Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

 
 
In a message dated 12/12/2007 4:43:43 PM Mountain Standard Time,
dopderbeck@gmail.com writes:

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.

Here's a related question with regard to potential Constitutional problems.
How does a statement of INcompatibility compare to a statement of
compatibility in this regard? If there is a problem saying something like "Scientific
theory X need not be in conflict with faith.", what about statements like
"Scientific theory X IS necessarily in conflict with faith."? It seems to me
like a statement of INcompatibility is at least as much an establishment of a
religious position as a statement of compatibilty, and maybe more so.
 
Given this, I go back to the DIscovery Institute's position in Kansas.
According to Keith Miller's post:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200505/0080.html
"THEY have changed the description of evolutionary
science in the standards to include words such as "unguided and
undirected." THEY explicitly describe evolutionary science in the
Minority Report as a Godless, purposeless, unguided process."
 
So I think we have maybe 4 possibilities:
1) The position of the DI with regard to establishing religious positions in
science standards has evolved (pun intended) in the past couple of years.
2) The DI for some reason thinks that statements of INcompatibilty between
science and religion are Constitutionally OK while statements of compatibility
are not. Such a position makes no sense.
3) The DI isn't thinking carefully about these things.
4) The DI doesn't care about consistency or the Constitution and just
advocates whatever position is convenient for their propaganda purposes in the
given situation.

 
Allan (ASA Member)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

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 22:05:09 2007