//
Uncategorized

Finally Saw Expelled


I’m sure I’m one of the last here to have done so, but I finally got Ben Stein’s latest offering on DVD from Netflix and watched it over the weekend. I wrote a reflection on the genre of documentary over at my own blog, but here I’d like to reflect a bit on the implications of ID in the academy in particular.

American law, as Constitutional scholars often reiterate, only protects speech and text against direct governmental action. In other words, so long as a text does not fall under the categories of libel, publication of classified government information, or other rather tightly defined kinds of communication, one can produce more or less anything using a printing press or its equivalent, and law enforcement officials cannot imprison the printer or writer for it.

However, so long as an institution can convince a court that something other than the publication of an idea is at fault, it can inflict pressures other than direct government coercion. Such are the cases in Ben Stein’s documentary. He relates a number of cases in which universities denied professors contract extensions, foundations revoked funding, and other no doubt harmful but nonetheless legal actions that professors have faced in cases related to ID.

The National Center for Science Education has, incidentally, put forth a rebuttal site as a response to these claims.

At the beginning and the end of the film the audience sees two halves of a Ben Stein address to a student gathering, and that’s what I find most interesting. He appeals over and over in the speech to American traditions of free speech, something that, as I noted earlier, is a fine ideal for all sorts of institutions but only applies directly, so far as I know, to direct and coercive government action.

For that reason, I wonder whether a better approach to the questions is not through the categories of first amendment protections but rather through the resources of the academy itself, particularly the increasing flexibility in departments and disciplines. Knowing as I do that religion departments have for the most part taken over Marx’s theory where economics departments have jettisoned it, and that English departments are now the places where Freud and his disciples find a hearing now that psychology departments rarely teach him now (not to mention picking up Hegel out of the philosophy department’s dumpster), I wonder whether the solution to the philosophical monopoly in the biology department might not be sociology or other departments’ picking up courses in the philosophy of science, folks who aren’t scared of the sorts of metaphysical questions that the inquiry really demands. I wonder whether students would be able to get their lab experience and anatomical vocabulary in one place and their large-picture frameworks elsewhere (as Freudian psychologists and Hegelian philosophers have often had to do recently).

I suppose the questions that I would put to the readers are, first, whether my reading of first amendment law is valid, and second, if my preference for using the academy’s own resources is ultimately adequate to the situation in your minds. Obviously the discussion of Horowitz and other such discussions that we’ve had in recent months are in the background here, and I would like to read some opinions if you have ’em.

Advertisements

About Nathan Gilmour

Nathan P. Gilmour is a Christian, a husband, a father, and a college English teacher. He tries to do all of that and write something worthwhile on occasion.

Discussion

4 thoughts on “Finally Saw Expelled

  1. >Jeff addressed the objection nicely, but I’d just add that the metaphysical/ontological questions wrapped up with ID don’t point necessarily towards a specifically Christian natural philosophy but rather allow for the philosophical questions that were part of the rise of modern science in the first place but became impolite as the Victorians rewrote the history of science/religion. (Those Victorians were big on politeness.)

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | November 15, 2008, 11:47 pm
  2. >I know some j bowies. :)Intelligent Design never ventures into the realm of exactly who did it. So your friend doesn’t have to go there. If that student is a practicing Hindu he would believe that god is Brahma and would probably be happy to learn about the science that points to design. If the science class deals with the subject of origins then I would like the evolutionary concepts to be treated similarly to concepts related to design. So if ID is a violation of ch / st sep presumably because of a religious/faith element and should not be taught or should be relegated to the philosophy class then the same should go for evolution which is another faith-based view of origins. It would actually be good to remove Origins from science classes since discussing it under the banner of “science” is misleading to children. Evolutionary proponents will/should admit that thier theory of origins is just as faith-based as another.Proponents of evolution typically say that they are not interested in getting into the area of origins and ID proponents don’t want to go there either. They just want to discuss the science related to the evidence for design in the world. So discuss origins and move both evolution and ID to a philosophy classroom or leave it out and have both evolution and design in the science class.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | November 14, 2008, 1:01 pm
  3. >Nope. I haven’t seen it and that’s probably the cardinal sin for me. I teach science in high school, so if anyone SHOULD see it, I should. Please forgive me. All I will say is that from this side of the lab table, I see it less as a 1st amendment issue and more as a separation of church and state. I once had another teacher bring up a good point and it was this: “I have a student in class who is Hindu. So, if I am going to teach creationism (intelligent design) to my students, which of the 700 Hindu gods do I choose as “the creator”?” 🙂 It’s definitely an interesting subject. I have a book about the subject sitting on my bookshelf, waiting to be read. Maybe this post will get me around to it sooner.

    Posted by J Bowie | November 14, 2008, 3:46 am
  4. >No, you’re not the last. Still haven’t seen it. If I can get it through Redbox, I will. If not, I’ll have to hold on to those four dollars for now. Maybe someone has put it up on youtube.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | November 12, 2008, 3:26 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

From the Vault

Friend of Grace

Photobucket
All articles © 2007-2011 by the respective authors of the Conservative Reformed Mafia. All Rights Reserved.
%d bloggers like this: