rwetheri

Dr. McLeroy’s comments reflect exactly the kind of linguistic sleight-of-hand that I have long called attention to in warning about the “power of words”: The final standard reads, "Examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ and compare and contrast this to the phrase ‘separation of church and state’." It is thus correct that the final vote inserted “separation of church and state”. But the important point is that the phrase is inserted in a “compare and contrast” context which explicitly asks students to compare this insert with the 1st amendment’s “establishment” and “free exercise” language. Why did the Board use this precise language? Because: A) To the Christian right, the “establishment” clause is narrowly defined as a prohibition of the U.S. government from advocating a national religion—but not prohibiting states and organizations to define official religious exclusions (which indeed many states did in their original charters). B) To the Christian right, the “free exercise” clause (which specifically allows individuals to practice their own religion without federal government interference) also specifically allows prayer in schools and posting the Ten Commandments in federal buildings. So the narrow readings above are not interpreted as prohibiting states and organizations from x, but as prohibiting government interference in x; and these narrow readings likewise do not prevent government from honoring either Christian principles or celebrating its Christian heritage—so long as a national religion is not advocated. This is precisely what the Christian right desires.

Obviously, the voters decide on who represents them on the Board. Don may be one-of-a-kind in his young-earth-creationist views, but he is NOT unique in opposition to evolution, as we see among other board members. Most of the opposition has little to do with science per se and a lo to do with the perceived collateral damage from scientific belief, i.e., atheism, loss of the "soul" concept, treating humans "just" as animals, and a whole series of other myths. It's a fear rather than a reasoned argument, in my opinion.

I truly sympathize over the plight of teachers who have to walk a thin line between dogma and accuracy. Keep the faith, so to speak! Most districts don're really interfere with what actually happens in the classrooms--it's often the parents who are the problem.

Many of us have a longer history of wrangling with the Board of such issues--going back to the seventies. So this was absolutely predictable.

The distinctions among hypotheses, theories, and laws are critical yet roundly misunderstood by most people. But for someone whose predisposed beliefs trump rational argument, the distinctions don't actually make much difference. Learning to reason, unfortunately, falls far behind wanting to believe.