[IP] more on creationism and theocracy
------ Forwarded Message
From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:05:06 -0500
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] creationism and theocracy
[For IP, if you like]
Jim Huggins writes:
> In my uninformed opinion, it seems to me that there are those who would
> want to remove *all* reference to religious thought from public life.
> This goes well beyond the Establishment Clause, which prohibits Congress
> from establishing a state-endorsed religion.
>
> In response, some religious conservatives over-react, and start working on
> laws which tread terribly close to the Establishment Clause. And so we
> have extremists on both sides trying to impose their views on the other.
>
> I think common middle ground could be found.
Jim expresses a wonderful vision, and it would be delightful if it were
possible, but I think (regrettably) that his framing of the problem is
inaccurate.
Suppose the creationists had come to the school system(s) and said
"Evolution is a theory. Creationism (or whatever the name) is also a
theory. Neither theory has conclusively been shown, and therefore we
feel strongly that the creationist theory deserves equal attention in
the curriculum."
Scientists would surely have gnashed their teeth at this position for
quite some time, but after a certain amount of useless resistance they
would have been forced to accept it. It is a proposition articulated
using the values of science, and it would ultimately be hypocritical for
science to reject this proposition framed in this form. I can imagine
some wonderful debates that might have made the community of science
dreadfully embarrassed along the way (probably would have been healty
for us). After a time, faced with a gentle but unrelenting campaign of
this sort, the community of science would have conceded rather than
appear mired in doctrine.
But this isn't the proposition that was put on the table. The battle
here isn't a battle about alternative theories and open points of view.
The battle is ultimately about the teaching of critical thought at all.
Creationism is just the first wedge.
What I think Jim is missing is that the driving forces behind
Creationism are religious forces, and that in the eyes of the people who
ultimately define the Creationist position the teaching of evolution is
*heresy*.
So what we have is one side with an open (or at least potentially and
reluctantly openable) view and another side that is determined to
destroy that view.
For those who haven't had occasion to do so, I strongly encourage
reading the work of Fouad Ajami, in particular, "The Dream Palace of the
Arabs". Having done so, ask yourself whether the radical Christian Right
is different, and how. There are very real differences between the
radical Christian right and modern Islam, but in the context of politics
there are not so many as it might appear.
Jonathan Shapiro
Assistant Professor
Johns Hopkins University
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/