David O. gave an insightful analysis of the possible church-state issues involved about how saying as part of a curriculum that evolution is not inherently in conflict with faith might in itself be viewed as a religious statement.
Somebody else pointed out how this is in complete contradiction to the position the Discovery Institute took in Kansas, where they wanted the State standards to say that evolution was inherently?atheistic.? So this seems to be another example of the DI's situationally dependent?equivocation (like on whether or not ID is a religious position).
As with many of these things, it might be helpful to step back and analyze the situation when "evolution" is replaced by something that is less of a flashpoint.
Suppose instead the curriculum said "a heliocentric Solar System is not inherently anti-religious" or "a round Earth is not inherently anti-religious" or (a slightly different category perhaps)?"the Pythagorean theorem is not inherently anti-religious".? Would the same analysis apply?? Would the Discovery Institute take the same position?? Is a non-conflict statement like that out of bounds for *anything* taught in a public school??
How about a weaker statement, like "Many people see no reason for?conflict between X (evolution, heliocentricity, etc.) and religious faith."??
Or are we stuck with compartmentalized statements like "We only talk about science here;?we can say nothing about?implications for religious faith."?
Allan (ASA Member)
-----------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, CO, steamdoc at aol dot com
(usual disclaimers here)
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 12 15:39:24 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 12 2007 - 15:39:24 EST