"Africa is, indeed, coming into fashion." - Horace Walpole (1774)


tuesday this & that


Blogger Michael said...

I think your first link isn't what you want it to be.

And yeah, anyone Tom DeLay doesn't like, I will have to consider a decent human being.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008 10:07:00 AM

Blogger texasinafrica said...

Ooops. Thanks for the heads up; it's fixed now.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:15:00 AM

Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

I'm all for a curriculum that emphasizes the relationship between faith and science from a historical, history of science approach. High schoolers in particular should be taught that that science has not always adopted a secular point of view, a point of view that often casts religious belief as superstitious, irrational and private. Many of the basic elements in the foundation of modern science and technology were laid in medieval times by Islamic scholars who did not recognize a conflict between reason and faith. There are other spiritual origins that could be discussed and should be discussed regarding modern science. In that same discussion of the history of science, teachers could and should focus on our Founding Fathers like Jefferson who viewed faith and science as allies and any other perspectives that were present during that era.

I don't completely agree with Dr. Glanzer who I currently have as a prof. But, he certainly makes a few salient points. I don't know the other author but I do know that Glanzer has a very firm grasp of church-state issues. The phrase "church-state separation" has become rather ambiguous in recent years. That phrase means something different to everyone it seems. The less ambiguous concept of neutrality (whether it be strict or substantive) is probably the best and most popular way to understand "church-state separation" these days. We can strive for government neutrality towards religion and nonreligion. But we really can't keep church and state or religion an government truly separate.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:07:00 PM

Blogger David McCullars said...

"biologists still, however, have not established a persuasive educational argument as to why religion should be banned from discussions of science."

This is absolutely wrong. Read some Richard Dawkins ... he's been screaming out reasons for decades. Just because it's not persuasive to Glanzer or Null doesn't mean it isn't persuasive -- it just means they have their fingers in their ears.

Explaining anything in the natural world with a supernatural explanation (i.e. God did it) bad, bad science. Science is a process of finding holes in our knowledge, studying it, and hopefully coming up with answers; this almost always produces more holes/questions, ad infinitum. Supernatural explanations stop that process -- it is 100% antithetical to the scientific process.

Please note: this isn't to say that we can't live in a world where science and faith live in harmony. It's just to say that faith has no place in discussions of science. Anyone who says it does has no clue what science is.

"Why are biologists afraid to broach the exciting intellectual problems surrounding the relationship between faith and science?"

This is wrong and represents a fundamental misunderstanding ... scientists aren't afraid of even disinterested in faith/science issues. They just understand that science must operate in a clean laboratory. If you contaminate that with metascience or philosophy or religion, you end up with bogus results. In the right context (e.g. a philosophy or history course), discussions on faith/science are quite enlightening.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:49:00 PM

Blogger texasinafrica said...

Fair enough.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:49:00 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home