Now remember here, morals are more on a social scale... So this is basically saying controversies happen when two (social) differences of opinions clash, or when one moral becomes more of a norm and is challenged. I think it can also come about from people having different interpretations of the same moral norm.
So if we look at this just in terms of teaching ID in the science classroom, we find a clear clash of morals. One group believes that ID should be kept out of science, and one believes it should be taught next to genetics 'to be balanced'. You could even say that this is a challenge of the social norm too, because ID has been banned from schools.
Now this is just the beginning of the frameworks, and as I explain more about them the relations will become clearer and you can see why you need all three to analyse.
Before I finish this post though, I want to look at a couple of quotes.
The first quote comes from The Wedge Strategy document that I talked about many posts back. The quote basically says that ID needs to "defeat [the]materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
That basically gives very good evidence for a clash of moral norms where one really wants to overtake the other (especially when you consider they say they just want a balanced discussion).
The second quote is the one I mentioned last post from the Gross paper:
So if we look at this just in terms of teaching ID in the science classroom, we find a clear clash of morals. One group believes that ID should be kept out of science, and one believes it should be taught next to genetics 'to be balanced'. You could even say that this is a challenge of the social norm too, because ID has been banned from schools.
Now this is just the beginning of the frameworks, and as I explain more about them the relations will become clearer and you can see why you need all three to analyse.
Before I finish this post though, I want to look at a couple of quotes.
The first quote comes from The Wedge Strategy document that I talked about many posts back. The quote basically says that ID needs to "defeat [the]materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
That basically gives very good evidence for a clash of moral norms where one really wants to overtake the other (especially when you consider they say they just want a balanced discussion).
The second quote is the one I mentioned last post from the Gross paper:
‘There is a more insidious effect of moral orders: by substituting displays of high feelings for reason, they distort and suppress public debate over the issues that are their concern.’
Now nearly all of this is true for Gusfield in this sense, except for one point. Rather than suppressing public debate, ID proponents are actually creating debate where none exists (or shouldn't). Well, there's no debate in science, but they're fuelling public debate but telling people that there is.
Turner's up next.
No comments:
Post a Comment