RE: Maine History: An Opportunity for Cheap Jabs?

[Eugene Volokh]

Title: Maine History: An Opportunity for Cheap Jabs?

    Two thoughts:

 

    (1)  I was under the impression that most modern supporters of teaching either intelligent design or creationism more broadly specifically *distanced* themselves from "young earthers," which is to say people who believe that the earth is only several thousand years old.  I had assumed that the post specifically mentioned young earthers rather than creationists for that very reason.  Am I mistaken?

 

    (2)  Even if the original post had referred to creationists, it seems to me that it was quite entitled to so.  There are naturally quite reasonable debates about the extent to which schools should teach evolution, intelligent design or creationism more broadly, both, or neither.  But it seems to me quite plausible for people to argue -- or even to assert -- that evolution is clearly correct and creationism is mistaken, and that therefore the former should be taught and the latter should not.  (I took the original post as focusing on what should be taught, and not who should be allowed to teach; though it analogized to a "young-earther teaching biology," in context it seemed to refer to a "young-earther teaching biology from a young-earther perspective.")

 

    If this is "prejudice" against creationism, it's "prejudice" only in the tautological sense that all preexisting judgment can be said to be prejudice.  In that sense of the word, there's nothing particularly wrong with prejudice.  Creationists are surely free to argue that creationism is right.  Others are free to disagree, and even to take for granted that creationism is bad science.

 

    (3)  This having been said, it is of course reasonable for people to point out why they think such assertions are incorrect.  It is likewise reasonable for them to argue (as the post below does, in part) that it's unhelpful to simply make such assertions without explicit evidence.

 

    But I do not think that others are at all obligated, by good manners or good logic, to refrain from such assertions; and I think they are also entitled to rely on the dominant views in scientific circles when making scientific assertions.  Again, one can disagree with them for so relying; I just don't think they can be faulted for acting improperly.

 

    Eugene

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: James Henderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:01 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Maine History: An Opportunity for Cheap Jabs?

A correspondent to the list supposes that European and
American history sanitized of all references to non
Christian religions and all non European peoples might
be, in effect, the humanities version of a "young
earther" teaching biology.

Remarks of this character do not move the list along
in any appreciable way.  The incapacity of such
remarks to be contributory flows from two, at least,
distinct defects of the remark:  the prejudices that
such a remark embodies; and, the insufficiency of
information that maintenance of such prejudice
requires.

The correspondent leaves, with his remark, the
distinct impression that all will agree immediately
(without thought?) with his larger point on the
undeniable, reflexive power of his narrow point.
After all, what thinking person could possibly be a
"young earther"?  (Leaving aside the definitional
problems associated with such a question.)  In this
way, the correspondent could have as easily invoked
any of a number of other readily recognized
stereotypical associations based on race, ethnicity,
class, religion, etc., and would have had, with the
appropriate audience the exact same success he appears
to have intended to obtain here.

As to the second point, the concept that one must
kiss, lick or swallow the Darwinian talisman to have
capacity to teach a substantive course in biology or
the earth sciences is to myopically ignore the three
thousand plus years of recorded observational
scientific development while focusing in obsessive
compulsive fashion on the last 100 years of that
history of science.

True, entire course years in biology could be devoted
to the study of origins (unless the education
authority recognizes how much more appropriate such a
topic is to the curriculum in social science or
philosophy).  But it is just as possible to spend
years teaching biology and biological sciences without
concerning oneself with the philosophic question of
origins. 

In any event, a high school biology course could
certainly be taught in such fashion with ease, and the
suggestion that a young earther's course of
instruction would be information-lite suffers from the
very defects that it lays as a charge against those
young earthers.

Jim "Breaking Down the Mechanics of Prejudices"
Henderson

Senior Counsel

ACLJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw