Trouble in California
by KrauzeNo sooner have the waves from Dover subsided, than a philosophy course is offered under the name "intelligent design". Frazier Mountain High School in California has offered the elective course "Philosophy of Design", which promises its students to allow them to "search, become aware of the differences, and gain a better understanding of world views on origins." However, it has since been revealed that the label of intelligent design was just a veneer over what was originally an explicitly young-earth creationist course. The revised syllabus has removed the YEC materials, but the course still suffers from some problems, not least because the designated teacher, Sharon Lemburg, is the Lady Falcon's soccer coach, only certified to teach Geography and Health.
Chris Mooney also picked up this, from an interview with Sam Alexander, a student taking the course:
SIMON [CNN Reporter]: Senior Sam Alexander would be devastated if the course went away.
What have you learned?
SAM ALEXANDER, STUDENT: I've learned that evolution has become, over the years, more and more — more and more people decide that it's not completely true and that there has to be another belief or another thing that replaces it.
SIMON: And what is that?
ALEXANDER: That is an intelligent designer.
SIMON: Meaning God?
ALEXANDER: Yes, God, the Christian God who created earth in 6 days.
However, this isn't quite as damning as it looks, as it isn't clear whether Alexander is relaying what he was taught in the course, or represent his own beliefs, acquired prior to the course.
All things considered, though, I think Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin made a wise decision when he went back on his previous support of the course and advised the school to cancel the course. Not because I'm worried about "a dangerous legal precedent", but because it will foster the fear, already prevalent in the scientific community, that intelligent design is a threat against science and democracy. This fear can then be used by those ID critics who want to harass academics interested in intelligent design.
PS. Rumors that Frazier Mountain High School has hired yours truly to teach the course remain unconfirmed.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
I'm not 100% certain, but I think this course was pulled anyway. There was a school board meeting last week about it.
Comment by DonaldM — January 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
January 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Hi Donald,
"I'm not 100% certain, but I think this course was pulled anyway."
Well, it certainly is now:
"El Tejon, CA Settles Lawsuit"
Comment by Krauze — January 17, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
January 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
We still wait for the school officials who want to add ID to the curriculum solely due to its scientific merit, and not because they are christian fundamentalists who oppose evolutionary theory for religious reasons.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 17, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
January 17th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Aagcobb,
By that reasoning, can we now disregard all of Richard Dawkins' teachings on Evolution, since it is clear he is almost completely motivated (rabidly, even) by a hatred for religion?
Comment by Douglas — January 17, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
January 17th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Regardless of what you think of this, this case certainly highlights the hypocrisy of certain critics who claimed that ID was okay being discussed in philosophy classes, but are now trying to rub it out everywhere. This also shows that their objection to design is philosophical/metaphysical, not just methodological.
Comment by Deuce — January 17, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
January 17th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Deuce,
Yes, though I would add that their objection to design is also, and perhaps primarily, EMOTIONAL.
Comment by Douglas — January 17, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
January 17th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
I think you're misreading the situation. There's a difference between discussing something and advocating it, and there's also a difference between Intelligent Design and Young Earth Biblical Literalism. As far as I can tell from the syllabus, the teacher was advocating Young Earth Biblical Literalism. She also seemed to be using dishonest and discredited arguments. (e.g. claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.)
It's too late for that school district…the teacher basically ruined everything by trying to sneak religion in through the back door. But it's not too late for other school districts. Maybe we could put together a sample syllabus for a course discussing various philosophies of origins?
Here's my take on the topics that might be covered. Feel free to make suggestions/comments!
I – Evaluating Competing Theories
* A – Strengths/Weaknesses of Science and the Scientific Method
* B – Strengths/Weaknesses of Faith
* C – Strengths/Weaknesses of Making Stuff Up and then Lying About It.
II – Evolution
* A – The purely scientific view (The existence or non-existence of a transcendent God is inherently unprovable and outside the scope of science.)
* B – Richard Dawkins (Evolution implies atheism)
* C – Theistic Evolution (God set up the laws of nature with the intent of allowing mankind to evolve.)
III – Design
* A – Young Earth/Old Earth Biblical Creationism
* B – Creation stories from around the world
* C – Any other religious systems that people in the community ask for. (Flying Spaghetti Monsterism probably goes here.)
* D – Non-sectarian Intelligent Design (e.g. space aliens, Gods not matching any known religion, "The Matrix")
Comment by chaosengineer — January 17, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
January 17th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I agree with this, but it doesn't get the particular critics in this case (Americans United) off the hook, because according to them, ID is creationism, but nevertheless, according to them, it can be taught in philosophy classes, or at least that was their supposed position until somebody tried to actually do it.
Comment by Deuce — January 17, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
January 18th, 2006 at 4:51 am
Deuce,
Your interpretation of AU's "supposed position" (as you put it) would have them effectively saying "the 1st amendment doesn't allow you to promote your religious views in science class, but it's fine with us if you want to do it in philosophy class."
I can assure you that the AU and ACLU (and the judiciary, at least for now) think the 1st amendment should apply to ALL classes in public school, including philosophy class. What they (and I) are saying is that discussing creationism or ID in a philosophy or comparative religion class is okay, but proselytizing is not. The secular purpose prong of the Lemon test prohibits religious advocacy. The El Tejon class fails the test.
Comment by keiths — January 18, 2006 @ 4:51 am
January 18th, 2006 at 4:58 am
Hi Chaosengineer,
"Maybe we could put together a sample syllabus for a course discussing various philosophies of origins?"
You might let yourself be inspired by this course.
Comment by Krauze — January 18, 2006 @ 4:58 am
January 19th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Keiths:
"Secular purpose" is a interesting phrase. As applied in practice, it seems to mean that religious advocacy is prohibited, but anti-religious advocacy is not.
How is it "secular purpose" to promote what amounts to philosophical naturalism under the guise of science?
Comment by DonaldM — January 19, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
January 19th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
DonaldM wrote:
Hi Donald,
It's secular because we're teaching kids the best available scientific explanation of life's history. The intent is not to promote philosophical naturalism or to denigrate religion.
That is why 84% of Ohio scientists see no conflict between evolution and a belief in God:
7. Do you think accepting the theory of evolution is consistent with believing in God?
a. Yes — 84%
b. No — 9%
c. Not Sure — 7%
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp
That is not to say that particular religions won't find their beliefs challenged by science. Biblical Flat-Earthers don't like it, but science says the Earth is round.
Similarly, the creation myths of some Native Americans hold that their ancestors were created in North America. Science says their ancestors are Asian. Is it anti-religious to teach the scientific view? Hardly.
Comment by keiths — January 19, 2006 @ 5:34 pm