next »

[voconia]

In the last few weeks there have been several posts about experiences with Christian creationists in the classroom and as colleagues.  The replies to these queries generally stress being sensitive to issues of faith- all very well unless it begins to stifle discourse.  That is not the point of this post, however, my question has to do with something I have yet to see anywhere.  Put simply most respondents seem unaware that in their concern with not offending Christian creationists they may offend other faiths.  Possibly those who worship Vishnu, Odin or any number of other dieties have no problem with evolution -but what if they do?  Are the creationists out there prepared to allow a Navajo, HIndu or Zoroastrian his or her explanation of creation? Or, are we simply promoting the current conventions of "our" majority religion?  In law and in logic, if we are going to avoid offending one view we ought to give equal protection to other views -or else admit that we are bigots.  For the record, my own view is that religion -or the lack there of - is a matter of private conscience which has no place in public discourse unless the right to keep it a private matter is threatened

[trabb]

This is an interesting question, and I'm surprised it's gone entirely unanswered.  (Does anyone other than me and a few others read this forum?)  I've been pretty outspoken about being sensitive to issues of faith, so I'll take a shot at answering, though I will acknowledge from the outset that I'm struggling to articulate my ideas adequately.

I'd begin by drawing a very clear line between a discourse of faith (let's assume Christianity for the moment) and a discourse of science.  Each discourse makes certain basic assumptions that then naturally lead to certain conclusions.  In faith-based discourse, the basic assumption is that humans cannot comprehend truth through the efforts of human reason alone.  In academic discourse, the assumption is that human reason is the tool that we use to understand the world around us.

Drawing this line helps me to answer some of your questions.  You seem to be assuming that a concern for not offending Christian creationists is equivalent to saying that a Christian creationist perspective should be permitted and/or encouraged in the various scientific fields.  I would argue that these two things are not at all the same.  I contend that one can be a creationist as a matter of faith while being an evolutionist as a matter of professional practice.  Indeed, that's exactly how I would describe myself.  My religious beliefs tell me that there was divine intervention at some point in the creation of the world.  Even my very limited knowledge of biology tells me that evolution logically makes more sense than any other explanation.  When I express my concern for not offending Christian creationists, I mean only that I find it limiting - if not offensive - to say that one must belong either to a faith-based discourse community or to a scientific discourse community but never to both.

Having said all that, I do not support in any way creationists who insist that if science does not support their beliefs then science must be wrong and therefore must be changed.  The very nature of the two different forms of discourse dictates that when science and my beliefs seem to disagree, my faith must accomodate science, not the other way around. 

All of this confessional rhetoric leads me finally back to the real question you've posed:

Are the creationists out there prepared to allow a Navajo, HIndu or Zoroastrian his or her explanation of creation?

In a word or two, yes and no.  Yes, I'm willing to allow a Navajo, a Hindu, a Zoroastrian, or anyone else whatever explanation of creation they choose to believe, and yes, I'm willing to acknowledge that they can be outstanding scientists while holding those beliefs.  On the other hand, no, I'm not willing to allow them to claim that their religious beliefs about creation have any place within scientific discourse.  In other words, I'd hold them to the same standard that I'd hold myself as a now outed creationist.

[voconia]

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply.  I was not assuming that an adherence to creationism stifled debate - its just that in practice - it often seems to end up that way. The question arose because I actually have had one student - a person half Dutch and half Pima, a practicing Pima religionist - become offended by the easy assumption made by classmates that "THE Bible" was the only source of true religion.  I think the best discussion of the whole issue happened during a course I taught on the Reformation after watching a film on the Anabaptists -over a long class period we talked about personal faith vs. state religion, different views of the Bible, personal conscience, etc. No conclusions were made -nor should they have been - but the students began the long process of more closely examining their own beliefs -always my major goal.

[masala_dosa]

While lecturing on the topic of evolution, I do mention some creation models by various faiths (including the Navajo-Pueblan and various historical cultures such as the Assyrians). 
Needless to say, this often stimulates a healthy discussion, especially if there is a diverse student body.  Over the years, it has been interesting for me to "observe" the student responses and the exchange of ideas.  I've learned a lot.

I think that it is important to foster a tolerant learning environment, but I try to emphasize that my course is a survey that emphasizes the fundamental components of the science behind evolution, as it is defined by the syllabus. 

[anonforthis]

except this country was formed under judeo-Christian principles. The other religions have had no influence on our society to speak of.

We've got to stop treating every religion as having an equal footing with judeo-Christian religion. Whether you like it or not, we weren't founded on Buddist, muslim, Hindu, or whatever principles. Therefore, these latter religions are the only ones that should be excluded from the classroom (unless, of course, we're talking about a comparative religion class.)

[larryc]

except this country was formed under judeo-Christian principles

No, it wasn't.  It was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment.

[grasshopper]

And the Enlightenment was in reaction to what?

Judeo-Christian morals and ethics are everywhere - built right into the culture - in North America and Western Europe. Enlightenment or no, it's there.

That said, the idea that other creation myths should be ignored is a bunch of hooey. What would be the point of it? Besides there are a lot of similarities in the content, structure, and evolution of various creation myths. I think it'd be interesting to compare them. Who knows? Maybe there are also similarities between the structure and evolution of religious creation myths and the structure and evolution of scientific models.

[anthroid]

From grasshopper:

And the Enlightenment was in reaction to what?

Sure, but larryc is right.  No matter how much people want to yell that this is a "Christian" country, the actual fact is that we were founded not on religious principles but on political ones.  If this was meant to be a theocracy, we'd see the ten commandments reflected in, say, the Constitution.  I haven't noticed anything in any of the amendments about false gods or coveting wives.

The OP wanted to know if we who teach evolution allow for discussion of alternate creation stories.  The short answer for me is no, I don't.  Regardless of religious traditions, creation stories are, in my field and for that matter most academic fields, just that:  stories, unprovable and thus irrelevant when considering evolution.  They are interesting when considering myth, religion, and other fields, but evolution is not a story but approaching scientific law.  It is not commensurate with creation myths but discusses something else entirely in a completely different way, as trabb pointed out.

[historyphd]

Not only that but the most important and influential founding fathers were not even Christian: Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, among others.

It is entirely accurate, moreover, that this country was NOT founded as a Christian nation nor on Judeo-Christian principles.

[grasshopper]

It is entirely accurate, moreover, that this country was NOT founded as a Christian nation nor on Judeo-Christian principles.

Despite the fact that I agree with you, I have to disagree with you. If that sounds paradoxical, good. Because so are many of the moral and ethical mores in American (and Canadian) cultures.

Here's where I agree with you: The U.S. was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

And here's where I think you're flat out wrong: That the U.S. wasn't intended as a Christian nation doesn't really matter. What does matter is that it was (and is) a predominantly Christian nation, intention and official documents or not. The dominant systems of ethics and morality in the U.S. contribute to the laws of the nation. Those systems of ethics and morality grew out of Judeo-Christian worldviews. Separating culture and religion is really, really, really tough. I don't think it's possible, to tell you the truth. People don't have to be Jewish or Christian to conform to the moral and ethical norms that have evolved from those traditions. It's part of the culture.

[adhoc]

That the U.S. wasn't intended as a Christian nation doesn't really matter. What does matter is that it was (and is) a predominantly Christian nation ...

grasshopper, you offer a very thought provoking idea.  If I may, I will agree and disagree with you.  I think they both matter.  The Christian influence on our laws and society is undeniable and very important.  However, it is very important as well that the The Founders sought to maintain a distance between church and state.  It is the recognition that people with differing ideas -- about many things, including religion -- can live together peacefully by embracing those differences if they only respect that others have the same rights to think freely that they themselves have that has made this country great.

[spork]

Separating culture and religion is really, really, really tough. I don't think it's possible, to tell you the truth. People don't have to be Jewish or Christian to conform to the moral and ethical norms that have evolved from those traditions. It's part of the culture.

Modern Western Euoropeans (a variety of national cultures) seem to have done a fairly good job of separating culture and religion.  Whether Christianity, or a Judeo-Christian "tradition," caused the moral and ethical norms we see today in Western industrio-democratic societies is debatable.  Islam is a monotheistic, Western, confessional religion, yet some people would argue that Islam has hindered the adoption or practice of the norms that we commonly identify as "Western."  Buddhism, though not strictly speaking a religion (no theos), is practiced as one; it is not Western yet contains the same moral/ethical prescriptions that Christianity does.  In many places and times, these prescriptions have been widely violated.  Same goes for Christianity.

Oh Invisible Man Who Looks Somewhat Like Santa Clause, please do not take offense at my words.

[grasshopper]

It is the recognition that people with differing ideas -- about many things, including religion -- can live together peacefully by embracing those differences if they only respect that others have the same rights to think freely that they themselves have that has made this country great.

Sure, people of other religious traditions and cultures are welcome to come and live together peacefully, as long as the practice of those religious traditions and cultures doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Up to this point, I'm with you all the way. Where we diverge, I think, is that I believe that those 'rights' are part of the cultural norms that have evolved out of a Judeo-Christian world-view.

I'm not making a judgement call on this. Every culture has norms. They're necessary. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to communicate, much less live in society. And to be honest, overall, I like our cultural norms - certainly, they're what I'm used to. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that our norms don't have any religious basis, or that our collective histories - including our religious histories - don't inform our contemporary 'secular' culture.

Whether Christianity, or a Judeo-Christian "tradition," caused the moral and ethical norms we see today in Western industrio-democratic societies is debatable.  Islam is a monotheistic, Western, confessional religion, yet some people would argue that Islam has hindered the adoption or practice of the norms that we commonly identify as "Western." 

Yeah, you are absolutely right: this is highly debatable (which is probably why debating it is so much fun). For instance, one of my colleagues argues against my assertions that Judeo-Christian traditions form the foundation of North American culture, claiming that Islam has had at least as much impact on our culture as Christianity. He certainly wouldn't agree that Islam had hindered the construction of western culture as we know it. In fact, he argues that Islamic/Arab culture not only was a huge contributor to western European culture, but also that Christianity was able to grow as a cultural behemoth only because it had Islam as an 'enemy.'

Buddhism, though not strictly speaking a religion (no theos), is practiced as one; it is not Western yet contains the same moral/ethical prescriptions that Christianity does.  In many places and times, these prescriptions have been widely violated.  Same goes for Christianity.

Well, sure. Murder, for instance, is wrong... pretty much across the board. But how murder is defined is different from one culture or religious tradition to another, as is what constitutes a violation of the prohibion against murder, and what the results of breaking the taboo will be for the offender. Also, the cultural effects of both the prescriptions and the ways that these are violated are different from context to context, from culture to culture.

Oh Invisible Man Who Looks Somewhat Like Santa Clause, please do not take offense at my words.

Now that's just funny.

[phlebas2006]

That the U.S. wasn't intended as a Christian nation doesn't really matter. What does matter is that it was (and is) a predominantly Christian nation ...

grasshopper, you offer a very thought provoking idea.  If I may, I will agree and disagree with you.  I think they both matter.  The Christian influence on our laws and society is undeniable and very important.  However, it is very important as well that the The Founders sought to maintain a distance between church and state.  It is the recognition that people with differing ideas -- about many things, including religion -- can live together peacefully by embracing those differences if they only respect that others have the same rights to think freely that they themselves have that has made this country great.

Gotta be careful when you talk about the Founders and church/state separation, though.  They clearly and only intended that there not be a Church of America.  They had no intention to limit the right of the states to establish a Church of Virginia or a Church of New York.  It's "Congress shall make no law," NOT "There shall be no law."  In fact, that phrase comes from a Jefferson letter explaining why he doesn't establish a national religious observance.  He explains that this wall should exist between the Federal government and the church(es.)

Yeah, later it was expanded to the states but I'm just sayin'--invoke the Founders at your own peril.