I agree with Easterbrook's framing of the debate. There has always been much controversy revolving around the creation of the world and all those inhabit it. It's fair to compare God with science because those are two of the most prominent answers to the unknown. The idea that God created the Earth and brought life works directly against the scientific notion that there was some sort of process, not just some religious beginning. There is a scientific standard to education and one of the topics Easterbrook touches on is the spontaneous formation of life. He goes on to explain that it should be taught in schools because it is a well-known theory regarding the creation of the Earth, whether or not it is truly is accurate is the source of the debate. Easterbrook proceeds to explain the Supreme Court's decision to rule that public schools must not teach creationism as part of the curriculum because it is part of a religious doctrine; one that has no physical evidence to support its integrity. Easterbrook's comparison is highly effective in the concepts he compares. God could be considered the "head" of religion, while the head of the biology department would serve as the primary leader of sciences within a school system. Both God and the head of the biology department can be seen as the "top-ranking" officials of their respected fields so to speak. The question of origin is open to interpretation on many levels. Easterbrook makes a fair comparison because God would be the answer to religious followers, while science would be the answer to those who are seeking a more "logical" or plausible viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Brandon,
after reading your response, i am forced to change my opinion and agree with Easterbrook's comparison of God and science. you brought forth an excellent point in stating that these two are comparable because of the fact that they are both answers to the unknown. i overlooked the significance of God as the head of religion and i am glad that you pointed it out. you touched upon the fact that "schools must not teach creationism ...because it is part of a religious doctrine" and i agree with you that "it holds no physical evidence to support its integrity." i think that you brought up excellent points and they made me think more about the text
I agree with you on certain terms such as that both topics concerning God and science could both be symbiotic in some sort of way. However, I didn't think that Easterbrook's argument was really revolving around religion vs. science. I think it was more along the lines of "the school board" or whatever relates to that (them) vs. the theories of God and science. Such as in the prelude of Easterbrook's argument where he compares the Scope's trial from 75 years ago to present day and how then it was religion over science, and now how it is more like science over religion. But also I really liked the end to your point of view; God is to those who follow God, as science is to those who follow science, and how both depend on what type of answers that person is looking for.
Post a Comment