Re: Washington Post makes agenda for science crystal clear

Another example of the change Keith refers to is the work of the Program of
Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion of the AAAS. I have been involved
as a consultant on two occasions along with several others from diffrent
religious denominations. If you click this link you will find summaries of
two activities of DoSER, one Keith is probably familiar with from the first
Kansas controversy (1999-2000), the second in which I participated as a
representative from the Episcopal Church:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/projects.shtml. From the paragraph
describing the "Religious Communities Consultation..." is the following:

"A recurring theme from the religious community representatives during the
consultation was the need for an educational resource on evolution for use
at the congregational level that is locally applicable but
non-denominational in nature. It was suggested that such a resource needed
to include both a general scientific description of evolution as well as
material to encourage a discussion of the significance of the topic from a
religious perspective."

This project is now under way and several of us from the religious
communities involved in the science/religion dialogue are consultants to the
project.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: <kbmill@ksu.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Washington Post makes agenda for science crystal clear

> Rich wrote:
>
>> Denyse, what you should be celebrating is that the Smithsonian is
>> implictly
>> agreeing with you that Sagan's Cosmos would be inappropriate for one
>> of
>> their events. This is because while you might be able to say it isn't
>> religious you cannot say it isn't philosophical. Further, the
>> Smithsonian is
>> not the only ones granting this point that Dawkins-style Darwinism is
>> just
>> as inappropriate for the public schools as Intelligent Design.
>
> I have seen a real change in focus within the scientific community over
> the last 10 or more years. Many leaders in the scientific community
> and many science organizations have come to understand the
> destructiveness of the "warfare" view of science and faith. They are
> becoming increasingly explicit that scientific descriptions do not
> imply any rejection of the existence of the supernatural. The
> scientific voice in Kansas has been almost completely unified in this
> regard. Similarly I have found this to be the case with nearly all the
> of scientific organizations with which I am involved. Scientists are
> also increasingly willing to publically state their religious
> commitments.
>
> These are important changes in scientific culture.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 3 13:01:13 2005