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

That statement seems to be at odds with jurisprudence on this issue.
First of all, it is not endorsing a religious viewpoint, it is
pointing out that science and religious faith need not conflict. It is
up to the recipient to do whatever they want with this information.
Furthermore it does not endorse any particular religious viewpoint.
And finally, even if the secondary effect is an endorsement of
evolution, the primary effect may still have a valid secular purpose.

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second,
its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion ...; finally, the statute must not foster "an
excessive government entanglement with religion." Stone v. Graham, 449
U.S. at 40.

From McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

---
The theory of evolution assumes the existence of life and is directed
to an explanation of how life evolved. Evolution does not presuppose
the absence of a creator or God and the plain inference conveyed by
Section 4 is erroneous [23]
 23. The idea that belief in a creator and acceptance of the
scientific theory of evolution are mutually exclusive is a false
premise and offensive to the religious views of many. (Hicks) Dr.
Francisco Ayala, a geneticist of considerable reknown and a former
Catholic priest who has the equivalent of a Ph.D. in theology, pointed
out that many working scientists who subscribe to the theory of
evolution are devoutly religious.
---
The question now becomes what would pass as a valid secular purpose.
Stating that some religions are right because they accept evolution
clearly violates the establishment clause, however, does pointing out
that science neither supports nor disproves a Designer and that there
exist religions which have found ways to incorporate evolutionary
theory.
While West may agree with Ted, this does not mean that West's approach
could have benefited from a more reasoned approach rather than to
accuse Scott, Judge Jones and Ken Miller when their positions were
quite obviously far more nuanced.
Is the ID movement that desperate that now that 'teach the
controversy' has failed, and ID has failed as a scientifically viable
alternative that it has to go down this path? Accusing Darwin of all
the ills of the world and accusing evolutionists of introducing
religion into science classes...
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But the problem is that, as valid as this purpose may be, it is directly endorsing one religious viewpoint over another.  That the government cannot do.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.