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

Pim, you're badly mangling the McLean case. The portion of McLean that you
quote relates to the Arkansas statute at issue in that case, which purported
to define "creation science" as a neutral scientific theory. The court was
making factual findings establishing that the "creation science" was a
religious view, not a neutral scientific theory. Among those findings was
the two-part definition in section 4 of the Arkansas statute, which
contrasted "creation science" and "evolution science." The court found that
this distinction was taken directly from positions espoused by the Institute
for Creation Research, including in particular the view that "evolution
science" necessarily precludes belief in a creator God. In that context.
the court noted that this distinction is a uniquely fundamentalist Christian
view, and that the statute was clearly intended to promote this
particular sectarian view. This was ultimately was found, correctly, to
violate the establishment clause.

McLean, then, has nothing at all to do with whether a public school can *
affirmatively* teach that evolution is compatible with religious beliefs.
It merely establishes something we all agree on -- that "creation science"
is a religious theory related mainly to a particular kind of Christianity,
which cannot be taught in public schools. (And in any event, this is a
trial court opinion, which isn't binding anywhere except on the parties to
that particular case).

In fact, in light of the strong factual findings in McLean about the
religious nature of "creation science," it becomes even more clear that the
statement "science and religous faith need not conflict" absolutely endorses
one religious viewpoint and disadvantages another. The folks who wrote the
statute at issue in McLean, and their progeny today, indeed believe that
"evolution science" conflicts with their religious beliefs. Whether those
folks are objectively right as to the realtionship between faith and science
in the context of Christian faith in general, based on a fair reading of the
Christian scriptures, history, and tradition, is not something a secular
court can or should judge. I personally think they are wrong, but at the
same time I think their views are just as Constitutionally privileged and
protected as mine, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
Received on Tue Feb 26 23:05:06 2008