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

Again I politely disagree other than to notice that this factual
statement does not endorse any particular religious viewpoint as
correct. While many creationists are quick to argue that evolution
invariably conflicts with religious faith, this is obviously a fair
and valid secular purpose when teaching children about science. None
of these state that a religious faith is correct or incorrect, and
while people have the right to disbelieve evolution out of religious
ignorance, it does not mean that educational entities cannot point out
that such a position is not necessary. A court can very well judge if
there exists a valid secular purpose here. You may have a point when
the statement is that evolution never conflicts with religious
viewpoints and while West has attempted to suggest that Jones and
others were in fact endorsing only religions which accept evolution, a
more careful reading shows that such a position is hard to defend.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 23:39:07 2008