AgapeRevolution.com

A law review article that I authored was recently published in the Winter 2006 issue of the Chapman Law Review. The article is entitled Evolution, Science, and Ideology: Why the Establishment Clause Requires Neutrality in Science Classes. A PDF version of the article can be accessed by clicking on the article title. I have pasted the introduction to the article below since it provides a pretty good summary of the thesis.

Public education is often considered to be one of the most benign aspects of state power. Many people question how such a benevolent institution could be labeled as coercive when it rarely even engages in corporal punishment. It is the dominance of this assumption in society that allows compulsory public education to conceal its considerable coercive power. The source of this power is the inherent capacity of public education to shape how students view the world. Both the public education system and the elites who influence it use this power to serve their own ideological ends. One of the best examples of this ideological coercion is the choice of public schools to teach evolutionary theory as the exclusive explanation for the origin of life. Both public schools and federal courts justify the failure to teach alternatives with the claim that evolutionism is the only scientific explanation for the origin of life. In reality, alternatives to evolutionary theory are only unscientific to the extent that one relies on a secular definition of the scientific method. Relying on a slanted definition of science will inevitably produce a rigged game when one determines whether a theory is scientific.

Although some school districts and legislatures have attempted to solve this problem, the federal courts have used the Establishment Clause to obstruct all attempts at reform. The underlying cause of this situation is both philosophical and legal. Flawed epistemological assumptions have produced flawed legal reasoning. Because the problem has two sources, the solution must also have two aspects. First, people should recognize that the definition of science, which is legitimizing the exclusion of alternatives to evolutionary theory, is ideological. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court should hold that the failure to teach alternatives to evolutionary theory in public school science classes is an establishment of religion under the First Amendment. Section I of this paper will analyze the false epistemological assumptions that are legitimizing the indoctrination of students into evolutionary theory. Section II will examine Establishment Clause cases that have dealt with evolutionism. Section III will discuss why the exclusive teaching of evolutionism in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.

There have been a few blog reactions to the article already. Not surprisingly, most of the reaction has been negative. See Uncommon Ground; Dispatches from the Culture War; The Panda’s Thumb; Positive Liberty. The reactions to the article have been somewhat unsophisticated so far.

Responses to Ten Objections

I have looked through those negative blog postings (listed and linked to above), and I have been able to find about ten key objections among all of the various opposing arguments. I am going to respond to each of these ten objections.

(1) The author is from Liberty University.

The first objection seems to be personal. Uncommon Ground, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Panda’s Thumb, and Positive Liberty all go out of their way to point out in a seemingly mocking fashion that I am a graduate of Liberty University. One commenter at Dispatches from the Culture War went so far as to say, “Does Liberty U prepare its students for entering the real world, where ‘evolutionism’ is not considered a religion, for example? Kids who grow up home-schooled and then get a diploma from a Christian college must be in for a rude awakening when they first encounter others who don’t share their premises.”

I would like to refer all of the aforementioned blogs to something that I learned at my (in)famous undergraduate college. I took a logic class while I was at Liberty University. Yes, Liberty does have a logic class. And in this logic class, I learned about something called logical fallacies. These are the arguments of the weak people of the world because they are an attempt to distract the audience from the substantive issue at hand. Two of the logical fallacies that I learned about at Liberty were the (1) Argumentum Ad Hominem and (2) Genetic Fallacy. Both of these types of arguments have something in common, which is that they attempt to argue in an irrational fashion against the origin of an argument or the person who made it. A good example of these logical fallacies in action is the attempt of these blogs to discredit my arguments by linking me to Liberty University.

Another error that these individuals have engaged in here is that of making false generalizations about a very large group of people (i.e. graduates of Liberty University). For example, nine years of my education occurred at extremely secular institutions of learning. And, during my seven years as a successful competitive debater, I can assure that I have encountered far more strange ideas than most people in this world.

(2) Creationism does not follow the norms of scientific community.

Uncommon Ground argues that “creationism doesn’t follow the norms and practices of science . . . .” My only response to this argument is whose science? It is true that the materialistic scientific method that is the dominant norm in the scientific community is inconsistent with creationism. The question is why it should matter that this materialistic scientific method dominates the scientific community, if there is no proven epistemic basis for its claimed superiority other than the fact that it is the method that the majority of the scientific community prefers.

(3) (A) The scientific method has yielded real world practical results. (B) Science is the only legitimate source of knowledge.

Both Uncommon Ground and Positive Liberty argue that the materialistic scientific method has a claim to epistemic superiority because of the results that it has yielded. There are a few problems with this argument. First, the authors are engaging in circular reasoning. The claimed results that have been yielded by the scientific method are being proven through use of the scientific method. It is a logical fallacy to use the scientific method to prove the scientific method.

Second, the basic assumption of the materialistic approach to the scientific method is completely unverifiable. The materialistic methodology assumes that the only true aspects of knowledge and reality are those that can be verified through the five senses. However, if there were other aspects of knowledge or reality other than the senses, the senses certainly would not know about them. Therefore, the assumption of the materialistic method that truth can only be experienced through the five senses cannot be verified through use of the five senses.

Third, the authors assume that because a particular methodology yields practical results that it is a true methodology. This is the pragmatist philosophy. The problem with the pragmatist philosophy, however, is that it is also unverifiable. There is simply no reason why the fact that an idea is pragmatic makes it true.

Fourth, all of the claimed pragmatic benefits of the materialistic method are not distinct to the materialistic method. Both the materialistic and non-materialistic approaches to the scientific method study the natural world. The difference between the two is the range of inferences that one can draw from studying the empirical world. The materialistic approach to the scientific method only allows for natural explanations of the natural world. The non-materialistic approach allows for both natural and supernatural explanations of the natural world. The car was invented through observation of the natural world. There is no reason why the car would not have been discovered if one was operating under a theory that allowed for supernatural causation because such a theory allows for both forms of causation. Isaac Newton was a great scientist while he operated under an approach to the scientific method that allowed for supernatural causation.

It is true that historically there was an attempt within some religious belief systems to explain everything in the natural world through supernatural causation because people had not yet come to understand the importance of also understanding natural causation. We would not go back to the condition of ancient times merely because supernatural causation becomes a possibility since an understanding of the importance of natural causation is present today in a way that it was not in the past. Eliminating the possibility of supernatural causation is not the solution to ensuring adequate study of natural causation. Doing so just produces a more limited view of the world.

(4) It is improper to teach philosophical proofs in relation to existence of God.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars contends that I was incorrect in my assumption that it is constitutionally acceptable to teach supporting and opposing proofs about the existence of God in a philosophy class. This issue was addressed on page 380 of my article where I cited a couple of Supreme Court cases that indicate that this probably would be allowable under the current precedent of the Court. I have reproduced that section of my article below.

The Supreme Court has established precedents that help determine when teaching religion in public schools is neutral. In Zorach v. Clauson, the Court found that a state violates the principle of religious neutrality if it engages in religious instruction that only represents the views of a particular sect. n154 The Court held in Epperson that the state violates the principle of neutrality if it tailors education to the principles or prohibitions of a particular religious group or dogma. n155 On the other hand, in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, the Supreme Court held that an education is incomplete without classes on the history of religion or comparative religion. n156 Public schools can integrate study of the Bible and religion when presented objectively. n157 The key principle for the Court is neutrality. Public schools can educate students about religion, but they cannot side with particular beliefs when educating about religion.

(5) Evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion.

Dispatches from the Culture War contends that evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion: “Evolution is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories, it is discrete; that is, it explains a specific set of data and does not explain or attempt to explain things outside that data set. It is not a ‘belief system’ or a ‘worldview’ or whatever absurd catchphrase is popular these days; it is a discrete scientific theory.”

This argument creates a false dichotomy because it assumes without foundation that if evolution is a scientific theory, it is not a religion. I would argue that evolution and intelligent design are both religions and scientific theories. The assumption that motivates this argument is the idea that a theory with no supernatural aspect cannot be religious. However, in my article, I presented numerous Supreme Court precedents, which demonstrate that the Court considers secular belief systems like atheism to be a religion, and there is good reason for this. If such secular belief systems were not religions, then they would not have the right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. I also explained how evolutionary theory is a distinctly materialistic approach to explaining the origin of life that is based on certain secular epistemological assumptions.

There is one other argument that I presented concerning why evolutionary theory is religious, which is a topical designation. I present this argument on page 386:

[E]volutionism is a religion because it takes a position on an issue that has always been at the center of religious belief systems, i.e., the origin of life and the universe. It is an advancement of religion when the government adopts a distinctly materialistic belief about the origin of life that directly conflicts with other religious beliefs. . . . The Seventh Circuit has found that taking a position on divinity, whether affirming or denying, is itself a religious belief. n199 Similarly, taking a position on the origin of life is a religious belief regardless of the position that one takes since this issue is at the heart of religious belief.

(6) Every scientific theory will be religious, and objections will have to be taught to all.

Dispaches from the Culture War argues: “Now, it’s certainly true that evolution conflicts with the tenets of some religious faiths, or at least with a subset of those faiths. But if that fact magically transforms evolution into a religion itself then every scientific theory must now be declared a religious view.” It is untrue that under my approach all scientific theories will be deemed religious. As I already stated, evolutionary theory is a unique scientific theory because it takes a position on an issue that basically every religion since the beginning of time has taken a position on. It takes a position on a question that is by definition religious, and the answer provided by evolution is by definition religious. This is not necessarily true of other scientific theories, which often do not take positions on issues that have tended to be at the heart of religious belief.

In addition, there are few theological beliefs that would qualify to be taught in the classroom under the non-materialistic approach to the scientific method. As I argued on page 364 of my article: “The object of study in science classes should be anything in the universe that a person can study through the five senses. Therefore, revealed texts in which some people find authority are not within the realm of scientific study. This is not because such religious texts are necessarily inferior to scientific study -they are just two different topical areas of study.” Most religious beliefs are derived from religious authority of some form, and they would not be included in a science class unless there is some proof for the belief based on observing the natural world alone, as is the case with intelligent design.

Dispatch from the culture war argues that if all views should be allowed in the classroom that would justify teaching all theories including things like flat earth theory. I agree that this demonstrates a flaw in public education, which is that limited time means that only limited views will be presented. I believe that the solution to this problem is to abolish public education and allow parents to take children to schools that reflect their own values. This would end the indoctrination and coercion that is intrinsic to the public education system.

However, as long as the public education system exists it is necessary to use the time that exists in a manner that is as neutral as possible. The current situation where only one theory on the origin of life is taught is the farthest situation from neutrality that is conceivable. It is singular indoctrination. The best solution within the public education system to the issue of limited time may be to require any view to be taught that represents more than 25% of either (a) the scientific community or (b) the general public. It is also possible to teach by painting a broad picture. For example, one can say there are three major approaches to the origin of life: (1) the universe came into existence exclusively through material causes; (2) the universe came into existence through material causes that were initiated by a supernatural cause; (3) the universe came into existence directly through supernatural causation of some kind. There are hardly any views that are excluded by this explanation, and it is more inclusive than just teaching number one.

(7) Some theories do not fit the facts.

I agree that some theories do not fit the natural world. However, there is disagreement over which theories fit. Therefore, it is important to be as inclusive as is feasible. This is important for the scientific discipline itself because science cannot effectively search for truth about the natural world if students are not taught about the available options.

( The constitution does not require equal time for secular and religious beliefs.

Yes, it does. (1) The Lemon Test requires neutrality between religious beliefs. (2) The Supreme Court had made it explicitly clear that secular beliefs are religions. (3) Therefore, there must be neutrality between secular and religious briefs, and there is no neutrality if secular beliefs get an unfair amount of time dedicated to them.

(9) Government would not be able to use science in public policy.

Positive Liberty argues: “government certainly can allocate spending to the fire department based on its scientific understanding of the likelihood of fire during certain times of the year; or may adopt certain prison programs based on wholly secular considerations of prisoners’ needs.” This is not a situation that is analogous to public education. Even if the government passes a law that is based on a religious rationale that does not necessarily make it unconstitutional. For example, a law designed to provide health care to the poor would be constitutional even if every member of congress voted for it because of a religious motivation for serving the poor.

(10) This article should be censored.

Positive Liberty states that “The Chapman Law Review’s editor in chief, Tim Kowal, chose the article for publication. All of these people—but most of all the Chapman Law Review—should be deeply ashamed of having their names on this tripe.” Please tell me. Who is the true dogmatist: (a) the person who desires to engage in open dialogue with other people on an issue despite their disagreement or (b) the person who seeks to silence others who do not share his/her viewpoint through censorship? The free market place of ideas cannot co-exist with censorship of ideas that one finds disagreeable. The hypocrisy of anti-creationists is inconceivable. They actively attempt to censor pro-creationist literature, and then in Court they argue that pro-creationist ideas are not credible because there is no peer reviewed literature on the topic. I wonder why.

Positive Liberty argues that his desire for censorship is based on “quality control” and not ideological disagreement. For example, I have no doubt that he would have objected with the same passion if this was a badly written article about estate law. If articles have to be written supporting my position, would it not be better for Positive Liberty if the articles were written in a shoddy manner? Is Positive Liberty really more scared about how bad the article is or how good it is?

I do not want to be too hard on Positive Liberty though. You have to admire creativity of the quality control objections. (1) I failed to cite Positive Liberty’s article on the topic of evolution, (2) I did not cite Francis Beckwith, (3) I graduated from Liberty University and William Mitchell College of Law, clear disqualifiers, and (4) I listed Prof. Pannier, an eminent legal philosopher, as assisting me with the article. All I have to say is that if Positive Liberty honestly believes that these are true and legitimate standards for determining the quality of a law review article, I am going to go out on a limb and state that I am not the unqualified one.

(Posted by Trask)