Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

Jack said: *"The common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is
false." does not strike me as unconstitutional because it is inclusive. In
other words how could any parent think that such a statement would make them
feel like an "outsider"? *
**
Again, put yourself in the shoes of a parent who believes, on religious
grounds, that evolution is, in fact, anti-religious. It seems to me the
statement "the common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is
false" seeks directly to refute your religious viewpoint, and therefore
disapproves of it. Indeed, this statement by its own admission seeks to
refute a "common" religious viewpoint. Notice in the O'Connor quote you
provided that government can send an improper message by "endorsement or
disapproval" of religion. If religion can't dictate what science gets
taught in public schools, then the science curriculum can't decide
for parents what is or isn't "inherently anti-religious."

I'm not aware of any cases directly on point on this issue, however. There
may be analogous cases, but I haven't researched it exhaustively. I don't
want to suggest a court would necessarily agree with my analysis here, or
that such a result would be good public policy -- the law is much fuzzier
than that. But I do think the analysis is basically sound under the
existing rules.

*
*

On Dec 13, 2007 5:58 AM, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> You are the lawyer David, but your explanation seems counterintuitive to
> me. A statement such as this "The common view that evolution is inherently
> anti-religious is false." does not strike me as unconstitutional because it
> is inclusive. In other words how could any parent think that such a
> statement would make them feel like an "outsider"?
>
> From Justice O'Conner in Lynch v Donnelly: " The Establishment Clause
> prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way
> to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul
> of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion.
> Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not
> full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to
> adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political
> community. "
>
>
> I know that the establishment clause is not the only criteria that have to
> be met, but I dont see how the statement in question would violate the Lemon
> test either. Has there ever been a case that resembles the scenario you
> present? I just cannot see it happening.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:48 AM
> *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 Thu Dec 13 09:44:01 2007