Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

Allan said: *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".*

Interesting question. I think the short answer is probably yes, technically
we're limited to statements like "We only talk about science here; we can
say nothing about implications for religious faith."
But it's hard to evaluate something like this in a vacuum. The key question
is whether the state sends a message that is likely to be perceived by the
relevant public as favoring or disfavoring religion. With evolution, there
is a long history of religious conflict, and the question whether it is or
isn't anti-religious is hotly contested. It's difficult to
mention "religion" at all in such a context in a way that conveys a neutral
message.
On Dec 12, 2007 3:38 PM, <steamdoc@aol.com> wrote:

> 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://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>
> !
>

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 18:44:25 2007