As long as you touch a religious belief, it is a religious issue.
If someone believes that the Bible is against evolution and that the
Bible is for special/miraculous creation (Adam literally made from dirt
scooped-up from God's hands), then it is a religious topic for them.
Another example: Algebra. No conflict, because the Bible says or
implies nothing about it... same with gravity... same with the speed of
light.
Heliocentricity and a round earth are religious issues, because some
believe that the Bible teaches the earth is flat and the center of the
universe. The flat-earthers died out around the year 2000... but still
there is geocentric groups on the internet.
"Origins" is in both the religious and scientific arenas, so it is an
error to say that either one has no bearing on it. History is also in
the same conflict with religion (descend of man thru Noah, Tower of
Babel, literal Adam and Eve, literal global flood, etc.).
...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 3:43 PM
To: steamdoc@aol.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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?nci
d=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 18:59:24 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 12 2007 - 18:59:24 EST