Re: [asa] Book TV on C-SPAN 2

I believe that you are not accurately representing Eugenie Scott's position
here. As to Miller's hearsay 'boasting', Miller's position, which West seems
to have quoted from his book painted an incomplete and incorrect picture of
Miller's position.

With Eugenie, West claims that

--She recommends that science teachers use science classroom time to have
students read statements by theologians endorsing evolution. That's right,
science class should be spent reading and discussing statements by ministers
and theologians. She's quick to point out, however, that only theologians
endorsing evolution should be assigned … but I guess that's not promoting a
particular religious view in her mind.--

But that is not what Eugenie said, and in fact she was clear

<quote>If evolution is presented as antithetical to religion (which is
precisely how organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research
present it), it is no wonder that a high percentage of Americans reject it.
Actually, as suggested by the selections in Voices for Evolution, mainline
Christianity can accommodate evolution, though it is doubtful that Biblical
literalism can. As teachers and scientists, we need to leave an opportunity
for the religious individual to work out the accommodation according to his
or her beliefs, and not slam the door by inserting extra-scientific
philosophical statements about purpose and meaning into our discussions of
evolution. I will discuss this in greater detail below.
</quote>

Remember what West 'argued'

---
Even the self-professed theists among evolution proponents tend to be less
friendly to traditional religion than one might think. Let's take Ken
Miller, who is usually cited as a traditional Roman Catholic by the news
media. Yet he insists in his writings on evolution that it's an "undirected"
process and that the development of human beings was "an afterthought, a
minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left
us out."
---
when in fact Miller's position was quite a bit more nuanced.
What West believes these people believe and what these people have actually
stated seems to be at odds.
For instance " He was praising the use of his book as the correct way  for
religious people to view evolution."
Did Miller actually state this?
Furthermore, I am not impressed by West's assertion that this is a one sided
representation of religion, let alone a violation of the establishment
clause of the constitution. After all, one may point to a valid secular
purpose to point out that evolutionary theory is not necessarily at odds
with religious faith. It is far different from the position that
evolutionary theory and fact are at odds with religious faith, a position
which serves no valid secular purposes.
But before we discuss the constitutional aspects, I am interested in
pursuing West's claims about what Scott and Miller and Judge Jones did and
did not say.
Let's say that I were to discuss the age of the earth, and someone argues
that this is at odds with religious faith, would it be allowable to point
out that not all religions seem to have a problem with scientific facts?
Would this be a valid and permissible statement in a science class?
Ted raises an interesting issue about Miller
--
I refer to one or more the passages that were read in court to Miller, when
he responded basically by saying something like, "gee, does our book really
say that?
That must be my co-author..."
--
Not only did Miller move to have these statements removed but he also
explained how they made it into the book.
--
A <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am.html#day2am26>. I'm trying
to set the context so I can give a full and complete answer to your
question. So the interesting thing is that this is the only edition of any
of the books that we have published, and probably eleven different editions,
that contains that statement, and the reason for that quite simply is that I
work with a co-author whose name is Joseph Levine, and Joe and I work
together on many of the chapters in the book, but many of them we write
separately and individually, and this was a statement that Joe inserted when
we did a rewrite of many sections of this book for the third edition.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am.html#day2am27>I have to say
that I missed the statement as I was going through Joe's chapters, and I
feel very badly about that. When this was first pointed out to me, the third
edition of this book was in print, I immediately went to Joe, I said Joe, I
think this is a bad idea, I said I think this is a non-scientific statement,
I think it will mislead students. Joe agreed. We immediately took it out of
the book, and that's why I emphasized that it did not appear in subsequent
editions. So what you're looking at, sir, is a mistake.
--
Simple...
Ted:In this passage she doesn't say that schools *should* endorse that
mainline view over other views, but the court swallowed the plaintiff's
testimony that such a view is
the "correct" one.
Is that what the court really did?
I quoted from the decision in which the judge points out that the claim by
the defendants that evolution is at odds with religious faith is a flawed
position
<quote>Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a
bedrock assumption which is utterly false.  Their presupposition is that
evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to
religion in general.  Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific
experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by
the  scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it
deny, the
existence of a divine creator.
</quote>
Now perhaps one may read the "in no way conflicts" as reading that this is
the correct religious interpretation but in context it makes sense that
Jones is talking about the statement that evolution is antithetical to
religion in general, which as he points out, is not necessarily true. Surely
evolutionary theory does not deny the existence of a divine creator, a topic
on which science is by necessity silent.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:55 AM, John West <jwest@discovery.org> wrote:
> Ted,
>
> Thanks for cc'ing me on this. You do get the precise point I was
> making. I make clear in my talk that an impartial discussion of
> different religious views is OF COURSE constitutionally OK--although
> I do question whether such discussions should be in science class if
> Darwinists really want to keep the focus on science. But, as I
> pointed out, what Eugenie is advocating is NOT an impartial
> discussion of religious views. It is the government promotion of one
> particular religious view toward religion. My comments regarding Ken
> Miller's book were similar. Last year at a conference I was at Miller
> boasted that his book was used by teachers in science classes
> specifically to help students come to a better understanding of God
> and evolution. Miller's book would of course be a good resource for a
> discussion as ONE position in the debate. But that's not what Miller
> was talking about. He was praising the use of his book as the correct
> way  for religious people to view evolution.
>
> Whatever one thinks of the Supreme Court's religion jurisprudence,
> there is no way in my view that such one-sided promotion of a
> particular religious view of evolution is constitutionally
> permissible under existing precedents--again, another point I clearly
> made in my presentation.
>
> John
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Ted Davis wrote:
>
> > Pim, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle here.  I watched
> > the latter part of West's talk (I missed the first half b/c I lost
> > track of time), and I heard some of the parts you object to.  You
> > suggested that we go to this URL:
> >
> > http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/taking-john-wes.html
> >
> > I did go there, and found Genie Scott saying this:
> >
> > <After one such initial brainstorming session, one teacher
> > presented students with a short quiz wherein they were asked,
> > "Which statement was made by the Pope?" or "Which statement was
> > made by an Episcopal Bishop?" and given an "a, b, c" multiple
> > choice selection. All the statements from theologians, of course,
> > stressed the compatibility of theology with the science of
> > evolution. This generated discussion about what evolution was
> > versus what students thought it was. By making the students aware
> > of the diversity of opinion towards evolution extant in Christian
> > theology, the teacher helped them understand that they didn't have
> > to make a choice between evolution and religious faith.">
> >
> > The second sentence here is pretty important.
> >
> > There is a similar emphasis on the AAAS web site, insofar as those
> > sections about evolution and faith are designed to advance the
> > "compatibility" view of science and faith, as vs either of the
> > "warfare" positions--that is, the Dawkins version (anti-religious)
> > or the creationist version (anti-science).
> >
> > My sense is, Pim, that you and I both hold some sort of
> > compatibilist position ourselves.  I like what the AAAS does with
> > this, mostly, and like that fact that the teacher in Scott's
> > example was trying to get students to see some views that maybe
> > they weren't seeing at home or in church.  Education ought to
> > involve that to some degree.  But, John West IMO is raising an
> > absolutely legitimate point.  Like most of the ID proponents I talk
> > to, he believes that "Darwinism," i.e., evolution that is not
> > designed/purposeful in a scientifically detectable way, is simply
> > not compatible with Christianity.  I will leave to one side here
> > the question of whether West is right or not about this--we all
> > know how long that conversation can become, and how many
> > philosophical and theological and even scientific matters relate to
> > it.  The point is that a kind of indoctrination can enter into this
> > type of teaching, a type involving what appears to be the tacit
> > endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint by a public school
> > science teacher, with help from the AAAS and the NCSE.  West is
> > asking whether this might violate the currently received view of
> > the First Amendment (caution: these are my words for what I think
> > he's getting at, and perhaps he'd put it differently), and I think
> > it's a fair question.
> >
> > Why is this a fair question?  B/c the "compatibility" view is
> > essentially a religious position, or at best a philosophical
> > position with religious components.  A lot of Christians and many
> > secular humanists (Scott is a secular humanist herself, but she
> > might not fit into this description) reject the "compatibility"
> > view, frankly, and for what amount to religious reasons.  Why
> > should they be happy with a curriculum or teacher who advances it
> > implicitly or explicitly as the best religious view of evolution?
> > Doesn't that seem like a violation of the establishment clause?
> >
> > Now, IMO, there is no such thing as full religious neutrality in
> > education.  As I've said many times before, for two decades, I
> > don't believe that the "wall of separation between church and
> > state" is constitutional (though the Supreme Court says it is,
> > which makes it so at least for the time being), and I am convinced
> > that unless and until we can bring a genuine religious and
> > philosophical plurality into publicly funded educational options,
> > that we are advancing an unconstitutional religion of secularism.
> >
> > (This is precisely what I was getting at in the review I wrote many
> > years ago of 3 ID books, available athttp://home.messiah.edu/
> > ~tdavis/miller.htm.  See the final lines, which the NCSE would not
> > print in the form in which you find them.  I've also talked about
> > this elsewhere.  I noticed that West also mentioned the religious
> > content in Ken Miller's book, but his point goes in the opposite
> > direction from mine.  I lamented the fact that most schools won't
> > touch that good stuff, while they'll use the rest of the book; but
> > West is worried that some schools *will* use the religious parts of
> > Miller's book.  This just reinforces my point about the absence of
> > neutrality.)
> >
> > But, as you know, Pim, the Court doesn't agree with me about this.
> > They say that the wall is part of the constitution, and as long as
> > they say that, then public schools are going to have to keep from
> > endorsing particular religious views.  They can't really do that,
> > as I've said, but they have to try.  So, West IMO has a fair point.
> >
> > If however the public schools can actually handle a genuinely
> > pluralistic conversation about this, in which students are shown a
> > much bigger variety of positions--including (gasp) ID and YEC and
> > Dawkins and I suppose (if we must) Eastern religions (though
> > frankly that's a red herring, since Eastern religions don't
> > typically have much to say about this particular issue) -- then the
> > compatibility position should absolutely get some air time, if for
> > no other reason than the fact that a lot of leading scientists and
> > theologians believe it (b/c they are right, but we already know
> > that, Pim, don't we).  Barring that--and I don't see public school
> > science teachers lining up for that--then we're stuck.  The Court
> > has put us in a box on this one, an artificial box of its own
> > construction I would say, but it's got hard walls and those walls
> > are preventing schools from making any progress.  Even when they
> > try, as in Scott's example, they are doing something that is
> > probably illegal.  IMO.
> >
> > What is your opinion, Pim?  I know you've thought about this issue
> > a lot, and I expect you can respond to some of these talking points.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > PS.  I copied John West blindly, and he's cordially invited to
> > chime in.  :-)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.