| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2007 11:06:16 PM |
| Object: |
Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism |
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/bizarre_legal_thinking_on_evol.php
Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism
Category:
Posted on: July 30, 2007 9:32 AM, by Ed Brayton
I came across a reference to a law review note from last year in the
Chapman Law Review. The note was by Stephen Trask, then a student at
William Mitchell College of Law and, unsurprisingly, a graduate of
Liberty University. It was entitled, Evolution, Science, and Ideology:
Why the Establishment Clause Requires Neutrality in Science Classes.
Since Chapman is Sandefur's alma mater, I emailed him to see if he'd
seen it and he said no, but he found it and sent me a copy of it. He
described it as a "giant, steaming pile of crap"; he was being
generous.
It's simply one of the silliest bits of legal writing I've ever seen.
Here's the short version of his argument: evolutionism is a religion,
part of the larger religion of secular humanism, and therefore
teaching it without also teaching creationism violates the
establishment clause requirement of neutrality between religion and
non-religion. I presume he wrote such drivel with a straight face, but
I'm afraid I didn't read it that way. I especially found this argument
amusing (discussing the Edwards v Aguillard decision):
The Court also operated on the assumption that the mere inclusion
of creationism with evolutionism in the curriculum is an advancement
of religion and an attempt to counterbalance and discredit
evolutionary theory at every point. Consider this scenario: A
philosophy teacher at a public high school will only teach proofs
opposing the existence of God in his philosophy class, and he refuses
to teach any proofs supporting the existence of God because he
believes that the concept of God is religious and not philosophical.
Religious fundamentalist parents at the school express their outrage
that this teacher is teaching their students an atheistic belief
system that is contrary to the Bible. Because of outrage expressed by
the religious parents, the school district passes a policy requiring
that teachers give equal time to proofs supporting and opposing the
existence of God. How could this policy be constitutional under the
Supreme Court's analysis in Edwards? The teacher, after all, was just
teaching the students philosophy, and religious parents do not have a
right to counterbalance philosophical theories at every point with
their personal religious beliefs. The statute lacks a secular purpose
since the school only implemented the statute in reaction to outrage
expressed by a specific religious sect, and including the proofs for
the existence of God would clearly advance the religious viewpoint
that there is a God. It is simply incorrect to believe that presenting
both sides of an issue is somehow taking sides. Fairly presenting
various perspectives on an issue is the essence of neutrality.
But he's missing the absolutely obvious here: no teacher in a public
high school could (or should) be teaching anything at all about the
philosophical proofs for or against the existence of God. To do so
would clearly be a violation of the neutrality requirement of the
establishment clause. There is no need for a group of students to
demand that the school give equal time to discussing the proofs for
God's existence; such a course would be unconstitutional as it was.
I"m sure Trask would respond by arguing that evolution is itself a
religion and therefore violates the neutrality clause, but that is
only the first clearly false premise of his argument. Evolution is a
scientific theory. Like all scientific theories, it is discrete; that
is, it explains a specific set of data and does not explain or attempt
to explain things outside that data set. It is not a "belief system"
or a "worldview" or whatever absurd catchphrase is popular these days;
it is a discrete scientific theory.
Now, it's certainly true that evolution conflicts with the tenets of
some religious faiths, or at least with a subset of those faiths. But
if that fact magically transforms evolution into a religion itself
then every scientific theory must now be declared a religious view.
There is hardly a single scientific theory that does not conflict with
someone's religious views. So let's apply Trask's argument that any
scientific theory that conflicts with any religious belief is, in and
of itself, a religious view and therefore in order to be neutral for
establishment clause purposes, the school must "fairly present various
perspectives" on each and every one of them.
Many religious groups believe that natural disasters like earthquakes
and hurricanes and floods are sent deliberately by God as punishment
for sin. Thus, applying Trask's reasoning consistently, we must
conclude that when schools teach about conventional meteorology or
seismology they are teaching a religious viewpoint. The materialistic
theory that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates,
according to Trask's reasoning, must be part of "secular humanism", an
arbitrary attempt by the gatekeepers of knowledge to rule out all
supernatural causes a priori.
What then must we do? Obviously we have to "fairly present various
perspectives" on the issue. The government cannot teach that
mainstream seismology is true despite being the only successful means
of predicting and explaining earthquakes. Schools must henceforth
"fairly present" the idea that earthquakes are sent by God to punish
regions of the earth at various times for their sinful behavior. The
same with meteorology, of course.
But how exactly does one "fairly present" such a "theory"? There is no
actual evidence that could be marshaled in support of it. We can't
apply Divine Wrath Theory and use it to predict where or when
earthquakes will happen, or tornadoes, or hurricanes. There is no
weather report on the 700 Club based on Divine Wrath Theory - "Sodomy
is up 14% in the midwest; there's a 40% chance of an earthquake." I
can't imagine how one could possibly "fairly present" that idea.
The same is true of even such basic ideas as the germ theory of
disease. There are many religious beliefs that conflict with modern
medicine, that argue that disease is either sent by God as punishment
or by Satan to test our faith (and if the book of Job is to be
believed, perhaps by a combination of the two working in concert). For
that matter, we have Scientologists who believe that disease is
brought on by engrams, Christian Scientists who believe that all
disease is spiritual in nature, and so forth. By Trask's reasoning,
schools must present all these ideas fairly rather than the one that
is actually supported by the evidence. One could go on with such
examples all day long. Geocentrism, flat earthism, hollow earthism,
pyramidiocy and every other crank religious or pseudo-religious idea
would have to be taught alongside mainstream science if one is to
apply Trask's argument consistently.
For that matter, if one is actually to follow his argument to its
logical conclusion, schools would be forced not to teach anything at
all. If he really believes that evolution is a religious belief and
teaching it violates the establishment clause, the solution to this is
not to have the government teach more religious notions, but to have
them stop teaching this one. But since his standard for what
constitutes a religious idea is any scientific theory that conflicts
with any religious belief, every single scientific theory must also be
a religious idea and cannot be taught constitutionally.
But Trask will not apply his argument consistently, I suspect, because
he almost certainly does not really believe it. It's a transparent
artifice by which he can justify getting his favored religious belief,
creationism, into science classrooms. If he tried this argument in a
court of law, or in a brief submitted to one, it would provoke little
but laughter.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism |
01 Aug 2007 12:53:30 AM |
|
|
In article <5h10b31fg3e7su48ale5ucc0l6a17aq2ig@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/bizarre_legal_thinking_on_evol.php
Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism
Category:
Posted on: July 30, 2007 9:32 AM, by Ed Brayton
I came across a reference to a law review note from last year in the
Chapman Law Review. The note was by Stephen Trask, then a student at
William Mitchell College of Law and, unsurprisingly, a graduate of
Liberty University. It was entitled, Evolution, Science, and Ideology:
Why the Establishment Clause Requires Neutrality in Science Classes.
Since Chapman is Sandefur's alma mater, I emailed him to see if he'd
seen it and he said no, but he found it and sent me a copy of it. He
described it as a "giant, steaming pile of crap"; he was being
generous.
It's simply one of the silliest bits of legal writing I've ever seen.
Here's the short version of his argument: evolutionism is a religion,
part of the larger religion of secular humanism, and therefore
teaching it without also teaching creationism violates the
establishment clause requirement of neutrality between religion and
non-religion. I presume he wrote such drivel with a straight face, but
I'm afraid I didn't read it that way. I especially found this argument
amusing (discussing the Edwards v Aguillard decision):
The argument that science is a religion is "giant, steaming pile of
crap"! If they disagree, let them come up with some scientific evidence
for their gawd.
<snip>
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism |
15 Aug 2007 05:42:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:53:30 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <5h10b31fg3e7su48ale5ucc0l6a17aq2ig@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/bizarre_legal_thinking_on_evol.php
Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism
Category:
Posted on: July 30, 2007 9:32 AM, by Ed Brayton
I came across a reference to a law review note from last year in the
Chapman Law Review. The note was by Stephen Trask, then a student at
William Mitchell College of Law and, unsurprisingly, a graduate of
Liberty University. It was entitled, Evolution, Science, and Ideology:
Why the Establishment Clause Requires Neutrality in Science Classes.
Since Chapman is Sandefur's alma mater, I emailed him to see if he'd
seen it and he said no, but he found it and sent me a copy of it. He
described it as a "giant, steaming pile of crap"; he was being
generous.
It's simply one of the silliest bits of legal writing I've ever seen.
Here's the short version of his argument: evolutionism is a religion,
part of the larger religion of secular humanism, and therefore
teaching it without also teaching creationism violates the
establishment clause requirement of neutrality between religion and
non-religion. I presume he wrote such drivel with a straight face, but
I'm afraid I didn't read it that way. I especially found this argument
amusing (discussing the Edwards v Aguillard decision):
The argument that science is a religion is "giant, steaming pile of
crap"! If they disagree, let them come up with some scientific evidence
for their gawd.
They'd first need a coherant definition
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism |
15 Aug 2007 08:26:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:42:47 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:53:30 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <5h10b31fg3e7su48ale5ucc0l6a17aq2ig@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/bizarre_legal_thinking_on_evol.php
Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism
Category:
Posted on: July 30, 2007 9:32 AM, by Ed Brayton
I came across a reference to a law review note from last year in the
Chapman Law Review. The note was by Stephen Trask, then a student at
William Mitchell College of Law and, unsurprisingly, a graduate of
Liberty University. It was entitled, Evolution, Science, and Ideology:
Why the Establishment Clause Requires Neutrality in Science Classes.
Since Chapman is Sandefur's alma mater, I emailed him to see if he'd
seen it and he said no, but he found it and sent me a copy of it. He
described it as a "giant, steaming pile of crap"; he was being
generous.
It's simply one of the silliest bits of legal writing I've ever seen.
Here's the short version of his argument: evolutionism is a religion,
part of the larger religion of secular humanism, and therefore
teaching it without also teaching creationism violates the
establishment clause requirement of neutrality between religion and
non-religion. I presume he wrote such drivel with a straight face, but
I'm afraid I didn't read it that way. I especially found this argument
amusing (discussing the Edwards v Aguillard decision):
The argument that science is a religion is "giant, steaming pile of
crap"! If they disagree, let them come up with some scientific evidence
for their gawd.
They'd first need a coherant definition
Then they'd need to learn that the establishment clause ISN'T a
neutrality requirement. There's a difference between allowing people
of ANY color to rob banks (neutrality) and not letting ANY people rob
banks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism |
19 Aug 2007 02:45:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:26:21 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:42:47 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:53:30 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <5h10b31fg3e7su48ale5ucc0l6a17aq2ig@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/bizarre_legal_thinking_on_evol.php
Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism
[]
The argument that science is a religion is "giant, steaming pile of
crap"! If they disagree, let them come up with some scientific evidence
for their gawd.
They'd first need a coherant definition
Then they'd need to learn that the establishment clause ISN'T a
neutrality requirement.
That's well down the list. They've had more than two millenia and
still haven't come up with a coherant definition.
There's a difference between allowing people
of ANY color to rob banks (neutrality) and not letting ANY people rob
banks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism |
01 Aug 2007 10:17:44 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:06:16 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/bizarre_legal_thinking_on_evol.php
Bizarre Legal Thinking on Evolution and Creationism
<SNIP>
Then Gravitation must also be considered a religion and thus we would also have
to add "Intelligent Falling" to the curriculum for balance. And since there are
folks who still believe the earth is flat, well, we would have to add that too.
Let's just fire the teachers, bring in the kooks and give the kids a healthy
dose of mind virus and get the awful feeling of curiosity out of their heads
once and for all! Life is short, don't waste it on science just say "God
didit" and enjoy the day.
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
