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

I also feel that this kind of approach prevents people from discussing the
implications of evolution on Christianity in a reasonable way as it inflames
the issue and then polarises it.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
against harmonizing?

>I think they have very good points in their "controversy." Have you
> read the new book from the Discovery Institute called "Exploring
> Evolution?" That is what they want to teach in schools.
>
> By the way, I think the DI is still playing games... I think they are
> responsible for that book but they try to make it appear as if they are
> just recommending it, as if some other group was behind the publication.
> Same old tricks, I think. "Deception" seems to be apart of the DI ID
> mentality... just like enemy combatants in a war game.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Michael Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:13 AM
> To: Donald F Calbreath; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
> against harmonizing?
>
> Why should one "teach the controversy" when the "controversy" was
> invented
> by the ID guys and based on inaccurate arguments like the peppered Moth
> fraud put forward by that born-again evangelical Wells :) :)
>
> Any teacher "teaching the controversy" should be sacked
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:19 AM
> Subject: 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 establishment 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.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

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 13:20:02 2007