Unfortunately, it seems likely that many students who are religious have been driven away from the sciences (in particular the biological sciences) by the anti-religious attitudes of some scientists. See, e.g., some of the statements quoted in today's NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html.
Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -----Original Message----- From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:51 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article The facts are what they are. Many American students have been driven away from the natural sciences because of the overreaching of some religionists. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:01 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article Michael, Ask Pascal about the role of faith in inspiring reason. Ask Newton. For that matter, ask Einstein. It is nothing but pap and drivel that can be found in the mischaracterization that those who find design in nature are seeking to drive high school students away from the natural sciences. Now if you had said the unnatural ones, of course, that is another matter entirely. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ -----Original Message----- From: Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:10:34 -0400 Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article There is no secular purpose here. ID is not science. It is a cover for the theology of a particular religious group. To say that one should teach religious objections of a particular religious group in science class clearly violates the EC. There can be no secular purpose behind this selectivity. The IDers are not asking that the views of those religious that are comfortable with evolution be taught. It *might* be possible to construct a course on evolution and religion, or on science and religion (although I think that it would be exceedingly difficult to construct such a course for primary and elementary school students). But that is not what the IDers are asking for. They want special privileges for their religion, and their religion alone. Again, such special privileges would clearly violate the EC. They also want to drive American high school students away from the natural sciences, and there is, alas, some evidence that they are succeeding. News accounts have reported that in some school districts, peer pressure by overzealous religious students has caused other students to opt out of science courses. In a post-9/11 world, this is nothing short of a disaster. This doggedly persistent quest for special privileges for a particular religion or religious point of view poses great danger to our national security. The ?values? of the IDers will not keep terrorists and others at bay, but science might. But, this is nothing new or revolutionary. The country went through this in the period 1930 ? 1976 when science clearly trumped religion, largely for national security reasons. How quickly we forget, it seems. -----Original Message----- From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 12:22 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article Well, Ed, I think you are just misreading the decision. The case was decided based solely on the legislature's non-secular purpose. The Court did not hold that any particular book or curriculum was religion and not science. Indeed, no book or creation science curriculum was even part of the record in the case, which was a facial attack on a statute not a particular creation science program. This is why it seems clear that a school board that required Behe's book to be taught in science class as part of the discussion of evolution would not violate the EC--provided they were careful to clearly articulate a secular purpose. Teaching the controversy (i.e. exposing students to the ID theory) is a secular purpose and Behe's book is not religion (and Behe is a scientist, not a theologian). Whether ID is good or bad science education is not an issue the Court can (or should) decide. It is an issue for school boards and/or state legislatures to decide. Cheers, Rick Duncan Ed Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rick Duncan wrote: Edwards did not hold that "creation science" could not be taught in the govt schools. Nor did it hold that "creation science" was religion and not science. It held only that the particular law (the "Balanced Treatment Act") was invalid because it did not have a secular purpose. Even here, the Ct accomplished this only by misinterpreting the stated secular purpose--academic freedom for students--and saying that since the law did not advance academic freedom for teachers it was a sham. Scalia's dissent demolished the majority's reasoning on this point. I don't think this description squares with the decision itself. Here is the actual holding: --------------------- 1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594. ! (a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution by requiring that curriculum guides be developed and resource services! supplied for teaching creationism but not for teaching evolution, by limiting membership on the resource services panel to "creation scientists," and by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation-scientist" or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to teach creation science. A law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. Pp. 586-589. (b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this rel! igious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 589-594. 2. The District Court did not err in granting summary judgment upon a finding that appellants had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Appellants relied on the "uncontroverted" affidavits of scientists, theologians, and an education administrator defining creation science as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form" and alleging that such a viewpoint constitutes a true scientific theory. The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that the postenactment testimony of these experts concerning the possible technical meanings of the Act's terms would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the state legislature when it passed the Act. None of the persons making the affidavits produced by appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law. Pp. 594-596. ------------------------- The ruling did in fact hold that teaching creation science was a violation of the first amendment, as the portion in italics shows. Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as priv! ate. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
