|
The excerpt
below appears at p 44 of the ID cases slip onion .The judge, I think ,reads the
disclaimer for more than it says ( I do no tread the disclaimer as saying that
students cannot consider what id s taught in class or that they must accept
their parents view) and in any event the proposition that a school can
not tell students that ultimate judgments about the correctness of what it has
taught are not within its domain strikes me as wholly wrong. Am I wrong? Marc D. Stern
families to learn about
the “Origins of Life,” the paragraph performs the exact same function as did the
Freiler disclaimer: It “reminds school children that they can rightly maintain
beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life,” thereby
stifling the critical thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt,
to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat.
“that evolution as
taught in the classroom need not affect what they already know,” it sent a message that
was “contrary to an intent to encourage critical thinking…. |
_______________________________________________ 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.
