But I don’t know that I would characterize natural science as impositionistic, science being better described (and taught) as an inductive process or language or what have you than an ordered system of beliefs. (Though it is your and my system of beliefs, of course.) Scientists have extended the invitation for Christians to join them in the lab, and Christians have taken up the offer—it’s just that their results have come up shy. Were Christians to stick to their guns and say that they reject science, it would be one thing, but instead they have tried to compete scientifically with ID, etc., and been found lacking. That’s competition, and you hardly get to throw a sticker on the books when you try to play but don’t bring your A game.

But there is not room for such disagreement in a science classroom. The scientific method has led us to certain conclusions, and if people reject them they’re indulging in intellectual cowardice, plain and simple. No “viewpoint” is being forced on these people — it’s their own damn viewpoint! They drive cars, take drugs and use electricity. They live and enjoy freedoms in a country formed upon enlightenment principles. If they want to move to Pennsylvania and start building furniture, they can be my guest. Otherwise it’s time to admit that science works, secular discourse has gotten this country where it is, and you don’t get to pick and choose elements of either to believe in unless you have very good reasons.

Instead, any caveat mentioned by scrupulous scientists about the bounds of induction is pounced upon by folks who deduce a false equivalence and conclude that, shucks, reasonable folk can disagree. Well, I suppose they can, but to do so in this case they have to throw away six or seven of the most important centuries of human intellectual progress. If people insist upon doing that I guess it’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to accomodate their views and give them respect they don’t deserve according to the standards of the intellectual framework that was developed and confirmed to work within our shared history.

If I wander off the visitor’s tour at Cape Canaveral and telling the first person I meet that I have some interesting ideas about rocketry (I don’t), should they indulge me? No! Doing so would be ridiculous.

American students are bad enough at science already, thank you very much. Until the Old Testament starts helping us build more powerful microprocessors or lifesaving drugs, it needs to be kept out of the lab.

Will, if that’s true, then we are in serious trouble. I understand your point, and I think you’re correctly characterizing the way this conflict is viewed by the religious right. But that doesn’t mean we should indulge them.

We will never find an acceptable middle ground with the evangelical school board members. I think the only bloc genuinely in play here is the next generation. We should win the majority of those kids: science works, mysticism isn’t logically consistent, and the city’s more fun than the farm.

I don’t think that granting a false equivalency in this argument for the sake of politics helps with the larger effort. It may seem like it will allow for a short-term resolution, but really it just makes the know-nothings’ position seem more tenable to their kids.

I think we need to be clear and firm: science is true. There are benefits to a secular society. (It is worth repeating, in almost as loud a voice, that no, this doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God.)

I don’t see what’s to be gained politically by ceding ground on the fundamental point here. The way science is taught doesn’t seem to have swung the last election, after all, although certainly the debate is a symptom of a contributing phenomenon. Are you arguing for a basic change in the left’s dedication to secular humanism in order to appeal to fundamentalists? I agree that we need to meet America halfway on a lot of things, but this doesn’t seem like one of them.

There isn’t room for compromise in the in the science classroom—not even on the cover of the book. Separate classrooms, then, teaching separate standards? One teaching science and one not, essentially? I don’t think it’s justifiable to amend U.S. education policy in order to appease conservatives who can’t abide by the rigor of science. If by other means private school voucherization becomes a reality, I don’t see that you can mandate that science be taught any better than you can mandate what homeschoolers learn. But then I think that universities would be justified in discriminating against these students on the basis of their not learning science, and since it seems that 1) religious education would sink at that point, and 2) secularism would have no challenger in the classroom, this would altogether by fine by me. (Sucks for those poor red state children.)

(Striking how many parallels this debate has to the veil laws in France. Will, did you ever come down one way or the other on that topic?)

The way science was taught to us at school was much more about ‘these are the facts we already know, learn them by heart and we’ll test you on them’, and much less about ‘this is the scientific method, use it to assess the validity of these hypotheses’.

In this context, the claims made in your comments section about science being of a different order than religion are only somewhat valid. The more science classes teach kids to memorise our present understanding of things, and the less they teach kids to test hypotheses using the empirical method, the more a valid claim can be made about indoctrination. If, indeed, religious classes taught children to critically analyse biblical passages for internal and external consistency, I wouldn’t be nearly as bothered by them as I am.

How children are taught to approach data is far more important than the data they are given.

My private suspicion is that most of the people who are capable of getting worked up about stickers are less interested in pedagogy than they are in flaunting their own epistemic superiority over the yahoos. Which, up to now, I would have said should not stop anyone from considering their case on its merits. But in the brave new world of Stalinist Public Reason, questions of truth and justification have to give way to questions of motive– so I guess I’ve no choice but to dismiss out of hand the arguments of the sticker-shocked.

The point is that the religious case has no scientific merits—why should it be considered for biology class? As for the argument’s life-affecting potential, well, it’s the principle that’s important.

1. The assumption that kids are best raised by their parents. I had to spend 10 years in psychotherapy to undo the head trips that my sorry folks did on me. I believe all decent schools should be in the business of teaching kids how to think and fend for themselves in a rough world. If people know how to think clearly then chances are they be able to distinguish fact from fantasy. I have no problem teaching kids that killing is usually wrong and that a cow was killed to make a McDonald’s burger. It’s the truth. Kid need to be taught sympathy and empathy. There are far too many cruel kids who grow up to be cruel and uncaring adults, politicians and business men and women.

2. We all have “false” gods that we follow. For example, the false god of materialism. Witness the mad post-Thanksgiving rush to buy all kinds of consumer goods, much of it manufactured in China and most of it crap. What kind of religion is that to prop up a communist dictatorship by buying their toasters? Scientific theories are beautiful things but don’t shove YOUR science and how it should be applied down my throat. I don’t want my water fluoridated if you get my drift. I don’t want my stupid dentist telling me that a dental x-ray is like spending a minute catching some rays at the beach. I want my fruit and veggies free from some Monsato’s latest and most profitable pesticide like DDT.

4. I don’t want SOCIAL Darwinists to tell me that sweatshops and child labor is a better than a life of prostitution. BOTH are bad and wrong. And, that if a little girl’s hand gets cut off then it is okay to shove her out the door without medical treatment or pay because she is no longer productive. All kids have a right to an education and freedom from from hunger.

5. I secretly want to emulate my idol the Unibomber. His anti-technology manifesto should be taught in kindergarten. A lot of good he is doing the world behind bars when he could be outside sending a bunch of ticking Christmas gifts to the smug folks in ivory towers and to the rest of the greedy turds in America who are living off the “fat of the land,” as Will Robinson …er Will Wilkinson says. If they have nothing to fear then won’t they fear nothing?

But you can’t, because there aren’t any. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism in any guise. The fact is that even the most “sophisticated” creationists, eg Behe and Dembski, have been thoroughly debunked. Therefore, creationism has no business in science classes. Therefore, warning stickers are unnecessary. What next: equal time for astrology?

So let’s cut the nonsense about imposing “secular beliefs.”

As for sex education in public schools, it seems that many rightwingers, very sensibly, support having sex education in public schools. The problem is they advocate teaching the one curriculum that is proven to be ineffective in lowering teenage pregnancies and std’s. It simply a fact that comprehensive sex education -which includes advice on birth control – has a better chance of working. (And it is ridiculous to imply, as you most certainly do, that “abstinence-only” is a right wing religious value not shared by “political liberals.” The grotestque image of Strom Thurmond shtupping the maid comes immediately to mind. As do Gingrich’s extra-marital follies. And so on.) Rather, it’s simply the fact that such programs don’t work and telling kids about some basic biology, explaining to them the possible serious consequences of sex, AND also telling them where to get birth control and protection does. Would someone had told Roy Cohn; a lot of guys would alive today (not that Roy single-handedly caused the AIDS pandemic, but he more than did his bit to help).

As for “environmental consciousness-raising units,” as the father of an eight-year old, I have no idea what you’re talking about, unless there is something unspeakably, irredeemably, secularist about a school field trip to a local national park.

And for the record, to say that the people who make a living advocating creationism are oafs is an insults to oafs. No, creationists are liars of the worst sort, as are their apologists. And that’s far lower on the evolutionary scale (all references intentional) than an oaf.