From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:49:45 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov20.055358.25021@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
...

>I'm afraid evolution, as they teach it in public schools, is quite
>a bit more absolute that that: It states that this is the correct 
>explanation of how life reached its present form (and if the teacher
>is unusually good) a few bits of evideince to demonstrate that
>this is clearly the correct explanation. I don't know of any
>teachers that risk confusing students with "we aren't sure, but 
>this seems to be a good explanation..." lectures. As presented,
>that seems to be in conflict with the First Amendment's
>"free exercise" clause: It disagrees with a widespread religious
>teaching, so it is, essentially, publicly-funded indoctronation
>that a specific religious view is wrong.

I do think you're correct about this--evolutionary theory is usually taught
in a much too doctrinaire a fashion. Teachers ought not only to mention
that some religious groups disagree with the theory--but they usually fail
to mention many of the purely scientific difficulties with the evolutionary
account. This may be because the scientific establishment has become
sensitized by the evolution/creation debate to the point where, ironically,
defending evolutionary theory has, for them, become a quasi-religious
issue.

To my mind, however, the major fault in the way evolutionary theory is
taught in the schools is the philosophical naivete' with which the subject
is approached. The belief that life on this planet evolved from very simple
to complex forms does not in itself contradict Christian faith; this
contradiction arises only if you also say that the process of evolution is
the result of blind chance or the workings of a mechanistic universe. 

But this assumption is _not_ part of the theory, nor is it the kind of
assumption that can be justified by _any_ scientific procedure. Such
fundamental assumptions about the universe belong in the sphere of
philosophy, and not of science. If you are an atheist, then you think
everything happens according to chance (or cause and effect); if you are a
theist, then you think that it's all part of God's plan. But this
difference does not--of itself--have any ramifications that should cause
the atheist or the theist to disagree about empirically demonstrable
facts. Nor can either of them be proved right or wrong by any number of
experiments. 

For example, as a Christian, I believe that maybe current evolutionary
theory is fundamentally correct (whether it is or isn't is a scientific
question, and we shall see...). I also believe that if evolutionary theory
is correct, then life _still_ evolved the way God wanted it to; for me,
evolution would be the working of God's will. 

The trouble is that the way in which evolution is usually taught precludes
my viewpoint. While evolutionary theory is not (in my opinion) hostile to
Christianity, teachers of evolution usually drag in a bunch of extraneous
philosophical baggage that is not scientific, and that _is_ hostile to
Christianity: specifically, the doctrine of materialism.



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory