PD>I'm just catching up on a lot of my mail after a week away from the
>computer. I'd like to follow up on a recent post by Derek. I do not
>intend any rigorous argument on the issue one way or the other, only to
>offer some perspective to encourage further understanding.
>DM>Alternatively, is there anyone on the Reflector who believes that the
>>exclusive teaching of biological evolutionary theory in school and
>>university science courses IS intrinsically atheistic, and would be
>>willing to provide a rigorous defence of that opinion for further
>>discussion?
PD>In reponse, I am taking the liberty to assume the use of terms as
>follows:
>
>"atheistic" , an adjective that means the denial of the existence of a
>supreme being or of God
>"intinsically" means the essential nature or characteristic of a thing
>(as in inherently)
>
>Added to this, please consider the use of the term "a-theistic" to mean
>in the absence of a supreme being.
>
>Whether the presentation of material in a textbook "a-theistically" is
>intrinsically "atheistic" is a difficult argument to make. I have not
>seen a public school textbook that states "There is no God.".
>
>Two questions arise. Does the ommission of reference to the existence or
>work of God imply that there is no God?
>Second, is that same ommission evidence of an atheistic presentation of
>the information? The answer may lie in the presentation of the material
>or in the intent of the author.
We agree on definitions and also on the questions that must be answered
before my question can be answered.
PD>One could reasonably argue that if a textbook exclusively presents
>naturalism and evolution as the ONLY valid explanation for origins, or
>the existence of present day life, than that argument is inherently
>atheistic in that the writer has specifically chosen to preclude (deny)
>the existence of supernatural (theistic) factors.
I note that you have paired naturalism and evolution, and I see no reason
for doing this. You argument would have been stronger, perhaps even
incontrovertible, had you left out the reference to "evolution" completely,
and just said "if a textbook exclusively presents naturalism as the ONLY
valid explanation for origins ...."
I would see a textbook as intrinsically atheistic if it presented naturalism
as the ONLY valid paradigm for explaining all observed phenomena. Such a
textbook's position on evolution, Darwinian or otherwise, would be
irrelevant to its intrinsic atheism.
PD>On the other hand, if the writer specifically acknowledges naturalism
>and evolution as only one explanation then I would not consider that
>textbook as atheistic.
Again, the pairing of naturalism and evolution!
PD>It is merely narrow in scope and presents only a part of the known
>information on a subject.
Yes, such a textbook would be narrow in scope since, as a science textbook,
it would be focussing on the use of scientific methodology and the
information/hypotheses/theories available via the use of scientific methodology.
I would also claim that the only "information on a subject" that is "known",
is information gained and/or verified by the use of scientific methodology.
Other information is not "known", but rather "believed".
Even most of the information on a subject that IS gained and/or verified by
the use of scientific methodology, although much more obviously reliable
than information from other sources, is not certain enough to be described
as "known"!
PD>Generally speaking, many textbooks fit neither method of presentation
>and the question remains whether an atheistic presentation was intended.
>I suppose one would have to research the background of the author to
>discover any prior writings or statements that may shed some light on
>their philosophical leanings.
A textbook author should be extremely careful to keep their own
philosophical and religious biases out of the textbooks they write or, as a
second-best solution, clearly label such biases as personal.
For this reason, neither Richard Dawkins nor Gary Parker would be likely to
write a good biology textbook. Gary Parker has, IMO, certainly put too much
of his own philosophical and religious biases into the textbooks he has
written, and I believe Dawkins would be similar.
PD>To many people of faith, there is an appearance of atheism in the way
>that the subject of evolution is presented. Many are aware that,
>philosophically, many of the early proponents of modern educational
>theory reasoned from a humanistic, and inherently atheistic,
>perspective. These educational theorists saw public education as an
>opportunity to free the minds of students from their antiquated
>religious beliefs.
I can't argue with this, except to suggest that you might have included
deism and pantheism along with atheism.
And I'd like to rewrite your above statement to show you the opposite side
of the coin.
To many people of no faith, there is an appearance of theism in the way
that the subject of origins is presented. Many are aware that,
philosophically, many of the early proponents of traditional educational
theory reasoned from an inherently theistic perspective. These educational
theorists saw church-controlled education as an opportunity to entrench
their antiquated religious beliefs firmly in the minds of students.
PD>Darwin's evolution, the root of the present day
>presentation in many textbooks, was also inherently atheistic. The
>combination of these two is seen as driving the teaching of the subject.
The philosophical content of Darwin's evolution can be interpreted as
deistic, pantheistic or agnostic as credibly as it can be interpreted as
atheistic. It is also arguable that it is entirely consistent with modernist
Christian belief.
PD>Julian Huxley is quoted as saying... "Darwinism removed the whole idea
>of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational
>discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed;
>since natural selection could account for every form of life, there was
>no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution..... I think that we
>can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being
>responsible for the evolutionary process" (at the Darwinian Centennial
>Celebration at the University of Chicago, from Henry Morris' book, The
>Twilight of Evolution).
Huxley's comment is as consistent with deism, pantheism and agnosticism as
it it with atheism.
PD>The history of the presentation of evolution in schools has proceeded
>from an original atheistic beginning.
I would suggest that the presentation of evolution in public schools has
proceeded from the input of many belief systems. The most obvious
non-participants in this input are the fundamentalist or traditional
Christian groups.
PD>Theistic explanations, even TE, are not presented in public schools.
True. But my argument is that atheistic evolution is not presented either.
Just evolution, with no inherent philosophical bias. Indeed, the textbooks
that I have seen appear to go out of their way to insist that no
philosophical or religious inferences can be reliably drawn from their content.
PD>Rather, the student is left to
>piece together an incomplete puzzle with incomplete information.
A good preparation for life, wouldn't you agree?
However, you appear to be inferring that theistic explanations would give
the student a complete puzzle with complete information. Not so! The student
would, in the final analysis, be completing a puzzle with a mixture of pieces,
some clearly defined as to shape, size and content,
some a bit "fuzzy" due to experimental, observational or intrinsic uncertainty,
some only theoretically implied by the shapes of "holes" in the puzzle,
some hypothesised pieces,
some empty spaces, and
some pieces that exist only as descriptions by people who say "God tells us
in the Bible (or Torah, Koran, etc.) that the pieces look like this."
PD>Perhaps
>the exclusive presentation of "a-theistic" evolution in public schools
>contibutes to the prevalance of theistic evolution as students attempt
>to dovetail the teaching received in school with their faith in the
>existence of God.
This idea sounds reasonable and is consistent with my opinion that
Christianity can, and in many cases has, successfully encompassed evolution.
PD>Please accept my comments as limited to public school, i.e. through high
>school, presentation of evolution.
Of course.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------