thousands of different laws and guidelines.

@Mercer

The University of Notre Dame certainly isn’t religiously neutral. Are its faculty ineligible for federal grants?

No, ND faculty are eligible for federal grants just like faculty at secular universities.