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

Before we get side tracked, the issue to which I objected was West's
portrayal of Miller, Eugenie Scott and Judge Jones. In that context
the DI made a lot of noise about the PBS and how it invited educators
to violate the establishment clause with their brochure accompanying
the Judgment Day movie. The question I have is whether this is more
rhetoric than careful reporting of the facts. The DI promised an
evaluation by 20 or so scholars and announced a press conference which
they however canceled.

The path chosen by the DI of linking Darwin to all that is wrong with
society and the accusations about evolutionists encouraging the
violation of the establishment clause seems a rather poor one which
will only serve to hurt both science and religious faith, although
that seems to describe Intelligent Design quite accurately so perhaps
we should not be too surprised.

Examples of careless reporting by the DI include

PBS Encouraging Teachers to Violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause,

and West's recent lecture as documented
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/taking-john-wes.html

Which includes statements such as

-----
Public schools are certainly allowed to hold objective discussions of
competing religious beliefs, in relevant courses, but that's not what
the defenders of evolution are proposing. They are pushing one-sided,
really, religious indoctrination with the clear intent of changing the
religious beliefs of students, not just the science beliefs, but
changing and molding the religious beliefs of students.

----
and more specific
Eugenie Scott
------
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.
------
Eugenie: 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.
Ken Miller: West wrote
-----
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."
-----
Again Miller's words were quite a bit more nuanced.
Judge Jones: West claimed that Judge Jones stated that the correct
religious interpretation is that evolution and religion are
compatible.
And finally some heresay that Miller somehow was bragging and that "He
was praising the use of his book as the correct way  for religious
people to view evolution."
Can anyone defend these positions? Is Dr West still with us?
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.