[Phys-L] Re: Another attack on Evolution

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

Part of the problem in this debate is about how to label the people who wish
to put their religious point of view into the public school curriculum.
Since they take a very literal point of view in interpreting the bible, the
general term is fundamentalist for this type of thinking.  Evangelical is a
linked term, but is not exactly the same.  Evangelicalism appears in many of
the churches, but may or may not be linked with a literal interpretation.

As far as being bigots or bullies, they are trying to protect their identity
and their children from what they consider to be a godless point of view.
Many of them also consider anyone who does not adhere to their point of view
to be apostate and probably damned.  They have not learned the lesson of the
Galileo controversy.  This particular point of view means that they feel
impelled to correct the social permissiveness of the school system.
Unfortunately, they do not recognize the rights of the others who have
different beliefs.  For example would they be willing to accept the teaching
of the new testament in a public school history class with the "official"
interpretation being opposed to their interpretation.

One thing is quite clear, is that they have not thought the logic of what
they are trying to do through to its end.  If the schools can be compelled
to teach a biblically literal point of view in science, then the schools can
also be compelled to teach an atheistic point of view, a Moslem point of
view, or even a pantheistic point of view.  The only solution is to have the
schools be neutral with respect to religion, and to leave science to the
scientists.  If they wish to have a discussion of their ideas in the schools
then it needs to be in either history or comparative religion classes, but
again the schools can not take sides, but merely expose the different points
of view.

Again, we can help this process by using the idea of a model rather than a
theory, and emphasize that science only looks at mechanisms based on natural
processes.  Also we need to emphasize that religion looks at different
questions from science, and that science does not take either an atheistic
point of view, or a religious point of view.  But along the way we need to
oppose any politicians who seek to infuse a particular religious
interpretation into the curriculum.  This would include school boards all
the way up to governors and presidents.

I tend to think that the people who are trying to do this are morally at the
concrete operational stage.  They have not progressed to the higher stages
of moral thinking.  Piaget studied this, and found that the higher stages
are characterized by reciprocity rather than thou shalt not.  Many of the
same people will fight for the 10 commandments to be publicly displayed in
government buildings.  The 10 commandments are morally equivalent to being
in the lower stages of thinking.  Yet I have never heard them fight to have
the beatitudes posted in these same buildings.  The beatitudes are
attributed to Christ and as such should be closer to the basis of
Christianity than the commandments.

Part of the failure of students to progress both cognitively and morally is
on our doorstep.  The school system generally operates in such a manner as
to promote rote memorization and obedience to rules rather than to promote
growth in thinking.  The two types of growth may well go hand in hand.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> > Those are not fundamentalists, those are bigots and bullies who come in
> > all flavors - including the current use of the term "liberal". These
> > people may profess religion, but they are not Christian!  Everything
> > walking around professing Christianity is not a follower of Christ. One
> > way to detect true followers is how they treat other people.  I can see
> > that you have had personal experience with snobbery and bigotry ( as I
> > have, having been 'poor white trash' in my growing up days in
> > Mississippi).  But I am not bitter having long ago forgiven them for
> > their ignorance.
>
> So whose word as to "who is or is not Christian" are we to take? I
> have heard people in the mainstream churches claim, as you just have,
> that the people Jack was talking about are not Christian. But those
> mentioned by Jack have said that people in mainstream churches who
> don't follow their theology are not Christian. Since both groups seem
> to use the same source as their reference point (the Christian
> Bible), how are we to know who is right?
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l