Science and religion
As opposed to science OR religion. Or…..science as religion.
Incrementally, we’re seeing the spread of initiatives to study issues of science in a broader context of the full human person that includes questions of philosophy and theology about ‘being’ and ‘reason’. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the permission for schools in that state to open up science curriculum to that broader field of inquiry.
Getting past the buzzwords of the evolution/intelligent design controversy, the real story here is the combining the advancements of science and technology with the intellectual tradition of critical thinking. And making it a ‘both/and’ proposition as opposed to an ‘either/or’.
Nobody is replacing the current science curriculum. Here’s the heart of this story:
The new law requires teachers to follow the standard curriculum, but allows a school district to permit a teacher to supplement his course with additional scientific evidence, analysis, and critiques regarding the scientific topics taught to his students.
One major goal of the law is to support an “open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” in public elementary and secondary schools.
The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) will be required, at the request of local school boards, to “include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied.”
Supporters of the law have hailed it as a great step forward for academic freedom in the face of dogmatic proponents of evolution and man-made global warming, who have mischaracterized scientific/philosophical alternatives as “religion.”
Opponents are going to sue. But the law covers all bases of possible concern.
Section 1D clearly states that the law “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”
Perhaps their concern is that their agenda won’t any longer enjoy its immunity from critical thinking.