Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

I am *not *suggesting that teaching a scientific concept that disagrees with
a parent's belief is unconstitutional. The Constitutional problem arises
from adressing the parent's perceived conflict in *religious* terms. If you
specifically say "belief in a spherical earth does not conflict with
religion," that is a *religious* statement, which is completely different
than having a globe in the classroom or teaching the facts of the earth's
geometry.

On Dec 13, 2007 10:23 AM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> Parents can have all kinds of crazy ideas. What if a parent thought that
> belief in anything other than a flat earth is against their religion, is the
> presence of a globe in the classroom unconstitutional because it disapproves
> of their beliefs? Of course one could come up with thousands of similar
> examples. It seems to me that you have taken this analysis a step or two
> beyond what any court has ever decided on this matter. But relevant cases
> on this issue would be helpful I suppose.
>
>
>
> *On Thu Dec 13 9:43 , "David Opderbeck" sent:
>
> *
>
> 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
> > *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 10:48:02 2007