Americans are a freedom loving people. We've gotten lazy about it though, as evidenced by our propensity to listen to "experts" over our own reasoning. We don't do the research ourselves. We listen to talking heads, and those whose worldviews do not reflect our own so their "expertise" is suspect.
Perhaps this is why we are a homeschooling family for we do not like to be told what to think.
Now as Lutherans, we also know that we cannot know everything and that there are sometimes mysteries that we are not meant to comprehend.
Still, the beating rhythm of our hearts cries out like Mel Gibson in Braveheart as he is about to be cut from stem to stern, "FREEDOM!"
In light of that, it appears that a perfect segue is here to those who have absorbed the message of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which is academic freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've been thinking about this for awhile, off and on. What do you propose should be taught in lower grades, colleges, and how should the subject matter be determined?
Traditionally, scientists come up with something new, it is soon taught in colleges, and the gradually filters down to the lower levels. [Cf plate tectonics.] But this method relies on considering some people to be experts who get to make the decisions about what is acceptable science. How are these "experts" validated? [The same is true for medical doctors and auto mechanics, such as brake specialists. Some organization grants them a license or seal of approval. Or should popular opinion decide what medical or automotive procedures are required?]
I agree with the basic message of "Expelled" - anyone professing belief in Intelligent Design will not be accepted by the experts of the scientific community. I can't imagine that any professorial job candidate can go to any of the major research schools such as MIT or UC Berkeley, state a belief in a young earth or ID and expect to be hired by the Geology or Biology departments. On the other hand, the specific message of "Expelled" seems to be exaggerated. Ben Stein in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/130619) "The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer-reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job." Yet Catholic Ken Miller (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/) writes "Sternberg wasn't even employed by the Smithsonian (he had no job to lose), and had resigned as journal editor six months before the paper was published. In fact, the irony is that neither Steinberg nor any of the other people featured as martyrs in "Expelled" lost jobs as a result of their advocacy of Intelligent Design ...". So whom is one to believe? What should public schools do when basic tenets of science conflict with the beliefs of some students and their families?
j a higginbotham
Mr. Higginbotham,
I don't think it is quite so complicated to determine as if we were in a court with evidence presented on either side.
Truth is truth. It does not change based on the *beliefs* of those who view it. How we arrive at the truth, as falliable beings, is through a preponderance of the evidence (now that sounds like a legal term, and having worked with attorneys it is, but I don't mean for it to be taken in the way lawyers would infer). That preponderance of the evidence is going to be affected by a lot of factors such as our academic understanding of such matters, our trust (faith) in the ones presenting the material to be considered, and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from either.
I'm quite certain that on most issues of scientific matters we can all go tit-for-tat. But doesn't that show that we just don't know? And if that's the case, what is intrinsically wrong with presenting both sides to our youth captive in educational institutions and allowing them to make their own conclusions?
What I've argued for all along is just the *ability* to present both sides. It seems to me that when one side is systematically denied a presentation of their peer-reviewed evidence, then someone's running scared.
I don't believe that Christians belong in public schools for they belong to "Caesar." If Christians want to do that, their children will end up "Romans." Christians need to have their children in a decidedly Christian environment for a variety of reasons, science and how it is approached is just one of them.
The "experts" arguments isn't one that will get very far with me, for ordinary, thinking people have the tools to learn and discover if they take the time. An expert is just someone following their passion of interest, which is influenced by their experiences, academic training, and their faith in the ones presenting the evidence. Having a degree, of any sort, does not make one more qualified to present evidence, it's just part of their vocation.
I'll have to have a cuppa tea and think on this further.
Post a Comment