I’m a little confused by this conversation, because I’m not entirely sure what, if anything, people here are disagreeing about. It seems to me that most people think that this school should be legally permitted to denounce homosexuality or prohibit homosexual activity on campus, even if we don’t agree with that point of view. And I don’t think anybody thought that Duke–a private institution–should be legally required to allow the Muslim call to prayer.
My impression is that the only argument is about whether Erskine should be judged for having this policy.
“Judged” how? I’m entitled to judge - as in hold a negative personal opinion - about pretty much anything and everything I want 
Do you mean “stopped” or “prohibited” from having this policy? I haven’t seen anyone on here argue that they should be prohibited from holding such a policy. We’re all pretty much unified that they have the right to do so and we have the right to see them as behind the times, wrong side of history, etc. Whether or not they care about that perception is their problem.
A careful distinction needs to be made here, as it wasn’t totally clear to me what implications you had in mind related to public school science curriculum when you made this statement.
I stand with other posters here and agree that faith and theology do not belong in science curriculum. If you think that it does, we disagree.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that intelligent design does belong. Stubborn people, who don’t want to have to think or won’t stand for anyone to point out the deficiencies in what they need to be true, can attempt to blur the clear distinction all day long. But anyone who wants to see it can do easily do so.
I will use one example out of a million for illustration purposes. We can take an in-depth look at anatomy and structure of the human eye and the process by which we see the world around us, how images are transmitted to our brain, and so on and so forth. In doing so we behold the wonder and the irreducible complexity that is involved in terms of anatomy and process (which is - BTW - natural, measurable and observable, and not spiritual, to use Irishmomof2’s criterial). Then we admit that there is no natural cause, no random unguided process that can explain such a miracle, and a plausible explanation, perhaps the most plausible one, is that an intelligent agent was involved in some way.
The discussion stops there for purposes of science class. In science class we can’t make any observations about the designer beyond what is natural, measurable and observable. The designer could be Spinoza’s god, Jehovah, or a very intelligent and powerful Easter Bunny. It doesn’t matter, because we don’t go there. Those are subjects for theology class, but the study of the eye and eyesight I describe above clearly belongs in science class.
@marysidney Re: Post 140 So in answer to the underlying question in this thread, “should universities have the right to require certain behaviors or what they see as moral conduct of their students?” you believe the relevant concerns are (let me see if have all these):
- The evils of some (not all) privleged white Christian men who want to control everyone
- Christians being the only religion that forces their views on others
- Race discrepancy in crime enforcement
- The inappropriateness of Intelligent Design and Creationism in the realm of Science curriculum
- Whether Mary, Jesus' Mom, was truly a virgin
- Persecution by the Church
- Predeterminism in Christian doctrine - I think you missed a key point in the theology btw
- Historical wishy-washiness of Christian doctrine
- Birth control
- Abortion
- Domestic abuse
- Wage inequality
- Politcal agenda within the Church
I think all we are missing is whether to legalize drugs, immigration reform, and foreign policy and we have a clean sweep of blatantly political topics which frankly my privileged white male brain is having a hard time connecting to the original question.
I will have to just continue to bask in the glory of CC’s non-political statement policy.
Your distinction is exactly how I think about it.
I have a hard science background, undergrad and grad, so I live this existence of the distinction. There is no conflict in my understanding, say, the intricacies of genetics as it relates to evolving species and also thinking that someone or something designed an ingenious self-perpetuating system to adapt to a dynamic environment.
Science is really only about understanding what one is seeing, not about where it ultimately came from or how it started. In reality, even scientists know that until there is a time machine to go back and observe, much is conjecture. Logical conjecture, tested conjecture, and repeatable conjecture, which we eventually accept as usable science in theories and governing laws - until we run into the next unknown or particle which defies the rules. However, that is way different than saying with certainty this is how X and Y began and it can be no other way and no way did an intelligent being do any of this.
There is nothing in your post I take issue with.
I’m not 100% sure what I meant (lol), it was my automatic response to Hunt’s question about how we are disagreeing on this issue. And it goes with the younger generation’s mantra of “don’t judge” about anything, that I keep hearing today. In other words, every choice and way of life should be respected, so long as it doesn’t hurt others. I guess that is what it means.
Several people here seem to be judging the Erskine policy as “bad.” Others are defending it as consistent with a particular religious faith. I find myself to be mostly neutral on it. But I question whether anyone who considers themselves an adherent to any particular religious faith can criticize Erskine’s policy without being a hypocrite.
So anyone who doesn’t agree with you must a) be stubborn, b) not want to think, c) be incurably defensive about their own positions.
I would suggest that this attitude is PRECISELY what poisons public discourse today.
Why are we compelled to admit that there is no natural cause? What you are saying is the equivalent of “We don’t understand it so it must be magic.” I would suggest that “We don’t understand it YET” is a perfectly good response to the situation; moreover it is the response that has historically proven to be accurate.
I’m not religious and don’t presently believe in a supernatural supreme being, but I do not object to including “intelligent design” in the curriculum as a possibility, because so many human beings on this planet believe it. I think that is enough to give it some sort of credibility.
I decided 20 years ago that my D’s private school kindergarten teacher taught it just right: Some people believe that God created the Earth, and other people think that is just a story. I was totally happy with that.
Consolation - I wonder if you believe that you (backed by the threat of an armed government agent) have the right to demand that I compensate you in what ever form of payment you see fit? Can you ask to be paid in the form of (insert anything a reasonable person could find morally objectionable, the egg of an endangered species, a dead fetus, whatever), and I can be compelled by force to comply, having lost my freedom to contract with someone else who is willing to accept cash or some other form of payment that person and I could agree on?
Your right, and my resulting obligation, was created by the mere fact that I choose to conduct business and offered to hire you?
Am I allowed to object that this is “politically reduces my freedom”? Or am my precluded from doing so as a privileged white male?
I understand your confusion, and I do think everything is as you state.
Specifically, I was responding to the shift from criticizing the policy to posters saying that the people at the school who do not ACCEPT homosexuality are essentially backwards, bad people. That is no longer criticizing the policy and changes the issue to acceptance, rather than sticking to religious belief - this means that the school would have to change what they believe to accept behavior they disagree with. That is beyond the pail for me.
I do think Erskine can be judged and criticized for having the policy, but saying it is wrong not to accept homosexuals (by accepting I mean that agreeing what homosexuals are going is not wrong and really just normal) crosses a line from tolerance and accomodation (which the school does actually) to trying to change the school’s religious morals. That strikes me as disrespecting the religion at a fundamental level and thinking you know what is right for its followers. Too self-righteous for me.
@LOUKYDAD, I’m sorry, but that is simply ridiculous hyperbole. Jobs of various kinds receive compensation of various types. Some include room and board. Some include use of a car. Some include free meals, or the ability to buy company products at an enormous discount. Some offer a per diem when travelling that the employee can choose to save. Some offer base salary plus commission. No “armed government agent” demanded that Hobby Lobby offer cash payment plus health insurance. They’ve been doing it for years, because it is customary for the types of jobs they offer and necessary to attract employees. The difference is that now they want to limit the uses to which that health insurance according to their religious beliefs–as well as some incorrect information about how some contraceptive methods work–without regard to the beliefs of the employees. Of course, this has come about because of a new federal rule.
As I said before, I would prefer that health insurance be entirely divorced from employment.
BTW, I think that people screaming about HL “banning” contraception and preventing their employees from getting it is also hyperbole, although as egregious as yours.
Consolation - I apologize for my tone. If it helps, in retrospect I wish that I had made it clearer that in my own mind my references to stubbornness and dullness of thought are restricted to those who dismiss the entire line of discourse as being solely about theology and not science.
Also, I wish I would have made clearer that I do not believe you are compelled to admit anything. And I agree wholeheartedly that “we don’t understand it yet” is a plausible response. In some cases, looking at the evidence, a reasonable person may say that is the most plausible response. I would add that we should look and carefully consider all the evidence we have, including the evidence that favors a naturalistic explanation. Heck, even with a healthy skepticism in favor of natural explanations when they can be found.
Thank you for this - I am appreciative that you didn’t dismiss my argument as mere theology this time.
Believing something does not make it scientific. People believe it, but it doesn’t belong in a science curriculum. That would require proving the existence of an intelligent designer.
As a woman who will have a body part that causes her no small amount of trouble for many years after I’m finished using it, I feel I have some clues that whoever designed the uterus was not intelligent, loving or benign!
That whole “the eye could never have evolved using natural selection” is a rather boring repetition of something that is in no way demonstrably true. Just google it instead of only reading about it on intelligent design websites. No, we don’t have a documentary (with film!) showing exactly how it happened, but the vast majority of scientists have absolutely no issue with it having happened without divine intervention.
If you want to believe in god / intelligent design /whatever, go right ahead. Why the need to ensure everyone else hears about it in science class?
Why the need to ensure everyone hears about the big bang or evolution in science class? The reasons are identical.
donnaleighg - I appreciate the suggestion. But if all you have to add to my knowledge of the subject is to “just google it”, then we both have more important things to do.
“Why the need to ensure everyone hears about the big bang or evolution in science class? The reasons are identical.”
Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the mainstream scientific community. There is plenty of evidence behind it.
Your response is like saying “why the need to ensure everyone hears about gravity in science class.”
If you’re studying political science, you better pay close attention to the beliefs of the people. It’s central to understanding what you’re looking at. Majorities matter.
In biology and geology? Not at all. Crowdsourcing just has no relevance to those fields. The popularity of a scientific theory has no relationship to its validity. Lister and Pasteur were right about germs when nobody believed them. Their theory isn’t any righter or more relevant today because everybody believes them.
I doubt we think that biology classes in an African village ought to give serious attention to the “witches cause Ebola” theory simply because the witch theory is popular there.