The Role Reversal of Constitutional Interpretation
When I went through primary school, I was taught that the primary difference between Republicans and Democrats breaks down to the difference between means of interpreting the Constitution. According to my text, Republicans are ‘strict constructionists,’ and Democrats are ‘loose constructionists,’ where constructionist apparently refers to the degree to which one adheres to the exact wording of the Constitution. Maybe your school was like mine, or maybe mine was particularly bizarre, but that’s not what I find interesting at the moment.
What I find interesting are the topics in which either party seems to adhere to those guidelines. Particularly, looking at the debate over the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it seems to me that the constructionist roles are reversed. Ultimately, this stems from my interpretation of what the intelligent design theory represents—I realize that. Still, I find it hard to discern what the difference between the theories of evolution/the big bang and the theory of intelligent design based upon the way it was taught to me.
As I learned it, evolution dovetails with the big bang theory, claiming that the universe began at some point in time, which led to the formation of things as they are including our solar system, which had one planet in which elementary life forms developed and grew into life as we know it today. The only difference intelligent design adds to the evolution/big bang theory, is the concept that the ‘uncaused cause’ that set off the whole chain of events—the big bang as it were—was set in motion by some intelligent designer, which many call God and hold in their hearts and minds as a supreme being.
If that is the only difference between the two theories, then why push the agenda for the more controversial theory? Even if intelligent design is merely taught as a brief, five minute section in which the teacher emphasizes the ‘alternative’ nature of the idea, what is the point? Why make the controversy? Has everyone forgotten personal responsibility? I see this as a prime case where parents, knowing their children are taught evolution and the big bang, need to step in and join in the education process—as they often should be doing—and inform their children of their beliefs, and the reasons for those beliefs.
Per the clause dictating no establishment of a state religion, it is similarly not the state’s responsibility to educate children on the topic or existence of religion. If the two theories are principally the same, then what is the agenda behind pushing the theory that potentially violates the U.S. Constitution?
Simple: the religious right wants to further polarize the country, and energize its base further through a controversial issue.
I think intelligent design makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t belong in public schools. Public schools ought to be for the purpose of secular education, and individual citizens responsible for educating children on religious topics.
(Below is a section of my response to John Jervinsky in the comments section, the whole version of which is there, but also belongs here, as it is pretty important to the argument.)
... The argument I've heard, and agree with, is the idea the one that the fact that Darwin's theories oughtn't be taught as an answer to all questions, and that adding the 'intelligent designer' into Darwinism can be construed as a violation of the church/state separation. The counter argument on the right for some is that not teaching ID propogates atheism as the national religion. Frankly, I don't think that's entirely reasonable, because not teaching God doesn't deny God's existence. However, teaching that God, or some other being, exists and is responsible for a sequence of events, does teach the existence of a supreme being.
Now, I'm in agreement with you on the point that I'd like to see it taught in schools. But, I'd be even happier of most parents took the time to educate their own children, or take their children to sunday school, in order to provide them additional spiritual insight with which to color their scientific understanding.
When I went through primary school, I was taught that the primary difference between Republicans and Democrats breaks down to the difference between means of interpreting the Constitution. According to my text, Republicans are ‘strict constructionists,’ and Democrats are ‘loose constructionists,’ where constructionist apparently refers to the degree to which one adheres to the exact wording of the Constitution. Maybe your school was like mine, or maybe mine was particularly bizarre, but that’s not what I find interesting at the moment.
What I find interesting are the topics in which either party seems to adhere to those guidelines. Particularly, looking at the debate over the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it seems to me that the constructionist roles are reversed. Ultimately, this stems from my interpretation of what the intelligent design theory represents—I realize that. Still, I find it hard to discern what the difference between the theories of evolution/the big bang and the theory of intelligent design based upon the way it was taught to me.
As I learned it, evolution dovetails with the big bang theory, claiming that the universe began at some point in time, which led to the formation of things as they are including our solar system, which had one planet in which elementary life forms developed and grew into life as we know it today. The only difference intelligent design adds to the evolution/big bang theory, is the concept that the ‘uncaused cause’ that set off the whole chain of events—the big bang as it were—was set in motion by some intelligent designer, which many call God and hold in their hearts and minds as a supreme being.
If that is the only difference between the two theories, then why push the agenda for the more controversial theory? Even if intelligent design is merely taught as a brief, five minute section in which the teacher emphasizes the ‘alternative’ nature of the idea, what is the point? Why make the controversy? Has everyone forgotten personal responsibility? I see this as a prime case where parents, knowing their children are taught evolution and the big bang, need to step in and join in the education process—as they often should be doing—and inform their children of their beliefs, and the reasons for those beliefs.
Per the clause dictating no establishment of a state religion, it is similarly not the state’s responsibility to educate children on the topic or existence of religion. If the two theories are principally the same, then what is the agenda behind pushing the theory that potentially violates the U.S. Constitution?
Simple: the religious right wants to further polarize the country, and energize its base further through a controversial issue.
I think intelligent design makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t belong in public schools. Public schools ought to be for the purpose of secular education, and individual citizens responsible for educating children on religious topics.
(Below is a section of my response to John Jervinsky in the comments section, the whole version of which is there, but also belongs here, as it is pretty important to the argument.)
... The argument I've heard, and agree with, is the idea the one that the fact that Darwin's theories oughtn't be taught as an answer to all questions, and that adding the 'intelligent designer' into Darwinism can be construed as a violation of the church/state separation. The counter argument on the right for some is that not teaching ID propogates atheism as the national religion. Frankly, I don't think that's entirely reasonable, because not teaching God doesn't deny God's existence. However, teaching that God, or some other being, exists and is responsible for a sequence of events, does teach the existence of a supreme being.
Now, I'm in agreement with you on the point that I'd like to see it taught in schools. But, I'd be even happier of most parents took the time to educate their own children, or take their children to sunday school, in order to provide them additional spiritual insight with which to color their scientific understanding.
posted by Hickmania at
9:58 AM
5 Comments:
Hitchman,
If you want to know more about ID you should read up on Mano Singham's case blog. I think though your definition of ID is not the same as the people who want in entered in public education. Mano defines it as IDC(Intelligent Design/Creationism). I believe most of the people do push for IDC and like the Federal Judge has stated IDC is just sugar coating Judeo-Christian beliefs'. But I believe some sort of ID should be at least mentioned. My thought is that Darwins theory is just that, it is not fact as most will treat it and if you say it is not fact most people will say you are an idiot. The problem is we do not currently have any other better explaination for evolution and this is where some believe IDC fills the gap, but scientists say there is no evidence to prove IDC which is true, its most ly based on holes in Darwinism and faith. I just do not want people to blindly follow Darwinism as well as complete fact when it is not.
By
Anonymous, at 9:55 PM
I understand where you're coming from, Jervy, and I think part of the confusion comes from the difference in ID teachings. Every group wants to emphasize different things in different ways--the Jesuits I learned it from had one way of approaching the topic, the folks in Kansas have another way, and the folks in PA have their own as well.
The argument I've heard, and agree with, is the idea the one that the fact that Darwin's theories oughtn't be taught as an answer to all questions, and that adding the 'intelligent designer' into Darwinism can be construed as a violation of the church/state separation. The counter argument on the right for some is that not teaching ID propogates atheism as the national religion. Frankly, I don't think that's entirely reasonable, because NOT teaching God doesn't DENY God's existence. However, teaching that God, or some other being, exists and is responsible for a sequence of events, DOES teach the existence of a supreme being.
Now, I'm in agreement with you on the point that I'd like to see it taught in schools. But, I'd be even happier of most parents took the time to educate their own children, or take their children to sunday school, in order to provide them additional spiritual insight with which to color their scientific understanding.
By
Hickmania, at 11:21 PM
Hmm... well, two points to make. One on why this is a big deal to the fundies, and the second as to the scientific aspect of why this debate is stupid stupid stupid.
To understand why the fundamentalists care so much about this, you need to understand the Discovery Institute and how some people on the right view the entirety of science as an affront to their reilgious beliefs.
You'll have to google it because I'm too lazy, but there was a leaked memo from the discovery institute where they essentialyl outline their strategy. They view science as something like a tree, where evolution is the foundation. With ID, they want to drive a wedge into that trunk, and undermine the entire scientific establishment. This will allow them to promote their view where all life was created at the same time by God, and the universe is about 10,000 years old. They will also go about doing funny things like denying the existence of quantum theory, which will make all computers instantly blow up, should that not be true.
Now, as to my science rant. Jervy, your statement was stupid. I don't mean that as a personal insult, mind you. However, have you ever considered Einstein's Theory of Gravity? Should you like that gravity not be taught as fact? There is a stark difference between a scientific theory and what most people think of as a theory. A scientific theory isn't merely conjecture, as a normal theory, but rather something that has considerable, convincing proof, but isn't absolutely and completely conclusive.
Simply because of a percieved conflict with religion, which I don't believe is there, evolution is forced to undergo undue scrutiny because of the adjective 'theory'. It's an argument of semantics, and is painfully annoying and only perpetuated by most media outlets.
Also, one parting shot. ID isn't scientific. It's philosophy. I subscribe to the theory of ID I was taught, which doesn't conflict with Darwinian Evolution. ID can't be proven or disproven. It does not submit to the scientific process because of this, therefore the last place it belongs is a science cirriculum. Math and Science already sucks enough in this country, we dont' need to go mucking about what is and is not science.
By
X, at 11:57 PM
As an addendum (sorry for the long/many posts), I hate you hitchman. I haven't posted to my own blog in months, but write here a few times a week now.
Anyway, I linked to you in my blog, so check it out and make sure it doesn't bother you that you were labeled 'Conservative Propaganda'. Conversely, Clavin was labeled 'Liberal Propaganda'. Just my trying to be funny.
By
X, at 11:59 PM
Ooh, hot topic. Yup, fundies are pushing for ID as science, not a philosophical matter. Your version of ID doesn't conflict with evolution at all. Kenneth Miller, an expert often called upon in court cases and the like, further explains this lack of conflict in his book Darwin's God.
I find it interesting how some ID-as-a-science proponents issued a challenge to the Darwinists. Patricia Princehouse, one of CWRU's professors, responded to the call quite enthusiastically. Here's a link to their amusing public notices:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Chiquitas.cfm
Kenneth Miller came to CWRU for the Darwinist's side (goodness gracious, that man gets around) this January, but no one showed for ID.
I hope that this public controversy blows over soon, because I side with the judge of the most recent ID/evolution court case in PA. Teaching ID in schools is "breathtaking inanity."
By
Anonymous, at 1:10 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home