Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

The problem is, David, that you have not spoken (and from all indications cannot) speak 'objectively' about evolution across the board. At best you can speak of a stronger or weaker consensus, or 'normal science' in Kuhnian terms, specifically in one or two or a few or even perhaps more than a few scientific fields. Thus, when you speak of the 'natural sciences' (e.g. biology, chemistry, geology, anatomy, physiology, etc.) of evolution, you may find a high level of harmony (even in America, among natural scientists, both theists and non-theists alike).
   
  Thus, A. Moorad's: "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."
   
  However, and this is a HUGE however, once you include the 'human factor,' which you have done by briging in 'religion' and 'classrooms,' you simply must give up your pretensions to objectivity and enter into a dialogue with those whose interpretations (cf. hermeneutic turn) differ from yours. You cannot dictate the discourse without smuggling in oppression and inequality of access, even if just in the language. This is what I have been charging natural scientists, particularly those at ASA, but also elsewhere, with doing in the 'controversy' surrounding evolution.
   
  Once you acknowledge the philosophical, theological and sociological dimensions of (claims to) evolution, the 'objectivity' of evolutionary universalism becomes deeply problematic. Yes, I know this is a challenge to the theistic evolutionary (TE) views that you and others at ASA strongly (at least outwardly) espouse. But in fact, it is the same thing with such a view: ASA apears to be against harmonizing with views that are not TE/EC.
   
  For the legal stuff, David O. and Casey have more expertise than any natural scientist at ASA. Let them be sovereign in their sphere (TG --> Abraham K., H.D.)!
   
  G. Arago
  
 
  David Opderbeck wrote:
  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.

  
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.
       
---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.