Re: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

I should make it clear that the legal question doesn't depend on whether the
statement is true or not. It may be that "evolution is not inherently
anti-religious" is a true statement. Either way, it's undoubtedly a
statement that involves the substance of religion, and therefore it is
Constitutionally problematic in a public school context.

On Dec 12, 2007 2:44 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> "In this context, the above statement would be a religious viewpoint on
> evolution offered by the government that is contrary to the parent's
> religion. "
>
>
>
> I never thought of it like that before. This is weird—I can see both
> sides simultaneously. It is like looking at one of those pictures that is
> both an old and young lady, depending on how you look at it.
>
>
>
> Ultimately, I guess it is incorrect to say there is NO religious component
> to evolution… since some who are religious are opposed to it on religious
> grounds. However, those who teach it can also teach it without any
> reference to God or anything supernatural, which makes it appear
> "non-religious." In addition, Christians may be *against* evolution for *
> religious* reasons, why other Christians are *for* evolution for *
> scientific* reasons.
>
>
>
> Since there are two good ways of looking at this topic, I suppose that
> guarantees this issue isn't going away soon and will in fact get hotter.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:48 AM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?
>
>
>
> Greg said: *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.)!*
>
> Ha! I've never been sovereign over anything! Seriously, I want to be
> clear that I don't know exactly what the DI / Lusckin have said, so I'm not
> endorsing nor rejecting it.
>
>
>
> However, think about the implications of the statement *"The common view
> that evolution is inherently anti-religious is false*" in the context of a
> public secondary school.
>
>
>
> Greg makes the point that even for many TE's this may depend on how you
> define "evolution." But think also about a parent, whether Christian or
> not, who in fact believes that any notion of evolution is contrary to her
> religion. You, and the local school board, might think that parent is dead
> wrong. However, neither you nor the local school board have the right to
> dictate that parent's religious beliefs. In this context, the above
> statement would be a religious viewpoint on evolution offered by the
> government that is contrary to the parent's religion. It seems this indeed
> ought to present an establishment clause problem under the current
> jurisprudence.
>
> - - - - -
>
> On Dec 12, 2007 2:09 AM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> 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!*<http://www.flickr.com/gift/>
>
>
>

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 15:42:54 2007