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

Donald

Below is your statement when you accused the late Dr Bernard Kettlewell of
fraud.

I asked you to substantiate your accusation yet you have ignored my request.

If you are unable to show that Kettlewell committed fraud then retract your
accusation.

If you are a Christian then I am sure you will, as no Christian would make
such accusations without good reason, as to do so is to break several
commandments .

So I am waiting either for your retraction that your accusation has no
foundation whatsoever and that you should not have made it in the first
place, or to make a case for your accusation.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:15 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] (is evolution "anti-religious"?) Discovery Institute
against harmonizing?

Interesting ... the last I heard, Jonathan Wells as a Moonie, not a
"born-again evangelical". The peppered-moth fraud was a fraud, perpetrated
by the person who published the research in the first place.

Don
________________________________________
From: Michael Roberts [michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
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.