DOCSLIB.ORG

Interpretive Frameworks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interpretive Frameworks Volume 46 Number 3 Article 2 March 2018 The Common Thread in Kuyper, Kuhn and Cognitive Psychology: Interpretive Frameworks Daniel F. A. Hitchcock Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Cognitive Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Hitchcock, Daniel F. A. (2018) "The Common Thread in Kuyper, Kuhn and Cognitive Psychology: Interpretive Frameworks," Pro Rege: Vol. 46: No. 3, 14 - 23. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol46/iss3/2 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Common Thread in Kuyper, Kuhn and Cognitive Psychology: Interpretive Frameworks guage, or culture. The idea that subjectivity influences the way we interpret the world is not new; neither is the idea that subjective factors influence the meth- ods, discoveries, and applications of human col- lective efforts. Over the last half-century, the bastion of objective reason has been crumbling at its Enlightenment foundation. Fatal blows have come from insights in psychology and the phi- losophy of science. Although modern positivis- tic science has been mortally wounded, I believe an integrative approach can be taken between a strong relativistic position on truth and an abso- by Daniel Hitchcock lutist one. The Christian faith as a worldview le- gitimizes the assertion that there is a “real world” “We see and understand things not as they as well as the belief that we perceive it through are but as we are.” ~Anthony de Mello— interpretive lenses, which I will be calling “inter- Awareness (1990) pretive frameworks.” These frameworks can yield a plurality of views, including imperfect ones. Christian mystic Anthony de Mello illustrates The goal of this paper is to explore the con- today’s postmodern view of reality. He seems to flict between the relativistic and absolutist posi- say that truth and reality are autonomous, sub- tions on truth, using insights from cognitive psy- jective constructions in the eye of the beholder. chology, philosophy of science, and Christianity. Thus, Truth claims cannot be judged as true in First, I will highlight how subjectivity takes all contexts for all times but are relative to some place at the level of the individual, as described frame of reference like personal perception, lan- by schema theory. Second, I will show that the same cognitive process lies at the heart of human Dr. Daniel F. A. Hitchcock is Associate Professor of social efforts via shared interpretive frameworks Psychology at the College of Arts and Sciences at Regent often called “paradigms.” And third, I will ad- University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. dress the glaring implication of such subjectiv- 14 Pro Rege—March 2018 ity. If individuals and groups interpret the world plain a variety of phenomena—especially in via their own subjective frameworks, the result is memory research and cognitive development. The relativism, which is antithetical to objective ab- result has been a theory explaining that subjective solute truth that stands firm across all times and interpretive frameworks are used to see and under- contexts. I will argue that Christian worldview stand the world. Today we call this theory “sche- philosophy helps resolve the apparent conflict ma theory,” the name originating from Kant.3 based upon the biblical insight that the way we Over the last century, key European psycholo- see and understand real- gists, including Frederick ity stems ultimately from Bartlett and Jean Piaget, the condition of our heart. Although modern positivistic have articulated and ap- Interpretive frameworks science has been mortally plied this idea. Bartlett con- are fundamental to human wounded, I believe an cluded that memory is a re- nature, and embracing integrative approach can construction of interaction their role in human func- with the environment that tioning poses no threat to be taken between a strong involves pre-set schemata a biblical view of truth and relativistic position on truth or frameworks that guide reality. and an absolutist one. both memory storage and recall.4 Piaget took the idea Individual Subjectivity: of interpretive frameworks Cognitive Schema Theory beyond memory processing and articulated an en- At the heart of schema theory is the relative tire theory of cognitive development based upon nature of human sensory perception. The claim their role in organizing all experience.5 that the process of perception is not an exact When the “cognitive revolution” took place match of the original sensation from the external in American psychology in the late 1960s,6 the world originates with Immanuel Kant.1 This idea mantle was taken up by many, including Ulrich was given experimental support in the late 1800s Neisser, who speculated that mental cognitive by the founder of psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, schemata result from actual physical processes in who researched psychophysics in Germany.2 For the nervous system.7 example, I use this demonstration to illustrate Schema theory has even been explanatory in how perception is relative. I place two buckets of the research areas of artificial intelligence, neural water in front of the class, one with ice. I ask a network theory, and neuroscience, by theorists volunteer willing to get his or her hand wet, to including Michael Arbib.8 Arbib believes that rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the temperature of the schema theory is the best explanation for going bucket without ice. This contains cold tap water, beyond the structure of the brain to an under- and the student usually rates it as a 3 or 4. Next, standing of the function of it.9 I have the student rate the ice water—using the In recent decades, many researchers have con- same hand—which usually receives an emphatic firmed that schemata serve as frameworks that rating of 1! I then instruct the student to quickly guide interpretation. This confirmation has been put his or her hand back into first bucket and rate shown in domains such as story recall,10 text com- the water anew. The student surprisingly says, “It prehension, and speed of recall,11 linguistics,12 feels like a 6 or 7.” This response reveals that per- visual learning,13 cultural differences in cogni- ception is relative and is more dependent upon tion,14 computational cognition,15 and problem the current skin temperature than upon the tem- solving16 and has been applied widely in various perature of the stimulus. The point is that, at an disciplines, including education.17 individual level, we are bound by an interpreta- The work by Wundt, Bartlett, Piaget, Neisser tion process that is relative to individual experi- and Arbib shows how our cognition is an inher- ence. ently subjective process. It is the interplay of an Over the years this idea has been used to ex- individual’s sensation and perception and the re- Pro Rege—March 2018 15 ality of his or her environment. However, the role predictable and irregular. Rather than a vertical, of interpretive frameworks does not end here at linear process, he suggested more of a horizontal the individual level, but it extends to how mean- one of skips and jumps within a single plane, mo- ing is shared and understood collectively. The tivated not by anything objective but by subjec- same cognitive process lies at the core of human tive, socially-driven factors, such as personality, social efforts. Shared interpretive frameworks prestige, and aesthetics. He even used the reli- function in ways that yield collective subjectivity. gious term of “faith” and the metaphor of “con- version” to describe how an individual scientist Collective Subjectivity jumps allegiance from one view to another. Humans are social creatures, dependent upon Kuhn’s basic concept for describing science the structures of family, society, and culture. centers on the notion of a paradigm. A para- Given this social dependency, it makes sense that digm is a collective conceptual framework that the use of interpretive frameworks would have a includes a complicated mixture of assumptions, social counterpart seen in groups. theories, and hypotheses accepted by the group The idea was anticipated first in the 1930s by that establish a type of unconscious perimeter Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural view of cognition. within which scientific investigation takes place. Vygotsky claimed inter-dependence between Progress is better seen as growth in depth rather individual cognition and the social context in than growth in breadth. Science is like digging which it takes place.18 This view, that a type of a well straight down within a defined perimeter. collective interpretive framework guides group or Although not always known by those work- social functioning, has been articulated in disci- ing in it, the perimeter of the paradigm is limit- plines beyond the social sciences, most notably in ed. Nature, however, is not so limited; therefore, the history and philosophy of science. some discoveries do not fit within the boundar- Over the last half-century, much investiga- ies of the tight-knit paradigm. Someone digging tion has looked at the social structure of science. near the edge may accidentally dig beyond the The findings have underscored the role of sub- boundary. Kuhn calls such findings “anomalies.” jectivity in scientific activity, in contrast to the They are often ignored and swept under the rug modernist mindset, which sees science as a purely by those who discover them—unless they recur objective endeavor. The overarching consensus of enough to create a crisis within the paradigm: a this work has been that groups of scientists func- state of tension for anomalies that can no longer tion under a type of conceptual structure that be ignored.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part Four - 'Made in America: Christian Fundamentalism' Transcript
    Part Four - 'Made in America: Christian Fundamentalism' Transcript Date: Wednesday, 10 November 2010 - 2:00PM Location: Barnard's Inn Hall 10 November 2010 Made in America Christian Fundamentalism Dr John A Dick Noam Chomsky: “We must bear in mind that the U.S. is a very fundamentalist society, perhaps more than any other society in the world – even more fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia or the Taliban. That's very surprising.” Overview: (1) Introduction (2) Five-stage evolution of fundamentalism in the United States (3) Features common to all fundamentalisms (4) What one does about fundamentalism INTRODUCTION: In 1980 the greatly respected American historian, George Marsden published Fundamentalism and American Culture, a history of the first decades of American fundamentalism. The book quickly rose to prominence, provoking new studies of American fundamentalism and contributing to a renewal of interest in American religious history. The book’s timing was fortunate, for it was published as a resurgent fundamentalism was becoming active in politics and society. The term “fundamentalism” was first applied in the 1920’s to Protestant movements in the United States that interpreted the Bible in an extreme and literal sense. In the United States, the term “fundamentalism” was first extended to other religious traditions around the time of the Iranian Revolution in 1978-79. In general all fundamentalist movements arise when traditional societies are forced to face a kind of social disintegration of their way of life, a loss of personal and group meaning and the introduction of new customs that lead to a loss of personal and group orientation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art and Science of Framing an Issue
    MAPThe Art and Science of Framing an Issue Authors Contributing Editors © January 2008, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Movement Advancement Project (MAP). All rights reserved. “Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. … Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.” —Deborah Stone, Policy Process Scholar, 2002 The Art and Science of 1 Framing an Issue an Issue and Science of Framing Art The The Battle Over Ideas 2 Understanding How People Think 2 What Is Framing? 4 Levels of Framing 5 Tying to Values 6 Why Should I Spend Resources on Framing? 6 How Do I Frame My Issue? 7 Step 1. Understand the Mindset of Your Target Audience 7 Step 2. Know When Your Current Frames Aren’t Working 7 Step 3. Know the Elements of a Frame 7 Step 4. Speak to People’s Core Values 9 Step 5. Avoid Using Opponents’ Frames, Even to Dispute Them 9 Step 6. Keep Your Tone Reasonable 10 Step 7. Avoid Partisan Cues 10 Step 8. Build a New Frame 10 Step 9. Stick With Your Message 11 “Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. … Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.” —Deborah Stone, Policy Process Scholar, 2002 2 The Battle Over Ideas Are we exploring for oil that’s desperately needed to drive our economy and sustain our nation? Or are we Think back to when you were 10 years old, staring at destroying delicate ecological systems and natural your dinner plate, empty except for a pile of soggy– lands that are a legacy to our grandchildren? These looking green vegetables.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion
    Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion Ann Taves, University of California, Santa Barbara Egil Asprem, Stockholm University Elliott Ihm, University of California, Santa Barbara Abstract: To get beyond the solely negative identities signaled by atheism and agnosticism, we have to conceptualize an object of study that includes religions and non-religions. We advocate a shift from “religions” to “worldviews” and define worldviews in terms of the human ability to ask and reflect on “big questions” ([BQs], e.g., what exists? how should we live?). From a worldviews perspective, atheism, agnosticism, and theism are competing claims about one feature of reality and can be combined with various answers to the BQs to generate a wide range of worldviews. To lay a foundation for the multidisciplinary study of worldviews that includes psychology and other sciences, we ground them in humans’ evolved world-making capacities. Conceptualizing worldviews in this way allows us to identify, refine, and connect concepts that are appropriate to different levels of analysis. We argue that the language of enacted and articulated worldviews (for humans) and worldmaking and ways of life (for humans and other animals) is appropriate at the level of persons or organisms and the language of sense making, schemas, and meaning frameworks is appropriate at the cognitive level (for humans and other animals). Viewing the meaning making processes that enable humans to generate worldviews from an evolutionary perspective allows us to raise news questions for psychology with particular relevance for the study of nonreligious worldviews. Keywords: worldviews, meaning making, religion, nonreligion Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Raymond F.
    [Show full text]
  • How Our Worldviews Shape Our Practice
    How Our Worldviews Shape Our Practice Rachel M. Goldberg This article reviews research on the effect of a conflict resolution practi- tioner’s worldview on practice. The results revealed patterns connecting worldview frames with differing uses of power. Forty-three environ- mental and intercultural practitioners were interviewed, and narrative and metaphor analysis was used to reveal key worldview orientations in their practice stories. The results are correlated in continuums and “pro- files” of the worldview orientation. The findings strengthen previous work questioning the effects of the traditional neutrality stance, deepen fieldwide arguments for the embedded nature of worldview and cul- ture, and describe new methods that reveal some of the dynamics between worldview and practice. Native American tribe spent many years struggling against a govern- Ament agency for permanent residence status on their traditional homeland (the ability to live in and use their traditional homeland). Over time, their argument became a fight about permanent homes, because this was the only way to argue for use of the land that the agency understood. For the agency representatives, permanent housing (a building) was syn- onymous with permanent residence (ability to live on and use the land). One day, the mediator who was working with the tribe asked them why they wanted permanent homes. It turned out that the area became very hot during the summer; the tribe had traditionally built temporary homes in the winter and migrated to the mountains during the hot season. It become clear that the tribe did not even really want permanent housing, but a right to reside legally in the area—in their case, a very different goal.
    [Show full text]
  • American Worldview Inventory 2021 Release #4: the National Religious Realignment: Identifying Dramatic Changes in Long-Term Faith Commitments
    American Worldview Inventory 2021 Release #4: The National Religious Realignment: Identifying Dramatic Changes in Long-Term Faith Commitments Dr. George Barna, Director of Research, Cultural Research Center Release Date: June 8, 2021 One of the strengths of America for more than two centuries was the consistency of people’s faith commitments. Not only did more than nine out of 10 Americans associate with the same faith (Christianity), but that alignment brought with it common views about morality, purpose, family, lifestyle, citizenship, and values. But the dramatic erosion of shared Christian belief over the past 30 years is ushering in a number of rapid and radical changes in the relatively stable major religious alignments of America, according to new research from the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. The latest findings from theAmerican Worldview Inventory 2021 identify a number of major shifts in the U.S. religious landscape, including: • dramatic changes in the faith of American Hispanics, with a decrease in the number of Hispanic Catholics, accompanied by a sharp increase in Hispanic “Don’ts”—those who don’t believe, don’t know, or don’t care if God exists; • fast growth in Islamic, as well as Eastern and New Age religions; • a consistent 30-year decline in both Christianity and confidence in religion; • a breathtaking drop in four critical spiritual indicators: belief in God, belief in the Bible, recognition of salvation through Jesus Christ, and possession of a biblical worldview; • and a surprising increase in belief in reincarnation, even among Christians. Hispanic Faith For the past several decades Hispanics have been a major growth segment for the Catholic Church in America.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldviews in Religious Education Trevor Cooling, with Bob Bowie and Farid Panjwani Theos Is the UK’S Leading Religion and Society Think Tank
    Report Worldviews in Religious Education Trevor Cooling, with Bob Bowie and Farid Panjwani Theos is the UK’s leading religion and society think tank. It has a broad Christian basis and exists to enrich the conversation about the role of faith in society through research, events, and media commentary. Published by Theos in 2020 Scripture quotations are from the © Theos New Revised Standard Version, copyright © 1989 the Division of ISBN 978-1-9996680-4-4 Christian Education of the National Some rights reserved. See copyright Council of the Churches of Christ in licence for details. For further the United States of America. Used information and subscription details by permission. All rights reserved. please contact: Theos Licence Department +44 (0) 20 7828 7777 77 Great Peter Street [email protected] London SW1P 2EZ theosthinktank.co.uk Report Worldviews in Religious Education Trevor Cooling, with Bob Bowie and Farid Panjwani Worldviews in Religious Education 2 Acknowledgements 3 Worldviews in Religious Education Theos would like to thank the authors for their significant time and insight in the preparation of this report, as well as Culham St Gabriel’s Trust for their generous funding towards this project. 4 Contents 5 Worldviews in Religious Education Executive summary 7 Introduction 13 Chapter 1: Paradigm changes in Religious Education 19 Chapter 2: Criticisms and defence of the “worldview” approach 32 Chapter 3: A distinctive contribution to the debate about worldview 50 Chapter 4: Religious influence in and on Religious Education 72 Chapter 5: Personal Reflections 89 Conclusions 110 6 Executive Summary 7 Worldviews in Religious Education Religious Education in schools is a vital means of ensuring religious literacy in any society – but in the UK, it is under threat.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldview: Vital for Mission and Ministry in the 21St Century
    De Oliveira: Worldview: Vital for Mission and Ministry in the 21st Century Worldview: Vital for Mission and Ministry in the 21st Century least displayed, an inability to face such changes. By Paulo De Oliveira The purpose of this article is to raise awareness and encour- age dialogue among Adventist scholars and missionaries about As mission and ministry move the importance of the worldview into the twenty-first century concept in doing ministry and mis- it is becoming clear that the sion in the twenty-first century. challenges and revolutions in The Adventist emphasis on cog- technology, transportation, com- nitive knowledge and behavioral munication, and the philosophic change instead of working for deep postmodern condition is forever changes in worldview assumptions changing the landscape of the and allegiance is not very effective world’s societies. The question when working with postmoderns. that remains to be answered is Adventists need to understand whether Seventh-day Adventist and practice the art of communi- ministry and mission has the cating to produce transformation ability to adjust quickly enough at the worldview level. Movement in the face of such challenges forward toward this new paradigm to take full advantage of the of ministry and mission will be opportunities that come with rooted in divine revelation through them. Until now, the Adventist biblical studies but also will in- paradigm for ministry and mis- clude work to understand the sion has often overlooked, or at human context through human studies (figure 1). Paulo De Oliveira The church is in some places is the senior pas- already reacting to this new tor of the Progres- emerging reality.
    [Show full text]
  • Inferences: Schema, Assumptions, Biases
    W riting and Language Development Center Inferences: schema, assumptions, biases An inference is an informed guess. To be human is to make inferences. Daily, almost continually, we make informed guesses about things—situations, attitudes, relationships, motives. For instance, we guess (infer) someone’s state of mind or attitude by interpreting his tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures. Since inferences are guesses, they may be correct or incorrect, but they are always based on some kind of supporting evidence. Active reading is an immersive activity. Writers construct stories and arguments with great deliberation; readers uncover their hints and unravel the connections. Therefore, a crucial element of active reading is the ability to make inferences from the text. Proficient readers do this without thinking much about it, while developing readers may not realize they should do it. Since in reading we don’t have the advantage of a face-to-face encounter, we have to use other evidence: various kinds of text evidence as well as our own schema (see definition below) and background knowledge. But schema is complicated. We bring not only known facts, but our personal assumptions and biases into the mix; they, too, are part of our schema. Nevertheless, understanding how we make inferences helps us read and think smarter and better and avoid misreading. Understanding how inference works can also keep us from falling for misleading or weak arguments. Text evidence: words and connections One kind of text evidence is the words themselves. Words have meanings—their denotation or definition. But beyond the definition, words also have emotional weight—their connotation.
    [Show full text]
  • Artefacts As Mere Illustrations of a Worldview Terence Rajivan Edward
    Artefacts as Mere Illustrations of a Worldview Terence Rajivan Edward Abstract: This paper responds to an argument against a kind of anthropology. According to the argument, if the aim of anthropology is to describe the different worldviews of different groups, then anthropologists should only refer to material artefacts in order to illustrate a worldview; but the interest of artefacts to anthropology goes beyond mere illustration. This argument has been endorsed by key members of the ontological movement in anthropology, who found at least one of its premises in Marilyn Strathern’s writing. Keywords: anthropology, artefacts, illustrations, ontological movement, worldview description. This paper focuses on claims made by some members of a recent academic movement, in the discipline of social and cultural anthropology. The movement is known as the ontological movement, for reasons that we need not go into here. My focus below will not be on the recommendations that this movement makes for future anthropology, rather with an argument that has been made about the limitations of previous anthropology. A key text for this movement is the book Thinking through Things. The authors of the Introduction to this book – Amiria Henare, Martin Holbraad and Sari Wastell – tell us about the aim of previous anthropology. Previous anthropologists tried to describe the worldview of this or that cultural group (Henare et al. 2007, 9-10). A worldview is a set of representations of the world. The representations are typically of a highly general character and typically give an initial impression of coherence. To illustrate this point: the proposition that there are causes, the proposition that there are effects and the proposition that each effect resembles its cause are together part of some worldviews (Frazer 1925, 11).
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Models Concepts for System Dynamics Research
    Report No. 6 January 7, 1998 Mental Models Concepts for System Dynamics Research James K. Doyle1 David N. Ford 2 System Dynamics Review, in press. 1 Department of Social Science and Policy Studies, 100 Institute Rd., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609. Email: [email protected]. 2 Department of Information Science, University of Bergen, N-5020 Bergen, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Although "mental models" are of central importance to system dynamics research and practice, the field has yet to develop an unambiguous and agreed upon definition of them. To begin to address this problem, existing definitions and descriptions of mental models in system dynamics and several literatures related to cognitive science were reviewed and compared. Available definitions were found to be overly brief, general, and vague, and different authors were found to markedly disagree on the basic characteristics of mental models. Based on this review, we concluded that in order to reduce the amount of confusion in the literature, the mental models concept should be "unbundled" and the term "mental models" should be used more narrowly. To initiate a dialogue through which the system dynamics community might achieve a shared understanding of mental models, we proposed a new definition of "mental models of dynamic systems" accompanied by an extended annotation that explains the definitional choices made and suggests terms for other cognitive structures left undefined by narrowing the mental model concept. Suggestions for future research that could improve the field's ability to further define mental models are discussed. 2 A difficulty for those who want to understand or to appraise mental models is that their proponents seem to have somewhat different views.
    [Show full text]
  • A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization As a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework
    systems Article A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework David Rousseau 1,2,3,4,* and Julie Billingham 5,6 1 Centre for Systems Philosophy, Surrey KTI5 1EL, UK 2 Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Kingston-on-Hull HU6 7RX, UK 3 Alister Hardy Research Centre, University of Wales TSD, Lampeter SA48 7ED, UK 4 Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science, 1040 Vienna, Austria 5 Centre for Systems Philosophy, Surrey KTI5 1EL, UK; [email protected] 6 Salesforce, Inc., San Francisco, CA 94105, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-(0)-7714-677-687 Received: 31 March 2018; Accepted: 5 July 2018; Published: 10 July 2018 Abstract: Systems science methodologies do not have a consistent way of working with worldviews, even though determining stakeholder perspectives is central to systems thinking. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive “Worldview Inquiry Framework” that can be used across methodologies to govern the process of eliciting, documenting, and comparing the worldviews of stakeholders. We discuss the systemicity of worldviews and explain how this can help practitioners to find the roots of stakeholders’ disagreements about value judgements. We then generalize the structure of the Worldview Inquiry Framework to produce a “General Inquiry Framework” that can be used to govern an inquiry process in other contexts. We show that the presented Worldview Inquiry Framework is a special case of this General Inquiry Framework and show how the General Inquiry Framework can be tailored for other contexts such as problem solving, product design, and fundamental research.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Beyond Religion As Science: "Unstifling" Worldview Formation in American Public Education
    Getting Beyond Religion as Science: "Unstifling" Worldview Formation in American Public Education Barry P. McDonald* Abstract Since ancient times, Western civilization has witnessed a great debate over a simple but profound question: From whence did we come? Two major worldviews have dominated that debate: a theistic worldview holding that we, and the world in which we live, are the purposeful product of a supernatural creator; and a materialistic worldview holding that we are the product of unintelligent and random natural forces. This debate rose to the fore with Darwin’s publication of his theory of evolution and the development of the modern scientific establishment. In America, it initially took its most conspicuous form in efforts by creationists to ban the teaching of evolution in American public schools, and then to have creationism taught as science. After legal setbacks based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, that effort morphed into the intelligent design movement of the past couple of decades. That movement’s aim to gain a place in the science curriculum recently stalled with a court ruling that it was, like the creationists before it, attempting to teach religious concepts as science. Most recently, a notable group of scientists and atheists have reversed the trend of defending science against religious attacks and launched a very public and aggressive campaign against religion itself. Prominent scientists and other believers have responded with works attempting to reconcile science and faith. * Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law. J.D., Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois (1988). I would like to extend my grateful thanks and appreciation to Kent Greenawalt, Kurt Lash, and Steve Smith for some very helpful comments on this Article.
    [Show full text]