Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

I dont know anything about Michael Zimmerman, and I was maintaing my
skepticism about him, (and evidently was maintaining my cynicism,) when I
believed Wells, and his comment that the motivation behind the Clergy
letter, was, in Scotts words, to create "effective allies for evolution..."

So I tried to find something about Michael Zimmerman and I found this quote
from him, regarding the Clergy letter, and Evolution Sunday. I paste it
here for the cynics among us, like myself.

"As a scientist, the theory of evolution has been central to my field
research. I have been interested in the ways in which plants and pollinators
interact with one another over evolutionary time. Understanding these
interactions will help us better understand the way natural communities are
structured. Although my research does not have immediate applications, the
more we understand about natural communities the better able we are to
predict changes that are likely to arise as environments change.

    " Because evolution has been so central to my work, many years ago I
began to examine the impressions many groups of leaders in our country had
to this topic. I was distressed to discover that there was a great deal of
ignorance about the specifics of evolution, even in individuals who felt
strongly that there were problems with evolution. It quickly became clear to
me that science educators such as myself had been doing a poor job of
explaining what evolution, in particular, and science, in general, were all
about. To help remedy this problem, I began writing, lecturing and teaching
about the nature of science and evolution.

    " One of the most basic misconceptions about evolution is that it
conflicts with Christianity and thus that Christians have to choose between
their religion and modern science. In an attempt to demonstrate just how
ridiculous this belief is, I founded The Clergy Letter Project
(www.evolutionsunday.org), a collection of thousands of Christian clergy
members who are fully comfortable with their faith and evolution. If you go
to our web page you will find a statement signed by more than 10,300
Christian clergy members making exactly this point. Additionally, you will
find many sermons delivered by some of these ministers on this point. To
reach a larger number of people and to help elevate the quality of the
debate on this subject nationally, The Clergy Letter Project declared 12
February 2006 to be the first annual Evolution Sunday. On this day, almost
500 congregations around the country focused on the compatibility of science
and religion.

     " Work of this sort is particularly important right now because many
promoting intelligent design have as their ultimate goal the desire to
change the definition of science. They think it reasonable to change science
so it addresses the supernatural as well as the natural world. To do so
would mean that the very core of science, the idea that hypotheses have to
be able to be crafted in such a way that reasonable experiments could
conceivably demonstrate those hypotheses to be incorrect, would be rejected.
The scientific method would no longer permit us to discriminate among
hypotheses and it would no longer enable us to discard hypotheses shown to
be incorrect. Simply put, the supernatural is beyond the reach of science –
and thus it is beyond the reach of any experiment that humans could possibly
devise.

     "Groups like MnCSE are desperately needed to help educate students
about the nature of science. In addition to learning “science facts,”
students need to understand the methodology of science and they need to
appreciate just how much fun science can be. Finally, they need to recognize
that science and religion are two distinct ways of looking at the world.
Science and religion ask different questions and use different methodologies
to make sense of the world around us. Religion has nothing to fear from
science – but all of us have a great deal to fear when religion, dressed up
as science, enters our science classes and is presented as a meaningful
alternative to science."

Michael Zimmerman

The quote came from this website.

http://www.mnscience.org/index.php?id=27

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
To: "American Scientific Affiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Keith Miller"
<kbmill@ksu.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:29 PM
Subject: 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 30 19:04:01 2007