|
By Dean Hardy
Over the past 100 years, Christians have witnessed the rejection of the evolutionary model in the school system1, the reemergence of evolutionary ideology2, and then again in 19813 the evolutionary model was reconfirmed as the only theory to be offered in science classes. Over the years, many valiant Christians including Philip Johnson, Norman Geisler, and William Dembski have diligently fought to allow the Intelligent Design version to be taught along side the evolutionary model in public schools. But one must ask, after a hard fought 80 plus years, does this fight have a possible positive outcome? Even if we somehow get intelligent design filtered into the school system, will these staunch naturalist teachers even do the argument justice?
While there may be a variety of opinions on the value of the ID movement, one must ask if there is another way to proceed. Is there a way to discuss the controversial topic of origins that would please the naturalist, the Christian, the educator, as well as the administrator?
While the secular humanists frequently point out that the public school system is bent on producing students that are free from any taint of religious dogma, some have even gone so far as to make a case that secular humanism itself is religious. David Noebel, in his work The Clergy in the Classroom, documents this by citing from the early nineteenth century writings of Curtis Reese all the way to the defining of humanism as a religion by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 19604. He even points out that the American Humanist Association was given 501(c)3 status and classified itself as a church organization with the International Revenue Service.5 Yet if humanism is religious, then of course, the public school system is doing exactly the opposite of what it is claiming to do: separate religion from the public education system.
Some have taken this argument as their course of action. They want to demonstrate to the public that the religion of the state is secular humanism, that the government is biased in its approach, and thus the government is indoctrinating our children into a specific religion. This may be a worthy cause, and it just might work.
While the battle over the status of secular humanism wages on, most citizens likely think that categorizing secular humanism as a religion is a stretch, especially since the adherents of humanism don't even believe in a god. To make this work, one would have to use the "functional" definition of religion and not the traditional idea that a religion is the communion of man with the supernatural. Since humanism asserts that there is no supernatural aspect to reality, it removes itself from the possibility of being qualified as a true religion in the normative sense of the word. If we were to use the conventional sense of terms, the category in which humanism would fall would be a worldview, a system of belief, or a philosophy.
Most secularists and Christians alike see the problem with having one state-sanctioned religion. We have historically seen the dangerous consequences of this type of movement. When this sort fusion occurs, religion and state become an intertwined mess where the leadership of each faction clash and struggle over the right to power. The fact of the matter is that Christians themselves do not want the public school system to teach, or preach, solely Christianity. Most Christians have come to realize that indoctrination doesn't produce followers; at best it produces hypocrites and at worst it produces atheistic "free thinkers." To force a young person to accept an idea will likely guarantee that the same youth will rebel against the idea soon after. The fact of the matter is that the poor state of our educational system doesn't lay in the specific facts that are being taught to the students, but rather, the problems lay in the metaphysical framework through which all of these facts are being taught. Even more so, the crux of the problem is manifest in the fact that the students themselves are unaware of this unexamined framework. They haven't been given a chance to sort out whether the framework itself is logically deduced, nor have they been given the tools to rationalize such a deduction.
What's this humble teacher's proposal? Give the students the opportunity to sort out their own metaphysical framework. Offer them an elective in philosophy, or better yet, make it part of the core curriculum. Let the students consider history's most brilliant minds and how they answer life's most meaningful questions. For instance, is this there such a thing as absolute truth? Let them read Crick or Rorty as well as Aristotle. Are there objective morals? Let them read Beckwith and Nietzsche. And yes, even, is there a supernatural force in the universe? Let them read Paley, Aquinas, and even Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. Let them read, discuss, speculate, and wonder. Give them the freedom to wonder as Albert Einstein writes, "The development of science and of the creative activities of the spirit in general requires still another kind of freedom, which may be characterized as inward freedom. It is this freedom of spirit which consists in the independence of thought from the restrictions of authoritarian and social prejudices as well as from unphilosophical routinizing and habit in general. This inward freedom is an infrequent gift of nature and a worthy objective for the individual...schools may favor such freedom by encouraging independent thought. Only if outward and inner freedom are constantly and consciously pursued is there a possibility of spiritual development and perfection and thus of improving man's outward and inner life."
The "philosophy for children" movement has three overwhelming benefits to help bolster our argument:
- It is not brand new; it has a few decades of existence under its belt.
- It was not created as a Christian endeavor.
- It is being actively pursued by the secular community.
Matthew Lipman founded the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) in 1972. During his career he argued for a reconstruction of the educational system with an emphasis on critical thinking. One of the ways he did this was to have the students consider metaphysical, logical, and ethical questions, and evaluate their methods and lines of reasoning.6 Lipman, now retired, was a staunch opponent of religious indoctrination, but was a proponent of giving students reasons for the religious beliefs and metaphysical foundations that they themselves have chosen.7 Aren't these ideals and rational tools exactly what we as Christians want for our public school students?
Even though Lipman has retired, there are many other secular organizations that have picked up the torch. There is an International Council of Philosophical Inquiry with Children who have conferences internationally on this issue.8 The American Philosophical Association's Committee on Pre-College Instruction in Philosophy has its own website9, and they will have a panel discussion at a conference this April on "Getting Philosophy into the High School Curriculum." There is also the Squire Family Foundation, whose goal is to introduce ethical thinking and reasoning in the schools.10 And of course, Lipman's organization continues pursuing his dream. Maughn Gregory, current Director of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children at Montclair State University writes, "All over the world, children are treated as passive, malleable objects-of advertisement, religious training, even education. In contrast, the practice of philosophy strengthens children's capacities to discern significant aspects of their experience, to inquire into them thoughtfully, and to make reasonable judgments about them."11
In summary, if a high school education is not merely the indoctrination of fact, but is more the art of learning, discovery, and generally "how to think," what better way to fulfill these goals than to investigate life's deepest questions? Doing so will not only leave us with young people who have a better grasp of logic, argumentation, and general comprehension skills; it will result in a generation who have reasons for their answers to life's deepest questions.
The state can't be opposed to discussing philosophical questions for a few reasons. First, there is no question that the educational system is humanistic. If humanism is a religion, as the Supreme Court has ruled, then the public education system is teaching from a religious framework. Yet, if humanism is not a religion and is just a philosophy, then we should be able to discuss other philosophies as well.
Since they have already taken a philosophical stance in their education system, one would wonder how they could possibly rationalize an objection to the discussion of philosophical, as well as philosophically "controversial" topics. Secondly, since philosophy courses are a staple on state college campuses, one must wonder what legal argument could be made against the teaching of philosophy in a pre-college environment.
Stephen Hicks and Monica Holland write, "It has often been observed that virtually every subject taught in the universities-from history to mathematics to languages-is also taught at some level in the high schools; philosophy is perhaps the notable objection."12 One must wonder, why is philosophy left out of the secular high school's curriculum? Some may say that the high school student is unable to process such information, but this objection is completely faulty and misguided. Students, especially those closer to adult age, are oft found asking themselves and their friends about major philosophical problems concerning morality, the afterlife, and even God. Hick and Holland comment on this topic while discussing their summer camp program, "Morgan…first thought that the subject of God's existence was too sensitive to be handled in the formal sessions. But after a year or two he discovered that students really wanted to talk about it."13 There is little doubt that students really want to think, justify, and discuss these deep issues.
Since the state has little legal precedent in this area, the only other obstacles for philosophical thinking to be introduced in the schools are the parents and the administrators in each district. David Boersema, a professor of philosophy at Pacific University and writes that one of the main questions that needs to be answered is, "How do we convince school administrators-as well as parents and local politicians-that their students are well-served by addressing controversial topics in school?"14 Of course, this would only be possible by giving quality research to each of our administrators on the benefits of this sort of methodology, plus some gentle pressure from the surrounding community. But of course, the method of executing this plan is what is being discussed by the secular community; and it would do the Christian community well to join in the dialogue.
While the intelligent design movement is mostly fought by PhDs in the Universities, or even by lawyers and judges in the courtroom, the battle for philosophy in public schools will be fought in the neighborhood trenches. If the Christian community can find this sort of development to be worthy, it might only be a matter of time before Dawkins, Russell, and Aquinas are read in the public school classroom.
- Butler Act of 1925
- Scopes Trial of 1925
- McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
- Torasco v. Watson, 1961.
- David Noebel, Clergy in the Classroom (Manitou Springs: Summit Press, 2007), 159.
- See Lipman's Philosophy in the Classroom, (Philadelphia:Temple University Press, 1980), 36-40.
- Ibid., 107.
- http://www.icpic.org/
- http://philosophy-toolbox.org/
- http://www.squirefoundation.org/
- http://www.ednews.org/articles/476/1/KIDS-PONDER-THE-BIG-QUESTIONS-An-Interview-with-Maughn-Gregory/Page1.html
- Stephen Hicks and Monica Holland, "Teaching Philosophy to High School Students: Indiana University's Summer Philosophy Institute" in Teaching Philosophy, 1989, 115-130.
- Ibid., 121.
- David Boersema in a letter to Dean Hardy, letter in hand of author.
Dean Hardy is the Head of the Bible Department at Charlotte Christian School in Charlotte, NC. He earned his B.A. in Religion from Palm Beach Atlantic University and his Masters in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He can be reached via http://www.YouthApologetics.com/contact.php
|
