Re: [asa] The Evolution Dialogues

At 03:21 PM 8/27/2006, Randy Isaac wrote:

> No. Well, a little bit of paleoanthropology. The subtitle of the
> book is "Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding." I
> objected that there was virtually no discussion of the age of the
> earth or of the fossil record. She did add some of it but not very
> much. ~ Randy
> ----- Original Message -----
> Friday, August 25, 2006 7:03 AM "Did the text include any
> discussion of evolutionary theories in sociology, psychology,
> anthropology, or economics?" ~ Arago
> Randy Isaac
> <<mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>randyisaac@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Yes, Bob, it was good to finally get a copy of the finished book
> rather than the drafts. They did a nice job with the formatting
> and pictures.
> <http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0809evolution.shtml>http://
> www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0809evolution.shtml
> [snip]

@ I have three comments in reference to the news release to which
you linked us above:

Quote from the news release: "...At the time, mainline denominations
such as the Lutheran World Federation, the Episcopal Church USA and
the United Methodist Church had been somewhat disengaged from the
earlier battles over creationism and evolution. But the debate over
Intelligent Design raised the stakes, posing threats to the quality
of instruction in public school science classrooms .."

Comment #1: Looks like the wrong "PR" people are still on the front
lines.

If those above-mentioned "mainline" denominations (cough!, cough!)
have decided to become even more "engaged in the battle" than they
have been, they will realize an exact opposite result from what they
expect.

Read why here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-
allen9jul09,0,2668973.story

*
Quote from the news release: "....and to the constitutional division
between church and state." [snip]

Comment #2: Yes - there's that old "separation of church and
state" canard again. And I wouldn't be afraid to bet my last
dollar that, like the ACLU and the left-wing activist courts, the
author of the above-referenced book believes that "endorsement,"
"favoritism," and "promotion" are other words that can be used
interchangeably with the word "establishment", which is the word
carefully chosen by the Framers in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment contains two clauses in the same sentence that
explain the intended relationship between government and religion:
the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

*
Quote from the news release: "...An array of distinguished
reviewers, contacted by AAAS, found the book to be a useful, balanced
treatment of the issues. .....Jack Haught, a Georgetown University
theologian ...."

Comment #3: Obtaining endorsements of one's work from unorthodox,
"distinguished theologians" (cough!, cough!) will no more get the
desired result than the example noted in the first quote above - and
for the same reasons as noted in the link, and those noted by Ted
Davis, et.al., below:.

"...One ASA member, Ted Davis.....also provides intriguing if less
flattering analysis of Friday's expert testimony here:

"...I went to court yesterday and heard the entire testimony...of
Jack Haught, the Georgetown theologian who appeared as a witness ...

(3) Then it got really, really interesting. Mr thompson asked Jack
whether he is a Roman Catholic theologian, and Jack affirmed that he
is. Did he have the official whatever-it-is-called-sort-of-license to
be a Catholic theologian? No, Jack said, the local authority
responsible for that is pretty understanding (my words to give my
impression of what he said, I don't have notes with his words) about
this.

Mr Thompson then produced a copy of the Catholic catechism, and asked
Jack point blank about whether or not he believes in the virgin
birth, the resurrection, and an historical Adam and Eve. What is your
position on these points, he wanted to know.

Jack then did the Bultmann thing, relative to the virgin birth and
the resurrection--no, he stated, if there were a videocamera in the
room when Jesus appeared to the disciples, that camera would not have
recorded anything, since it takes faith to see the resurrected Jesus
(and presumably, the camera would have lacked faith). From private
conversation with Jack a few years ago, I was pretty sure this is
what he would say--Jack questioned my conviction that the bodily
resurrection is vital to Christian belief--but I have never talked
about this conversation publicly b/c I did not think it was
appropriate to do so. Now however it is fair to mention it.

Jack also denied on the stand that he is a "process theologian," I
can't fathom just why he did so. He's seen as a process theologian by
everyone I know, and I still consider him a process theologian.
Perhaps I'll get a chance at some point to ask him to clarify his own
position, relative to process theology. But you could've fooled me,
and I don't think I'm easily fooled on this type of thing. Perhaps he
didn't want to be pigeonholed for the purposes of further
questioning, in which case I would understand his answer. ...

...And, the first scientist to testify, Ken Miller, is probably quite
a bit more conservative theologically (I know many people think he's
a flaming liberal, but I don't think he's nearly as liberal as
Haught) than the scientists who lined up to testify in Dayton (only
one of them, Maynard Metcalf of Johns Hopkins, was actually allowed
to testify before the jury, though the others were allowed to have
their testimony entered into the court record). Kirtley Mather, e.g.,
did not have a clear belief in an afterlife and did not believe that
God can interact at all with nature (those two beliefs are
self-consistent, incidentally, as I will be discussing in my book
about the religious beliefs of early 20th century scientists). But
Haught is as liberal as anyone around Dayton, as far as I can tell.

The overall science/religion landscape is far more diverse today than
it was in the 1920s (when there was no readily visible group of
people who accept both evolution *and* the virgin birth &
resurrection), but you won't know that from Haught's testimony--it
was pretty much the old modernism in contemporary form, save for the
injection of a strong dose of neo-orthodoxy...." ~ Ted Davis

Posted by Jonathan Witt on October 4, 2005 11:19
AM
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/
dover_generates_intellectual_ferment.html

Faith, the Environment, and Evolution: An Interview with John F"Jack"
Haught by Phina Borgeson
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/
vol23/4510_faith_the_environment_and_ev_12_30_1899.asp

Haught: Well, when I was in Catholic seminary, I got into reading
Teilhard de Chardin, whose work struck a chord with my cosmic
romantic sense. I have also delighted in Whitehead and his romantic
reaction to the dominant philosophy of his place and time. I find
that Science and the Modern World is still the most influential book
I have read, and the best critique of scientism. I think Whitehead
was the first postmodernist. ..."

Science and the Modern World by Alfred North Whitehead
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684836394/103-8542906-2335850?
v=glance&n=283155

A reviewer: "..Whitehead's book is most useful as a book on the
philosophy of science, as well as a succinct and accurate appraisal
of science in the modern world (modern meaning 17th-19th centuries,
historically speaking). He takes a very "post" modern view of the
extent of science, writing in chapter one, "if science is not to
degenerate into a medly of ad hoc hypotheses, it must become
philosophical and must enter upon a thorough criticism of its own
foundations." At the same time one can imagine his glee over such
recent developments as chaos theory. Whitehead would disagree with
Einstein, and side with Bohr: God does indeed play dice. ... if you
are interested in a hermeneutical perspective on science's recent
past, and are willing to see science as much a faith committment as
any other world view (a la Kuhn, for example), you will benfit
greatly from this book. If you take E.O. Wilson's (1998) position
that science is immune to the effects of politics, culture, ideology,
and dogma, you will not like it. If you take Rouse's (1987, 1996) and
van Huyssteen's (1998, 1999) position that even so-called "hard"
science is thoroughly corrigible and foundationalist, you will.
Whitehead's ideas are opposed to scientific materialism from the
get-go, and he is absolutely against dogmatism on the part of science
or philosophy. ..."

Process and Reality ..1927-28) by Alfred North Whitehead

A reviewer: "... Foundational work for Process Theology, December 23,
1999 ...Whitehead's book is a seminal work on freedom and becoming.
... This is where Process Theology got its start.

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 29 11:51:24 2006