The New York Times is reporting that, at least in one small California mountain town, attempts to smuggle religion into schools are now occurring in philosophy classes, as well as science classes. On the face of it, a discussion of how our species filters its observations of reality into different camps - those based on reason and those based on faith - seems like a worthy topic for a philosophy class. However, when one reads further, one can see only too well why
A group of parents are suing their small California school district to force it to cancel a four-week high school elective on intelligent design, creationism and evolution that it is offering as a philosophy course.
In the Dover trial, it wasn't overly difficult to demonstrate that ID was, at its heart, just creationism (and hence religion) dressed up in the clothing of science. And over the last few years, the obvious religious intent of the Discovery Institute has become crystal clear through interviews with its "scientists" and through leaked documents. In the case of this philosophy class at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, CA, one doesn't need to delve deeply at all to see the ridiculous bias in the curriculum and supporting materials
In their suit, the parents said the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." They said the syllabus listed two evolution experts who would speak to the class. One was a local parent and scientist who said he had already refused the speaking invitation and was now suing the district; the other was Francis H. C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who died in 2004. A course description distributed to students and parents said, "This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."
This is just plain brilliant! I see this strategy taking off much more broadly among those who would attack science. Got your own idea about how that silly little Patent Clerk was all wrong, but how you, living in your Mum's basement, have figured it all out? Set up a debate with Albert himself. You can present your materials and if he doesn't respond adequately, then clearly there's great merit to your ideas. Think cosmology is a bunch of twaddle and that those hordes of well-trained cosmologists are completely off-track? Take it up with Hubble or Friedmann - I'm sure you can put them in their place. Are you are adamant that abstinence-only education works better than true sex education at preventing teen pregnancies and better than vaccines against the human papilloma virus, which causes many cases of cervical cancer? If so, you should get Alfred Kinsey to explain himself, and if he can't, then let people draw their own conclusions. Maybe you're sure that the Grand Canyon was carved 4,500 years ago by the great global flood, as God's punishment for humanity's sin? Drag John Strong Newberry into your class and kick his ass when he doesn't stand up to your intellectual onslaught. In Lebec, I hope that the glaring dishonesty and downright stupidity of the unintelligent designers of this course will be obvious enough to have it quickly removed from the school books. But it does seem that this may be the beginning of the next front in the war on reason. Let's all be vigilant.
