Re: [asa] Re: 7th Circuit Decision

On 7/1/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> PvM said: Nevertheless, it is safe to reiterate that religious viewpoints
> on
> scientific issues can be rejected in a science curriculum without a
> risk of violating the establishment clause of the constitution
>
> I think you mean that the establishment clause would prohibit religious
> references about scientific issues, notwithstanding any rights a teacher or
> student might have under the free exercise clause. But I think even this is

Yes, teachers may address questions and students may ask questions.
However, a teacher may not present his own opinions on such issues
when they clearly have religious foundations. I was trying to be
concise and lacked clarity here.

> an overstatement. Certainly one could present religious perspectives on
> scientific issues as a subject for study, without endorsing any particular
> perspective, without violating the establishment clause. I don't think

Of course, one could present the various religious perspectives on a
particular issue. I am not sure if one could present religious
perspectives on scientific issues, after all, why should such be of
concern to science?

> whether such a subject for study falls within the "science" or "history" or
> "social studies" section of the curriculum changes the Constitutional
> calculus. This, IMHO, is one of the fundamental errors people make
> concerning the Kitzmiller case: courts are not in the business, and should
> not be in the business, of curriculum design. Curriculum design is only a
> Constitutional question when a specific religious viewpoint is being
> advocated (or when civil rights are being violated, e.g. if the curriculum
> were plainly racist).

Or lacking a secular purpose, with strong religious undertones?

I believe the fundamental error people make concerning the Kitzmiller
case is to argue that the judge overstepped bounds by ruling on ID
being science. Of course the court in question was not in the business
of curriculum design and merely addressed the constitutional aspects
of whether or not ID served a valid secular purpose and thus could be
taught in schools. In other words, if ID had a valid secular purpose
then, despite the clear religious motivations of the board, ID would
have been constitutionally permissible.
The problem is that ID is intricately linked with religious overtones,
and probably irreparably.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 1 15:57:44 2007