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

Sounds like what the ID folks have been saying for years - "teach the controversy".

Don Calbreath
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:04 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

The confusing thing is that for secular humanists and atheists, “no religion” is their religion. Therefore, when they ignore all religion and claim to be not promoting religion, that is just the consequence of their belief system. Therefore, they think as long as they make no reference to God at all, they are not being religious. But they make no reference to God because they don’t believe in God, then get offended when people do want to talk about God. Therefore, they can be the intolerant ones at times.

I think the perfect solution is to teach evolution in the science classroom, then talk specifically about popular criticisms of evolution. That can only result in good as it makes people on all sides think. It seems like the hard-core evolutionists want to shield students from any evolutionary criticism. I can sense their fear. They would be more noble to address criticism, as Darwin constantly did.

________________________________
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:42 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 establ!
 ishment clause, unless it is in the context of some sort of comparative religion course.

David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com <mailto: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<mailto: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.