Allowing Religion in Public Schools
Jason Streitfeld
June 26, 2008
I've received some feedback from readers about my article on the recent Louisiana legislation, a bill which has been heavily criticized for potentially allowing teachers to introduce pseudo-scientific, religiously motivated ideas into the classroom.
I support the legislation, because I think all ideas--even religious ones--should be discussed openly in schools. However, I also believe that all ideas should be approached logically and objectively, with as strict an adherence to scientific methodology as possible. Public school is not the place to preach or embrace dogma. On the contrary, religion must be treated scientifically, like any other object of study.
The question raised is, what place can religion have in a science classroom?
Any thorough discussion of evolutionary theory will touch on what makes it of such scientific and historical importance: namely, that it explains how the appearance of design was created in the absence of a designer. This naturally involves our ideas about design, designers, and how the complexity of life can be misleading. Indeed, the tendency for people to think of life as the result of a designer is so widespread, I cannot imagine how discussing it in a biology classroom would be out of place or a waste of time.
High school science textbooks should have a standard chapter on evolutionary theory in which the notion of Intelligent Design is adequately dealt with--not as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, but as a concept which has thoroughly been disproved by evidence and theory.
Chapters relating to the origins of life and the emergence of order out of chaos should also be present, in which the progress scientists have made in addressing these topics is emphasized. Students must also learn about the logical and methodological inadequacies of supposed "alternatives," such as Creationism. Such religious approaches (and their pseudo-scientific kin) only create confusion, and not meaningful explanations of anything.
While we're at it, we can also have a chapter on the soul. This would emphasize the fact that there is no scientific evidence, or even a scientific definition, for anything that might be called a soul. Notions of identity, personality, and feelings can be discussed in scientific terms, with reference to advances in neuroscience, and not as inherently mysterious aspects of humanity.
Some will maintain that there are inherent limitations on science in this respect, and that human subjectivity is inevitably beyond the hope of a complete scientific analysis. This remains a debated philosophical issue, and should certainly be open for discussion in the classroom. However, it should also be emphasized that there are no demonstrated limitations on science in this matter.
Finally, religion itself can be discussed as an historical and biological phenomenon. Religious belief may be approached scientifically, with reference to biology, psychology, neuroscience, and so on. Much has already been written on this subject. See, for example, my review of Daniel C. Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
This is not just about religion, though the need for better education with respect to that topic is of paramount importance. More generally, however, students must learn to recognize the difference between a meaningful explanation and a confused attempt at avoidance. This requires the sort of critical thinking promoted by Louisiana's bill, even if that was not the intention of its designers.
I support the Louisiana legislation because it promotes a better understanding of science. It is a step towards justifying some much-needed improvements of our textbooks and curricula. Once that is accomplished, the only thing left is to make sure our teachers are qualified to get the job done.
I support the legislation, because I think all ideas--even religious ones--should be discussed openly in schools. However, I also believe that all ideas should be approached logically and objectively, with as strict an adherence to scientific methodology as possible. Public school is not the place to preach or embrace dogma. On the contrary, religion must be treated scientifically, like any other object of study.
The question raised is, what place can religion have in a science classroom?
Any thorough discussion of evolutionary theory will touch on what makes it of such scientific and historical importance: namely, that it explains how the appearance of design was created in the absence of a designer. This naturally involves our ideas about design, designers, and how the complexity of life can be misleading. Indeed, the tendency for people to think of life as the result of a designer is so widespread, I cannot imagine how discussing it in a biology classroom would be out of place or a waste of time.
High school science textbooks should have a standard chapter on evolutionary theory in which the notion of Intelligent Design is adequately dealt with--not as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, but as a concept which has thoroughly been disproved by evidence and theory.
Chapters relating to the origins of life and the emergence of order out of chaos should also be present, in which the progress scientists have made in addressing these topics is emphasized. Students must also learn about the logical and methodological inadequacies of supposed "alternatives," such as Creationism. Such religious approaches (and their pseudo-scientific kin) only create confusion, and not meaningful explanations of anything.
While we're at it, we can also have a chapter on the soul. This would emphasize the fact that there is no scientific evidence, or even a scientific definition, for anything that might be called a soul. Notions of identity, personality, and feelings can be discussed in scientific terms, with reference to advances in neuroscience, and not as inherently mysterious aspects of humanity.
Some will maintain that there are inherent limitations on science in this respect, and that human subjectivity is inevitably beyond the hope of a complete scientific analysis. This remains a debated philosophical issue, and should certainly be open for discussion in the classroom. However, it should also be emphasized that there are no demonstrated limitations on science in this matter.
Finally, religion itself can be discussed as an historical and biological phenomenon. Religious belief may be approached scientifically, with reference to biology, psychology, neuroscience, and so on. Much has already been written on this subject. See, for example, my review of Daniel C. Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
This is not just about religion, though the need for better education with respect to that topic is of paramount importance. More generally, however, students must learn to recognize the difference between a meaningful explanation and a confused attempt at avoidance. This requires the sort of critical thinking promoted by Louisiana's bill, even if that was not the intention of its designers.
I support the Louisiana legislation because it promotes a better understanding of science. It is a step towards justifying some much-needed improvements of our textbooks and curricula. Once that is accomplished, the only thing left is to make sure our teachers are qualified to get the job done.
Print
Email
