Imagine a school board faced with the ID debate coming up with its own creative solution to the dispute. The school board draws its inspiration from an editorial that appeared in Nature:
Scientists would do better to offer some constructive thoughts of their own. For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. Secular researchers should talk to others in order to understand how faiths have come to terms with science. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion. When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs.
The school board thus draws the outlines of a lesson plan that will be used in 11th grade science classrooms.
1.Students shall learn the limitations of science.
a. Distinguish between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
b. Science cannot address the existence of God. People must rely on their own theological and philosophical inclinations to address this issue. Scientists are both theists and atheists.
c. Science has no method for detecting "Intelliegent Design", thus it cannot address this issue. If life was designed, science would say otherwise.
d. Science does not discover "The Truth." There are many aspects of our reality that science cannot answer and the nature of scientific discovery is inherently provisional.
2. Students shall learn that Science and Religion occupy separate magisteria
a. Science addresses the relationships between observable regularities.
b. Religion addresses our sense of meaning, purpose, and ethics.
Wouldn't it be interesting to watch who objects to this proposal?