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

Dear Michael:

Aren't you the one who called me a "heretic"? Does pot call kettle
black? Or to be more scriptural: "Why do you look at the speck of
sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your
own eye (Luke 6:41)?"

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Michael Roberts
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:44 AM
To: Donald F Calbreath; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.