Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Education

  • Does Science Education Lead to Atheism

    Several discussions have led me to think about this question over the last few days. There is a significant group of scientists who think that the inevitable result of scientific knowledge is a loss of faith or a turn to atheism. On the other side of the line there is a significant group of fundamentalist Christians who feel much the same way. The major difference is in which they would give up. A recent MSNBC.com story gives the encouraging reminder that about 40% of scientists believe in God. Encouraging, indeed, but for which side?

    There has been a great deal of discussion on just how compatible religion is with science. Obviously for myself I’ve decided that good science is compatible with my theology, though not without some adjustments to how I understand the theology. My theology today is not the same as what I grew up with in any number of ways. But let’s lay that one aside.

    What does the church offer to the educated person? My education is related largely to theology, and I have spent a good deal of my church life being urged to ignore some things, greatly simplify others, and basically to leave my education behind at the doors to the church. This is by no means a universal attitude. At the same time as one person would be telling me not to bother people with things I knew, others would be inviting me to teach.

    But consider the difference between my education and that of an evolutionary biologist for example. Since I’m trained in Biblical studies and most particularly in languages, there is always someone in church who wants some portion of my expertise. I have even been invited to programs where I’m pretty certain my primary role was to sit with the other speakers and be “the guy who knows Greek.” There’s a certain respect for that. But the hypothetical evolutionary biologist isn’t going to find much call for his knowledge in church.

    Now that is the trial of the specialist. You have to gather with other specialists to talk about your specialty. But in church, other people frequently feel free to express uneducated opinions on just about any topic, and especially to talk about the great danger of education to faith, and the one way to be accepted in that society will be to claim that your education is not important to you.

    I’m painting this rather negatively, more so than I actually feel, but I do believe there is a problem. It’s variable with churches. In the United Methodist Church, for example, I have found a great deal of appreciation for education in any area. At the same time, for many people in the pews the educated person, especially one who questions any of the standard explanations of life, the universe, and everything, can be looked on with suspicion.

    In my view, faith and fellowship go together. Someone’s faith is not going to be nurtured when there are no other people to take that walk with them. While I think many churches do try, and I really appreciate the United Methodist congregations of which I’ve been a member, I think there will be a substantial problem for a scientist looking for a congregation where he or she can explore and examine faith freely and openly–in other words, to have constructive fellowship.

    It may well be that a significant number of those scientists who have slipped away from faith did so not because they were philosophically convinced that God does not exist, but because they never found a place to explore faith in a vital and constructive way with other people who welcomed their questions, their doubts, and even their unbelief.

    I do not mean in any way to question the intelligence or judgment of those who have made a conscious decision based on their view of the evidence to reject belief in God or to become agnostic. I even find many of their arguments quite reasonable myself in a certain context. But I suspect there are many who have slipped away from faith simply because they are not particularly trained to deal with spiritual issues, and those who should have helped them were unwilling, or perhaps unable, to deal with them doubts and all.

    I don’t know what numbers would be involved, but I’m convinced that having fellowship is an essential part of one’s faith journey. I’m further convinced that many people don’t take the fellowship needs of the educated seriously. Education is simply another characteristic of the people God brings together into his church; their needs need to be served as well.

  • Distinguishing Freedom and Ability

    I have always preferred our classic statements of rights, such as the bill of rights, to such statements as Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms.” What interests me is that while our classic statements of rights indicate things that the government is not permitted to prevent you from doing, the latter two freedoms from Roosevelt’s list, and especially the third, indicate things that you get to have.

    The four freedoms Roosevelt mentioned are:

    1. Freedom of speech
    2. Freedom of worship
    3. Freedom from want
    4. Freedom from fear

    This ambiguity comes up in plenty of discussions of rights. What precisely does “freedom from want’ require, who gets to decide just how much want is permissible, and who gets to decide who has to produce all of that? I, for example, would like a much better computer. It would help me in my creative activities. Perhaps someone should give me one in order to improve my mental health.

    Of course I’m not serious about that. Nobody has any duty to give me a computer. I will have to earn the money and buy one. People often assume that we will all have a reasonable definition of “want” in place, but the fact is that we don’t agree on such things.

    That, however, is not my main point. I would like to focus on the distinction between these two types of rights. The first, freedom of speech, is provided by the government failing to take certain actions–not suppressing speech. There is, of course, the positive action of maintaining a lawful framework, but that is a requirement for the existence of any right. Freedom from want requires some positive action on someone else’s part, namely to produce the particular goods.

    While I believe I have an obligation as a Christian, individually and in community, to care for those who are less advantaged, I have a distinct problem with many of the government programs that do what I believe I must do privately, because they tend to make one person have an inherent, legal right (I think those are oxymoronic, but they are commonly used together) to that which someone else must go out and produce. I advocate certain safety net welfare programs in any case, not as a right of those who receive them, but as part of maintaining a workable society.

    But I want to apply this now to speech and to the controversy about intelligent design. There’s a regular chorus going on right now about suppression. I think that chorus is based on a confusion of their rights with someone else’s production.

    I have a right to free speech. I do not have a right to any particular medium. If I can find no publisher for my writing, then my writing will not get printed. Since I am a publisher, I have the right to refuse to print someone else’s drivel, or even their masterpiece, and I am not suppressing free speech, even if they find no other way to publish.

    Besides forcing someone else to produce what they believe is a right, people who make such claim try to take away the rights of others. Again, illustrating with myself. As a publisher, were I required to print the works of someone even though I chose not to, then my right of free speech is abridged. My right of free speech does not require a carpenter to build a stage, an electrician to wire the sound system, a newspaper to print an ad for my event, nor any person to come an listen to me.

    My belief that I have important things to say does not require a college or university to gather students to hear it. There are things that are of value under those circumstances, and other things that are not. If I were the chair of a religion department, for example, I would consider it quite appropriate to refuse a place on the faculty to a KJV-Only advocate, even if he could produce the appropriate accredited degrees.

    In High School curricula, we have the need to cover a great deal of material, and some things are in while others are out. We have groups whose job it is to decide which is which. Subject matter needs to meet a threshold of validity and usefulness in order to merit a place in such a curriculum, otherwise you are forcing students to spend time learning that which will not work to their benefit.

    Now there is a little glitch in the educational plan. What about state sponsored institutions of higher learning? Shouldn’t they have to provide a platform for anyone in the name of free speech? They are the government, after all. I would say rather than if we allow a government to operate an academic institution, that is precisely what we should expect them to run, and that will mean making choices, discriminating against bad ideas (it isn’t prejudice if you studied it ahead of time!), and allowing some in and not allowing others.

    I say to the intelligent design advocates: You don’t have a right to access to scientific journals and faculties. Your presence in such places must be earned. Your ideas should not appear in curricula by right, but rather because they have proven themselves in the appropriate arena.

    ID is trying to create a welfare state for ideas. It’s a bad idea economically, and it’s no better of an idea in the realm of ideas.

  • My Advice for Florida Creationists

    Which, for those in doubt, includes advocates of intelligent design (ID). I know they won’t take it, but here it is:

    Just tell the truth.

    John West, over at Evolution News and Views, has written a quite disingenuous post in which he wonders about the motives of advocates in the Florida House who insisted on passing a measure that differed from the one in the Florida Senate and one which would most likely be rejected. Personally I don’t think there was any certainty that the Senate would decide to reject the House bill in the end, but that’s how it worked out.

    West thinks this “smacks of classic back-room politics by politicians who are trying to play both sides of an issue.” I’m sure back-room politics is alive and well in Florida, despite sunshine laws, but the real “sunshine” problem here is with ID advocates themselves. You see, if you stick with the truth, you only have to remember one story, but if you decide on lies, then you have to agree on your lies, and you have to keep the various stories coordinated.

    What the Florida creationists want is religion taught in public schools, but they can’t write a law to do that directly, so instead they have to write some other scenario, and that’s when things get difficult. The real effect of each of these bills would be to refer the issue to the courts, and the main issue then is just what do you want to take to court with you, considering the truth absolutely won’t do.

    That was the problem in Dover. The people who pushed intelligent design really wanted religion in the classroom, and ID was just the means to an end. Once you get one set of materials in you start working on the next one. As long as you are trying to get something that you can’t admit you want, you’re going to have confusion of strategy.

    I have been astounded at the number of ID advocates who have told me here on this blog, in e-mail, or in person that I am horribly misunderstanding their position because I think ID has to do with religion. But there is simply no possibility that ID, without any religious overtones, has any audience at all. If the whole argument is about the possibility that some form of alien life is interfering with earth life, perhaps a roomful of weirdos would be interested. The fact is that “intelligent designer” is heard (correctly) as a codeword for God, and that is what gives this traction.

    Whether ID advocates are creationists or not–and I think they are–it is certainly creationists in the older sense (YEC or OEC) who are carrying the torch for this movement. What happened in the Florida legislature is that conservative Christians who believe that their particular faith position should be taught in public schools tried to get some portion of it allowed in the curriculum of Florida public schools. There was no back-room deals needed to kill the legislation; differences in the particular form of the lie that should be told in order to reap the greatest benefit spelled doom for the bills.

    I cannot prove there were no back-room deals. If there were, I wish I knew who was involved so I could vote for the people responsible. In the legislature I’d prefer crooks who are in favor of good education to crooks who want to lie for God.

    One more thing from West:

    . . . More importantly, we still live in America, and although Darwinists are doing their best to shut down and intimidate anyone who raises questions about Neo-Darwinism, we still have free speech, and they can’t prevent people from hearing about the debate in the public arena, no matter how hard they try.

    I’m wondering if West is even aware of what this bill was for. This was about High School curriculum. It wasn’t about “the public arena.” The ID movement is the noisiest bunch of “suppressed” people in history. If their voices are cut off, there sure is no evidence of the fact.

  • Something is Wrong in Florida

    Hmmm! I would guess nobody is surprised about that. We seem to draw more than our share of attention down in these parts.

    But I’m seeing three interesting things:

    1. We passed a property tax reform bill with the support of our governor. Though I generally like Governor Crist, I voted against it, because I agreed with analyses that showed we would be having revenue problems for things like schools.
    2. For some silly reason our county school board is trying to figure out how many teachers they’ll have to let go next year. Yes, they’re cutting administrative staff as well, though mostly staff that supports the teachers.
    3. Our legislature is busy with such likely activities as a so-called Academic Freedom bill for our high school teachers. I’m sure this is only taking up a small amount of legislative time, considering the silly wording of some of the bills and proposed amendments, but I’d suggest that any time spent on this is wasted.

    Why do I connect these things? No, the time factor isn’t it. I doubt if the legislators took the time they’ve devoted to this “academic freedom” debate and worked on educational funding, they’d solve much of anything. The connection is that these legislators are busy pandering to the stupid and selfish side of the voters. The property tax bill passed because it would reduce the property taxes of enough people, and because the old system was so bad. But nobody wanted to admit what just about everybody knew–our schools would be paying for it afterward.

    It doesn’t bother the folks in Tallahassee that cuts are being made, because it’s local school board officials who have to try to figure out how to live with it.

    Some folks dislike teaching evolution, so the legislators again pretend to be doing something, in this case largely throwing the responsibility onto individual teachers, who would be policed by the courts. Can you say “lawsuit?” Alternatively some versions would make the school boards responsible for something that should have been settled by the curriculum drafters. The curriculum drafters did an excellent job, but some legislators want to pretend to solve the voters problems.

    Until we demand that our politicians at all levels tell it like it is, we’re going to see much of our time wasted on this type of activity. When a politician says he can make something work, but he’s not going to have to pay for it in some other way, he’s lying. Everything costs. You have to make sure you’re willing to pay those costs.

  • Congratulating a Homeschooler on Science and Religion

    I write here frequently against teaching creationism of any variety in public schools. I do this, amongst other reasons to protect the integrity of science, to preserve the limited space in the science curriculum for actual science, and because I think religion in public schools is dangerous to both church and state. One major question is what religious doctrines would be taught, and who would teach them.

    But I also suggest that churches should teach about all of the various views on origins. They can easily emphasize and support their particular view, as is their right (and many would say duty). They are not charged with the integrity of science, and they are the best place to discuss various religious ideas. I think if churches took on the task in a serious way it would be done much better.

    Lingalinga blogged today that he is including a variety of materials in his homeschool program. As a homeschooled person, I can testify that one can cover a lot of ground in such a unit. I didn’t get to really learn about evolution in my homeschooling, but my experience isn’t normative. I think this is precisely how a homeschooler should go about it, presumably also including a good deal of the basic science (which I assume will happen) as well as the variety of interpretations.

    In homeschool you know who is going to do the teaching of religious ideas, you have much more freedom to move between topics and to look at things in an interdisciplinary way. This is where and how it can happen for the non-public school student.

  • If You Want to Pray, then Pray!

    I worked with a pastor a few years ago who was frequently called up to counsel and pray with other pastors and church leaders. I won’t go into the reasons. In general, he was a bit impatient with talking about the problems, and just wanted to get praying. Normally he’d get a couple of the folks who worked with him to join in praying for the person, and I was often one of those.

    I used to enjoy watching him, because you could tell as the conversation went on that he was getting less and less interested in hearing about the problems. Suddenly he’d break in and say, “Why don’t we just pray about it?” Now whatever you think about the balance between receiving good counsel and having someone pray for you, you can tell from his actions that this pastor was really focused on prayer. Prayer was what was important to him. When prayer is important to you you pray.

    I was reminded of this as I read this post which tells about some reaction to the settlement in Odessa. Now that issue was about teaching Bible in public schools. Personally, as I have said before, I think we would be better off without specific Bible classes in public schools largely because of the difficulty with prescribing a good curriculum and finding qualified teachers. I think the Bible belongs in public schools, but it should come up appropriately in literature, social studies, history, and even music classes. But it is constitutional to have a Bible class.

    Yet when we get into court things get tangled. That’s because the NCBCPS curriculum that many schools are using is not very good and is quite sectarian (read a report by a professor at Perkins School of Theology). It’s interdenominational only in the sense that a number of very conservative denominations would find it acceptable. It doesn’t deal with a broad range of academic issues, and certainly doesn’t handle interfaith issues properly.

    Now if you really wanted to teach a Bible class, it would likely be easier to find or design a curriculum that would pass constitutional muster (there already is one that’s quite good). Then you go ahead and have your Bible class. People like me can object and suggest this is better done at home and at one’s place of worship as part of religious education, but there’s really nothing I can do to stop it.

    On the other hand if you want to make trouble, and get publicity waging some kind of culture war, well, you choose a curriculum that is likely to be challenged, and you use that.

    Similarly with prayer in public schools, if you want your children to pray, they can. There are a number of legal ways to do this, while not disrupting the classroom. You can’t have government mandated prayers, or prayers led by school officials. But if you want to pray, you can quite easily work it out and go ahead and pray. One key element here would be teaching your children to pray so that they could do so without needing an adult to make it happen.

    On the other hand if you want to fuss about praying, and try to make points in the culture war, you find a place where you can’t pray, and you do it there. On the other hand, administrators who would like to make points might just order you not to pray, or not to include religious references in art, or might try to make a music teacher eliminate sacred music from the repertoire. In that case they are making trouble instead of doing their job. Of course, in many cases it’s just ignorance, but the law is not that hard to follow. You can get pamphlets that will cover easily more than 90% of the questions that might arise.

    I’m beginning to believe more and more that the vast majority of these cases arise from a combination of stupidity and the desire to fight, and not from the desire to pray or study the Bible.

  • Handing School Administration to the Courts

    In a previous post I mentioned that the proposed Academic Chaos Bill here in Florida was cowardly in that it created a very confused situation which others would have to navigate. The Florida house analysis of the bill says much the same thing:

    Finally, if a principal, the district school superintendent, or the school board determine that the information a teacher is presenting is not objective, relevant, or scientific, then the administration must prove its case prior to any action against a teacher. This may result in case-by-case determinations which, based on the propensities of the science teachers in the district, may prove frequent and challenging. This bill will affect costs of administering the science curriculum and, although indeterminate, may increase litigation expenses for the school district. (page 4, source: here, hat tip: Florida Citizens for Science Blog)

    With this clear analysis provided to the legislators, there is every reason that any who vote in favor should be made to regret their decision. They have chosen a few political points over the good of the children of Florida, and if they are not stopped, will have put a great burden on teachers, principles, and administrators throughout the state.

    Hopefully, since the house voted out an amended version, this thing can be killed at least for this session.

  • Florida Academic Chaos Bill Advances

    The badly misnamed Academic Freedom Bill has advanced through the judiciary committee of the Florida senate. You can find an account of the event on the Florida Citizens for Science blog, and some additional commentary by Pete Dunkelberg on The Panda’s Thumb.

    Pete notes quite correctly that teachers are not prevented from presenting any scientific material in support of meeting the curriculum standards:

    But there is no scientific material that anyone has been inhibited from presenting. There is however a certain view that some people wish to pretend is scientific even while knowing it isn’t. That view is called creationism or intelligent design. If the bill is not to allow teaching creationism, it has no function or purpose.

    And that is indeed the problem. Because they don’t like the curriculum standards that were designed by a very well qualified and representative team, these folks basically want to remove any requirement that Middle and High School teachers follow the curriculum standards. In other words, anything goes. The standards do not present the teachers from teaching science. And what else is there that these people could be wanting to introduce. Could it be religion? Of course they deny this.

    I don’t believe “lying” is too strong a word for what sponsors like Senator Ronda Storms are doing to the citizens of Florida. I believe she and her supporters know full well that this bill will result in chaos and legal action. But for certain people, the hope that they will get some religious teaching into public schools somewhere is a good enough excuse.

    22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. — Proverbs 12:22 (KJV)

    (See how nice I am! I even quoted it from the KJV for those know-nothings who think that version is the most accurate.)

  • Book: Evolution and Christian Faith

    I’m constantly on the lookout for books on evolutionary theory aimed at the general public rather than specialized audiences, so when I saw this little book on the shelf of the local university library, I took it home to check out.

    My response to it is a bit mixed. There are a number of good things about it. It’s simple, it presents most of the basics of evolutionary theory at the most basic level, and it deals with intelligence design briefly and vigorously. On the other hand, its approach to Biblical interpretation is vague, its theology is a bit soft, and its assumption that these arguments have any hope of reaching fundamentalists or even conservative evangelicals is frankly just a bit naive.

    The author, Dr. Joan Roughgarden, is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Christian and a member of the Episcopal church. She begins by discussing the relationship between science and religion. She suggests that the conflict between religion and science is fostered by the fact that we don’t discuss the two together. Her favorite topic of research is lizards, and she laments that evolutionists rarely discuss God and anti-evolutionists discuss God and rarely discuss lizards (p. 6).

    Unfortunately she really doesn’t do very much of discussing the two together. She does draw a few lines of connection between the Bible and science, but these can be divided between the naive and the distantly metaphorical. I don’t mean to be too cruel here, because there are a number of wonderful passages in this book, especially in describing the basics of evolutionary theory in non-specialists terms.

    In this early chapter she also intends to draw a distinction between what is solid and what is still questionable or “squishy” in evolutionary theory. That promise is very interesting, as is her distinction between the “real” controversies, which are in the details and in the leading edge of evolutionary theory, as opposed to the fake controversy created by intelligent design.

    In the second chapter, Dr. Roughgarden discuss the first “solid” element of evolutionary theory which she rightly calls a fact, common descent. She argues that there is nothing in a literal reading of Genesis that would deny this. The then continues in the third chapter with variation, which again she says does not contradict a literal reading of Genesis. I happen to agree with her on this point, as I state in my earlier blog post An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds. The problem, as most people who have discussed this issue will see, is that with these two elements we’re pretty much out of literal readings of Genesis 1 and 2 that will support evolutionary theory, and most conservative Christians will not even agree to those.

    Thus it is no surprise that chapter 4 deals with reading the Bible literally, and suggests essentially that Jesus came to change a rule-based approach to one based on principles and relationships. Most interpreters would have some trouble using that point to suggest that we now have permission to read certain things literally or not literally based on whether they agree with our scientific understanding. The connection there is a bit vague. Further the dividing line is also a bit vague. How do you decide?

    Dr. Roughgarden doesn’t tell us. She leaves us with the literal reconciliation of common descent and variation without a “kinds” boundary in living things, while suddenly rejecting such a literal reading of the days of creation based on the changed approach brought by Jesus. I don’t think this will provide a consistent approach to hermeneutics, and I don’t think it will impress the fundamentalists.

    In the fifth chapter she carries this point to the other extreme, using the vine and the branches (John 15:1-6) as an illustration connecting natural breeding (which she prefers to natural selection) in the Bible. This is such a metaphorical connection that it strains my reading a bit, and I’m quite an advocate of metaphorical readings. But she goes on in chapter 6 using Mark 13 and the parable of the sower as a connection to random mutation (p. 45). The explanation of random mutation is pretty good, however.

    Chapter 7 is a discussion of direction in evolution which, in my opinion, doesn’t deal adequately with the challenge presented by the theory of evolution to the older Christian understanding of the way in which the universe works. This is followed by chapter 8 which is occupied by a discussion of Roman Catholic theology. In it, Dr. Roughgarden acknowledges that the challenge to evolutionary theory and the impetus to teach intelligent design in the science classroom are not largely driven by Catholics. Those who are pushing it are, to a large extent, not going to be moved by statements by the Pope, however good those statements are.

    Following this is a chapter on the things that evolution has not accomplished yet which is largely dedicated to discussing the definition of an individual, and where natural selection operates, individual or group.

    The chapter on intelligent design was quite good. I was surprised that after a call largely for peace, this chapter is a pretty vigorous attack. On page 94 Dr. Roughgarden provides four things that intelligent design proponents need to do in order to get their views examined scientifically (p. 94). These are good criteria that would require the ID folks to do some actual science, an unlikely prospect. She further describes the controversy proposed by ID (as in “teach the controversy”) as “concocted” (p. 95), and finally calls ID “junk religion” (p. 101). She says it should be discussed in religion classes in order to point out just how bad it is as theology. She doesn’t think it has any place in science classrooms. On this, of course, I agree!

    Chapter 11 is given to sexual selection, and I have a hard time seeing why it is in the book. It makes little sense to me, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist. If it does have a purpose, that would seem to be to suggest that we shouldn’t present natural selection in such a competitive fashion. I’m not sure just how this works. Natural selection does involve a fairly heavy competitive element.

    The last chapter points to new directions. These could be summarized by saying that scientists should present themselves less like Richard Dawkins, and theologians should avoid referring to a wrathful God so much. I’m pretty much in agreement with that, but I don’t think either Dawkins or Falwell and Roberts (who she uses to illustrate what’s wrong in religion) will follow the suggestions.

    My overall impression is that Dr. Roughgarden is a good scientist who has a liberal view of religion, but has a limited understanding of the type of theological ideas that drive evangelicals and fundamentalists. She expresses a peaceful and experiential faith that I can truly appreciate. If my review sounds rough, it’s because I don’t think that she has engaged the controversy that is actually going on. She’s hoping for peace.

    I enjoyed this book, but I don’t feel I can add it to my list of recommended reading for those who are trying to get acquainted with the creation-evolution controversy.

  • Curriculum Chaos Bill in Florida

    The Florida legislature is considering an Academic Freedom bill. This one has been done to death, and you can find a great deal of information about it on the Florida Citizens for Science Blog, with the most recent update here. I’ll let you get the details via the many posts there.

    I want to add a point about this bill, however. It’s simply very stupid legislating. Now we are not at all shocked to see stupidity in the Florida legislature, or anywhere else, for that matter. As my wife commented when I mentioned this to her: “Why should Florida be different?” It’s not merely that this is creation vs. evolution, an issue on which I have some pretty strong convictions. The bill itself is wrong. It misunderstands academic freedom and it leaves almost everything open to interpretation, inviting litigation. In fact, it’s pretty much the sort of bill you write when you know you can’t get what you want, but you want to create some legislative language that will tangle the issue and let you try for it.

    The fundamental problem is that the legislature is choosing to write legislation on one portion of a subject through a specific bill. They had a framer’s committee to write the curriculum standards, they have a Board of Education to check those standards politically, but what they want to do is tinker with them by passing a bill.

    In most areas, we’d recognize this for what it is–bad micromanagement. If you think your management system for the state’s education system is that badly off, then you need to look at a better fix than this. But of course these legislators know that the experts are going to come to the same conclusion as they did before, and so they’re going to make political points at the expense of the children of Florida.

    This is bad legislation, badly written, hopelessly misguided, and there is no good outcome that would result from its passage. There is simply no excuse for it. The legislature should reject it.