Secular purpose

[Gaffney, Edward]

Ed Larson has writen a couple of excellent books on this problem.  Trial &
Error: The American Controversy Over Creation & Evolution (Oxford U Press,
1985), and Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing
Debate Over Science & Religion (1997).
 ----------
From: richard duncan
To: RELIGIONLAW
Subject: Re: Secular purpose
Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 9:41AM

Alan Gunn's absolute certainty that there is no rational way to doubt
the truth of Darwinian Evolution, and thus that a law banning its teaching
in the public schools could not be rationally supported by anyone
other than those blindly adhering to a literal reading of a religious
text, is the best reason why a rational person might support a law
banning the teaching of evolution. This is exactly the kind of
inflated claims about the truth of Darwinism that Phil Johnson (who
does not read Genesis literally) complains of when he calls scientific
materialism the established religious philosophy of America.

Like Gene, I am not a scientist. Nor do I "literally" adhere to a young
earth account of creation. But I get very nervous when someone tells
me that all educated persons are required to believe a theory that is
a long way from conclusively proving anything. That is the problem
with the public school monopoly--whoever gets control of the power can
employ it to mould the minds of children however he wishes. I think
there are polls out there that say that 80-90% of the American people
believe that God created life. Most of these people are not Biblical
literalists. Maybe they are all wrong, maybe not. But many of them are
both educated and rational. Many of them are open to hearing the whole
story. Many of them, like Phil Johnson and an increasing number of
scientists who are willing to risk a great deal by challenging the
current paradigm, have considered all of the evidence are are
unpersuaded.

One final point that is very important--to doubt evolution is not the
same thing as believing in a literal, 7-day, young earth interpretation
of Genesis. This is the great caricature that evolutionists always
bring out whenever anyone expresses doubts about their theory. Either
believe Darwin or believe those who blindly adhere to a literal
interpretation of the Genesis story. That is a false dichotomy. *Most*
people are somewhere in between these two religious poles.

I am not opposed to the teaching of Darwiunism (as the father of 5
children I am doing my best to prove Darwin right :) ). I think a good
curriculum should teach the theory critically--teach the theory fully
but also include a fair discussion of the kind of rational objections that
Phil Johnson and others have been making. In other words, teach don't
indoctrinate.
 --
                   ----------
             Rick Duncan (rduncan at unlinfo.unl.edu)

"Even when there is no candidate worth voting for, there is always
some candidate worth voting against." --Fabian Leaflet no. 43