Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

I don't know the details of what the Discovery Institute did or didn't say,
but this isn't too crazy an assertion with respect to public secondary
schools. Establishment clause jurisprudence is a bit of a muddle right now,
but essentially the government cannot send any message that the relevant
public would likely perceive as an endorsement of religion. It is very
plausible that a public school teacher who says something like "evolution is
compatible with religion" might be sending such a message, intentionally or
not. This is particularly true if the teacher backs up this assertion with
a little more detail. If the teacher were to suggest, for example, that God
can act through secondary causes and yet still remain in control of the
outcomes, that could be perceived as an endorsement of monotheistic religion
and of a particular understanding of God. Almost certainly, a public
secondary school teacher who explains a Christian TE position in any
detail violates the establishment clause, unless it is in the context of
some sort of comparative religion course.

On Dec 11, 2007 6:27 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyone know more details on the situation? As reported, the Discovery
> Institute seems to be claiming that it's unconstitutional to say in a
> public classroom that evolution and religion are compatible. So far,
> no one has objected or arrested me for saying that in my classes,
> though standards for university and grade school are a bit different.
> Specifically, teaching materials designed to accompany the "Judgment
> Day: Intelligent design on trial" program includes "Q: Can you
> accept evolution and still believe in religion? A: Yes. The common
> view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false.'
>
> "According to Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute,
> this answer favours one religious viewpoint, arguably violating the US
> constitution. 'We're afraid that teachers might get sued, ' he says."
>
> As they supported the proposed Kansas standards that claimed that
> evolution was inherently atheistic, there's some inconsistency here.
> As the Judgement Day program does not reflect favorably on ID, the DI
> may be trying too hard to cast aspersions on it.
>
> No doubt the Discovery Institute has their own take on the story which
> should be consulted for a more balanced picture than what I have at
> hand.
>
> Objectively it is perfectly possible to have a religious view in
> harmony with evolution, so both Dawkins and Johnson are wrong. One
> can legitimately debate how well evolution meshes with a particular
> religious tradition, but that's not the same question.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> 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 Dec 11 19:13:11 2007