Recently while having dinner with a dear friend, I touted that Eugenie Scott, executive director at the National Centre for Science Education, was rumored to be a speaker at an upcoming conference in New York City.
My friend sighed, and lamented while repeating the name "Eugenie Scott _" as his voice trailed off. The ensuing conversation made light to me that my acquaintance did not have a favourable opinion of Scott and the NCSE and that he did not mean the NCSE was serving the secular cause.
This is not rare in my experience. The NCSE - dedicated to promoting and defending the education of development in science curricula at the local, state, and national levels - is by its very nature controversial. One obvious source of resistance to its operations is hyper-religious Americans who reject evolutionary theory (but not the advanced medical benefits derived from it, naturally!). But the NCSE also receives criticism from some secularists, like my friend. They care that the system too often promotes the thought that skill and faith are compatible - in some instances by actively supporting liberal forms of religion. These two criticisms are in no way equal in merit. Evolutionary theory is on solid ground, and those who resist the science are just wrong. But the second camp might make a point, and that is the issue of this essay.
This debate over NCSE`s handling of skill and religion heated up recently after news that the NCSE ispromoting an eventthat explicitly endorses liberal religion that accepts (most of) the findings of science. In response, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coynecharged thatthe NCSE has essentially become BioLogos, the Templeton Foundation-like outfit that tries to find, and spread word of, intellectual agreement between faith and science. I think this bit of news also bothered my friend, along with a bit of bloggers. This is not the start time Coyne or others have felt put off by the NCSE. So what gives?
It seems to me that the NCSE will ever be in a bad spot. If they are genuinely interested in successfully defending science in classrooms nationwide, they will just be capable to get a neutral approach to religion (even if that is in their stated mission). Some secularists are bothered by the NCSE working with religious groups that accept science, and by their active outreach to religious groups. Doesn`t promoting developmentary acceptance to religious groups essentially equal promoting the compatibility of evolution and religion? Why reach out to religion? Yet, considering the NCSE`s enormous challenge, and their science-focused mission, they both must and can build wide support. As they remark on theirWeb site:
"Our members range from devout practitioners of various religions to atheists, with many shades of opinion in between. What unites them is a sentence that skill and the scientific method, and not any specific religious belief, should determine science curriculum."
Moreover, evolution acceptance is a major problem not in the faithless community, but in the faith-based one, so it seems understandable to take attention there.
Still, reaching out to religious groups on development is categorically different from promoting or exclusively supporting liberal religion. It is one thing to work - under the supposition of (a flexible) neutrality - to form coalitions with, or educate, religious groups. It is quite another to actively encourage religious belief. This is stepping outside the boundary that reasonable secularists, willing to offer some wiggle room, might feel comfortable with. There is no principle for the NCSE to do this. In fact, one could reasonably ask: if the NCSE is loss to promote liberal religion and religionists, why not also promote pro-science atheism and atheists? As P.Z. Myers wrote in hismore centered approachto the issue:
"The most glaring discrepancy in NCSE's current policy of so-called alliance-building is that atheists are left out; I presume their funding is interpreted for granted. But I will notice that some ditzy conference by Biologos-types gets front-page attention from the NCSE, while Richard Dawkins can turn the state giving talks on evolution (if anyone had been paid attention, they'd know that most of his talks are about science, not atheism) and be altogether ignored. It's as if the biggest, most popular promoters of skill in the globe do not exist, simply because they aren't liberal Christians."
Again, a big obstacle to the adoption of development does stem from certain types of religious belief, and the NCSE should focus on that. But at the same time, why ignore pro-science atheists? To be sure, Myers is not calling for the NCSE to get an atheist organization. In fact, no one is. The NCSE should not encourage either atheism or liberal religion. Rather, Myers is noting the unevenness with which the NCSE treats religion and non-religion.
Secularists like Myers have a fair case:
"As I've said before, said just above, am saying again, and leave no doubt have to say a 100 times more, no one is asking the NCSE to get an atheist organization, and no one is saying that the NCSE shouldn't make strategic alliances with religious organizations. I'd put it in 72 point type if I view it would help, but I question that anything will." (emphasis in the original)
Working with religious groups on defending science in the classroom, or educating religious groups, is fine. But don`t push or supporting religion, and so also ignore Richard Dawkins and others simply because they are atheists. As Myers notes, the NCSE should openly work with everyone who shares the organization`s science-based mission - even if he or she is a public atheist - so long as the subject is science, not religion.
But while the NCSE deserves criticism, its secular detractors sometimes go too far. There are problems with the case that sparked this recent debate, but Coyne`s claim that the NSCE has become BioLogos is unfair. BioLogos and the NCSE are totally different organizations - in general charge and in their work - and I think secularists should clearly side with one complete the other. Of course, I do not jibe with the NCSE on every issue, but they are not still near to being BioLogos (yet).
Many secularists think the NCSE`s stated policy of neutrality itself is a kind of pro-religious stance. Yet a portion, or maybe even the whole, of the NCSE`s stance on science`s inability to weigh in on religious claims stems from the place that skill is empirical, evidence-based hypothesis forming and testing, and so has epistemological limits. It can`t handle certain metaphysical and supernatural questions, though it can inform critical question of some claims more than others. This is not a count of promoting the compatibility of skill and religion. It`s epistemic humility. Indeed, the NCSE does not say that religious opinion is so reasonable (it doesn`t want to have the additional step; remember, it`s an organisation dedicated to science). You might question Scott`s philosophy, but it would be disingenuous to rouse that she is running for religious belief because she honestly (and I believe rightly) thinks science has epistemological limits.
This brings us support to the widespread sentiment in certain quarters that the NCSE is not really helping. I mean that the NCSE is helping, but it is crucial to retrieve the NCSE is fighting one small battle inside the larger war for rationality, reason, and science. The NCSE`s battle is a localized one, concentrating on science education. They aredefinitely helping there. The other battle is a much broader one, centered on irrationality and unreason wherever it is having influence. The NCSE plays a lesser, but still crucial, role there. This does not imply the NCSE should be sheltered from criticism. Critique is essential, and the NCSE should be listening.
But let`s also not try not to confound the different scopes of our battles, or else we will miss the total war. And let`s certainly not consider that those who fight differently are automatically on the former side. It`s not true, and we can`t afford that.
Note: this test was originally published on the blogRationally Speaking.
A slightly edited transcript of a remark I left on Rationally Speaking:
As an atheist I never tell anyone what their religion says. If some one tells me that their faith is compatible with evolution I see no cause to question it. I suppose this is also NCSE`s position (although they never put it as bluntly as I scarcely did.)
NCSE has a narrow focus. In spite of its name it isn`t focused on science education in general, or tied on biology education in general. It is specifically focused on keeping evolution in education and creationism out.
In doing that it sometimes adopts tactics that don`t promote wider ideas such as "understanding" or "secularism" that some of us, including me, think are more significant than evolution. But as far as I`m concerned that is fine. As farsighted as they don`t take positions that I differ with I`m willing to be a firm supporter.
Why does NCSE seem more concerned in religious people who accept evolution than in atheists? As Willie Sutton said: It`s where the money is. It is an unfortunate fact that there are more of them than there are of us.
I don`t think promotion of an issue by spiritual people who accept evolution is the like as promoting their religions beliefs any more than Dawkins` interview of a priest who accepts evolution ( http://richarddawkins.net/rdf_productions/george_coyne ) is the like as promoting catholicism.
No comments:
Post a Comment