Be careful what you ask for,
You just might get it.
Should The Bible be Taught in Pubic Schools?
How About Intelligent Design?
------------------------
We are all familiar with the old saying, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.” This saying implies that things just might backfire. And, as I have been reading some recent articles on the arguments for and against the idea that the Bible and/or Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools, a thought occurred to me that is more than a little unsettling.
Let us suppose for a moment that this year the Bible and Intelligent Design are both introduced into the public school system throughout the U.S. The Bible and Intelligent Design are now taught along side of Shakespeare and Evolution.
So, young and impressionable kids go into their literature class and the topic for the next eight weeks will be the Bible. At the same time, other youngsters go into their science class and the topic for the next eight weeks will be Intelligent Design. All of this sounds pretty good, eh? I’m afraid not. And, here’s why.
Who will be teaching those classes? Do you suppose that a person with an M.Div. from a conservative Christian seminary will be teaching the literature class? Hardly. Far more likely it will be Mr. Liberal who has his M.A. in comparative literature from Liberal University. And, are we just going to assume that a Ph.D. from the Institute for Creation Research will be teaching Intelligent Design? Or, will it be more likely that the science class will be taught by a godless atheist or agnostic? Or, at minimum, someone who simply does not really understand the science behind it.
Now, please do not misunderstand me on this. I fully realize that there are many solid Christian people who teach in public schools. I have Christian friends who do so. But by and large the percentage of solid Christians teaching in our public school system is far less than the percentage of non-Christians.
Well, certainly they’ll use conservative texts books, right? Yeah, sure. Our public schools are overflowing with texts written by conservatives, right? Nope.
Now, I am aware that there are in fact some conservative texts being used occasionally, but, on the whole, conservatism is not what the public school system is advancing.
And, in the literature class, what shall be the overriding hermeneutics employed to teach kids what it means? My humble guess is that the proper grammatical, historical, and theological-context approach will not be followed. I can hear the teacher now:
Historical? Nah, you can’t believe that the Bible is historically accurate. It’s not even about that. It’s a book about faith and good works. It’s about being nice to your neighbors and feeding the poor. It’s a book using myth and allegories to make a point. Jesus Christ did not actually and literally rise from the dead. The resurrection myth is to show you what God, if there even is a God, does spiritually for those who do good things, like Jesus did. It just means that God approved of Jesus’ kindness and love. It does not mean that he actually rose from the dead or that he was divine. Jesus was just a good man.
And, oh, by the way, since we are not using conservative interpretive methods, what might the liberal teacher do with this passage?
I said, “You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High (Psalms 82:6).
So, is Jesus the unique Son of God? Well, certainly not according to a liberal reading (twisting) of the Bible. Look at this real-life gem of how one can teach the Bible in public schools:
By helping to design an academic course in the Bible, moderates can show that the Bible is not composed entirely of talking points for the religious right. In fact, on a wide range of topics, including respecting the value of other faiths, shielding religion from politics, serving the poor and protecting the environment, the Bible offers powerful arguments in support of moderate and liberal causes.
In the story of David, the ruthless Israelite king who unites the tribes of Israel around 1000 B.C.E. but is rebuked by God when he wants to build a temple, the Bible makes a stirring argument in favor of separating religion and politics, or church and state to use contemporary terms.
In the Book of Isaiah, God embraces the Persian king Cyrus and his respect for different religions, even though Cyrus does not know God's name and does not practice Judaism. By calling Cyrus "the anointed one," or messiah, God signals his tolerance for people who share his moral vision, no matter their nationality or faith. (December 21, 2005, The New York Times, Op-Ed Contributor, Teach, Don't Preach, the Bible, by Bruce Feiler.)
Want more of this “fine method” of interpreting the Scriptures? See the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/opinion/21feiler.html along with some responses to the article.
When I see this sort of liberal-biased approach to interpreting Scripture, and I ponder for a moment that kids all over the U.S. may be indoctrinated by this sort of nonsense, a great fear wells up inside of me. In the future, should the Bible and Intelligent Design be introduced into the public schools but taught by liberal and anti-God teachers who are committed to pushing their liberal agendas, I fear that we could see a whole generation of lost kids spouting Scripture for their godless actions and lifestyles.
Sciences Biases And, what of the science class? Oh, well, we all know that there are no biases in science, right? Scientists--even if they are only high school biology teachers--only want the truth, right?
Dr. Brian Martin, Ph.D. (theoretical physics) from the University of Sydney, has written a book titled, The Bias of Science (you may read the full text on-line for free should you desire: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/79bias/index.html). This is from the back cover of The Bias of Science:
The bias of science starts out as a case study of two scientific research papers, which are about the pollution of the upper atmosphere by Concorde-type aircraft. The writers of these papers are shown to 'push their arguments' in various ways, such as through their technical assumptions. Dr Martin argues that the particular orientations of the authors of the papers can best be explained in terms of 'presuppositions' about what the scientists are trying to prove. Evidence that the existence of such presuppositions is a common and expected feature of science leads to analyses of other scientific papers, to surveys of the sociology and epistemology of science and the psychology of scientists, and to a comparison of communication of scientific ideas in scientific papers and newspapers.
But this could never happen in a public school science class, right? I am always amused by “scientists” or science teachers who--without success--attempt to argue that they are only interested in the facts. I was listening to a high school science teacher on TV recently, and she said: “The obvious problem with Intelligent Design is that we cannot test it as we can Evolution. Intelligent Design is just a matter of faith whereas Evolution is a proven fact.”
We can test Evolution? Evolution is a proven fact? When asked if she had ever considered the reality of a supreme being, she just laughed and said, “Not since I quit believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.” Yep. No bias there. Again, I do not wish to paint with too broad a brush. I know that there are solid Christian men and women all across America who are science teachers in public schools. However, as stated above, the percentage of these solid Christian teachers is far lower than their non-Christian counterparts.
The Conclusion? So, what are we to make of all of this? We Christians who have wanted for so long to see the Bible back in public schools and the teaching of Intelligent Design taught along side of Evolution as an option must pause and ask ourselves, “Is this really a good idea?”
I have no children of my own who are in the public school system, but I know this. If I did have children in the public school system, I would not want them taking Bible classes or Intelligent Design classes under the teaching of non-Christians. My kids will get their educations on these issues from me, the church we attend, and other resources that I personally deem appropriate.
If somehow the Bible and Intelligent Design are actually introduced into the public schools, I would not say that the battle has been won; I would say, rather, that it has just begun.
