Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

One may wish to compare the actual Letter, endorsed now by over 10,500
clergy, with the characterization of this project by Wells. Here's the text,
taken from the web site,
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm..

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and
disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While
virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be
authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do
not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the
beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and
the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper
relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable
of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth
is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey
scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe
that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science
may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a
foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny
and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this
truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace
scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe
that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and
that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our
Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes
the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to
limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the
integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory
of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science
remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but
complementary, forms of truth."

Bob continues:

The Clergy Letter is the brainchild of Dr. Michael Zimmerman, Dean of Arts
and Sciences at Butler University (a Disciples of Christ institution: my
friend and former colleagues Dr. Bobby Fong is currently its president).

This project sprang from the actions of the Grantsburg, WI, school board
which passed a regulation mandating the teaching of all theories of origins
in district school science classes. Several groups of teachers, university
faculty in both science disciplines and religious studies, and others wrote
letters pointing out that students would be required to learn what are in
fact religious views of origins in science classes and asked the board to
reconsider. They pointed out that students are more likely to be confused
over the conflation of religious and scientific concepts than learn to think
critically about them; and they pointed out that including religious
theories of origins would violate settleed law on this question. You can
read copies of these letters at the web site.

The Clergy Letter has been signed by clergy from a variety of Christian
denominations and indpendent community churches. Dean Zimmerman's project
has been surprisingly successful, as the letter circulated throughout the
net and thousands of clergy signed on.

The purpose of "Evolution Sunday" is not, as Wells insinuates, to promote
"Darwinism" but to help those hearing sermons or participating in study
groups to understand that religious faith and sound science are not in
conflict with one another. That is the stated purpose of the project.
Nothing in the official statements reflects the criticisms that Wells levels
at it. In fact, most of Well's statement is a rehash of his ID,
anti-evolution position, which conflates evolutionism with evolution. His
criticism, by focusing on Zimmerman (and bringing in Eugenie Scott for a
gratuitous attack) ignores the huge number of clergy, many of them with a
scientific background, who have endorsed the letter. His letter is simply
beside the point, but of course Wells had his own purpose in mind.

On the site you will find a link to Resources that include not only numerous
sermons by clergy but a bibliography that contains links to writings by
members of the ASA.

Bob Schneider

From: "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>

To: "American Scientific Affiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

> Below is an essay by Jonathan Wells on Evolution Sunday. I post without
> comment.
>
> Keith
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
> http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19634
>
> As Jonathan Dudley pointed out in his recent column (“Evolution Sunday
> not so benign,” 1/24), hundreds of Christian churches across America will
> celebrate Darwin’s theory on Feb. 11.
>
> Why will they do this? A little background is helpful here.
>
> Evolution can mean many things. Broadly speaking, it means simply change
> over time, something no sane person doubts. In biblical interpretation,
> it can mean that God created the world over a long period of time rather
> than in six 24-hour days. In biology, it can mean minor changes within
> existing species, which we see happening before our eyes.
>
> But Darwin’s theory claims much more — namely, that all living things are
> descended from a common ancestor and that their present differences are
> due to unguided natural processes such as random variations and survival
> of the fittest. It is not evolution in general, but Darwin’s particular
> theory (Darwinism) that Evolution Sunday celebrates. That’s why it is
> timed to coincide with Charles Darwin’s birthday.
>
> The idea originated with University of Wisconsin evolutionary biologist
> Michael Zimmerman after a Wisconsin school board adopted the following
> policy in 2004: “Students are expected to analyze, review, and critique
> scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their
> strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.
> Students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses
> of evolutionary theory. This policy does not call for the teaching of
> Creationism or Intelligent Design.”
>
> Zimmerman called the policy a decision “to deliberately embrace
> scientific ignorance.”
>
> But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis that
> variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and selection
> (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and body plans.
> And what may have once looked like solid evidence for universal common
> ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular comparisons) is now plagued by
> growing inconsistencies. It is actually the Darwinists who brush aside
> these awkward facts who “embrace scientific ignorance.”
>
> Not only did Zimmerman oppose analyzing Darwinism’s strengths and
> weaknesses, but he also appealed to Christian churches for help. Why?
>
> Polls have consistently shown that about 40 percent of Americans believe
> God created the human beings in their present form a few thousand years
> ago, while another 45 percent believe that humans developed over millions
> of years from less advanced forms but that God guided the process.
> Despite their differences, both of these groups accept a central tenet of
> Christian theology: Human beings were designed and created in the image
> of God.
>
> Darwinism denies this.
>
> Darwin himself wrote that he could see “no more design in the variability
> of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the
> course which the winds blow.” Although he could not “look at the universe
> as the result of blind chance,” Darwin saw “no evidence of beneficent
> design, or indeed of design of any kind, in the details.” Thus, asserts
> Darwinist George Gaylord Simpson, “Man is the result of a purposeless and
> natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.”
>
> Less than 15 percent of Americans accept this view. Yet Darwinists depend
> heavily on American taxpayers for their financial support. Enlisting
> Christian clergy to defend “science” or “evolution” is a tactic used to
> perpetuate that support.
>
> For example, Eugenie Scott directs a militantly pro-Darwin organization
> euphemistically named the National Center for Science Education. As an
> acknowledged humanist, Scott rejects the Christian worldview, yet she
> wrote in 2002: “I have found that the most effective allies for evolution
> are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar
> is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!”
>
> To reach skeptics of Darwinism, Scott recommends sugarcoating evolution
> as change over time. Only after she gets people nodding in agreement to
> the obvious fact that “the present is different from the past” does Scott
> introduce them to “The Big Idea” — namely, Darwin’s theory. Organizers of
> Evolution Sunday use the same bait-and-switch.
>
> The vast majority of Americans reject Darwinism for good reasons: It
> doesn’t fit the scientific evidence, and it contradicts a central tenet
> of Christianity. Instead of using Evolution Sunday to celebrate Darwin,
> churches should use the day to reaffirm the creatorship of God and the
> value of good science — which includes studying the strengths and
> weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
>
>
> Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in religious studies from Yale and a
> doctorate in molecular and cell biology from the University of
> California, Berkeley. He is the author of “The Politically Incorrect
> Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.”
>
> ______________________________________
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 29 22:29:38 2007