RE: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

If by evolution one understands a scientific theory based on physics and chemistry, as James D. Watson understands it, then I have no qualms whatsoever. Recall that both Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick who shared the Nobel Prize with Watson were physicists. However, if by evolution one understands a theory not only of the evolution of man but what man truly is, then I am totally opposed to it. Understand that a theory of how man developed does not at all explain who and what man is.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 6:44 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

" Objectively it is perfectly possible to have a religious view in
harmony with evolution, so both Dawkins and Johnson are wrong."

That's "scientism" vs. "Biblicism" (Dawkins vs. Ken Ham, the two most
extremes). Theistic evolution is the middle ground. ID is near Ken Ham
in rejecting evolution, but not as extreme.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:28 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

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.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.