Monday, September 30, 2013

Texans Debate Creationism in the Classroom

Yesterday we wrote about the latest case in Kansas challenging evolution in the classroom.  In a comment, reader Eli Bortman gave us the heads-up that yesterday's NYT included an article on the same issue in Texas.  (Thanks, Eli.)

Here's a bit from the Times piece that helps explain the edu-ese and pseudo-scientific language in COPE's complaint in the Kansas case:

By questioning the science--often getting down to very technical details--the evolution challengers in Texas are following a strategy increasingly deployed by others around the country.

There is little open talk of creationism.  Instead they borrow buzzwords common in education, "critical thinking," saying there is simply not enough evidence to prove evolution.

COPE went even further, though, arguing that the Kansas standards (with (secular) evolution as a centerpiece) themselves represent a kind of religious orthodoxy, and that Kansas in imposing this orthodoxy, without balancing it with "origin science," violated the religion clauses, free speech, and the Eqaul Protection Clause.  In doing so, COPE adopts the language and legal claims of opponents of creationism and tries to create an equivalence between its position and the position of science--putting itself on par with science, both on the "science" and in its legal positions in relation to science, and casting science as a kind of religion.  Then, after creating this topsy-turvey world where religion is science and science is religion, COPE asks the question: If "origin scientists" have an equal claim to the truth, doesn't it violate equality, speech, and religious principles to exclude their position from the curriculum?  

This isn't new, but as the COPE complaint and NYT piece suggest, creationism advocates may be getting a little better at clothing their positions in official- and technical-sounding langauge, and in turning the same constitutional claims that proponents of a curriculum based on science have used against creationism right back on them, in support of creationism.  The strategy is designed to frame the debate as one scientific theory against another scientific theory, not science against religion, and to put the competing policy and constitutional claims on par in order to gain traction under the religion clauses, free speech, and equal protection.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2013/09/texans-debate-creationism-in-the-classroom.html

Establishment Clause, First Amendment, Free Exercise Clause, Fundamental Rights, News, Religion | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef019affb148d1970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Texans Debate Creationism in the Classroom:

Comments

Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

Posted by: Brandt | Oct 1, 2013 3:51:08 PM

Why stop at Young Earth Creationism? Doesn't the Bible say that Joshua
ordered the Sun to stand still. The Sun, not the Earth. So the Sun must
revolve around the Earth, not vice versa. So we must also include
Geocentrism in the curriculum as well. And doesn't the Bible also say
that Jesus went to the top of a high mountain where He could see all the
kingdoms of the Earth. This could only be true if the Earth is flat. So we
must also give equal time to flat Eartism as well. Finally, the Bible
mentions that one of the kings of Israel ordered a circular tank built
10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. So the value of Pi
must be 3.0 not 3.14159 or even 3 16/113. After all, God said it............

Posted by: Daniel Rosenthal | May 15, 2014 9:53:23 AM

Post a comment