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

Pim asked, *"Can anyone defend these positions?"*
**
I respond: maybe or maybe not, but I can every person's right to his or her
own religious opinions, including religious opinions about the compatibility
of evolution and religious faith; and I can further defend the notion that
the state should not become involved in endorsing one religious perspective
on this over another.

How exactly is the statement "evolution is compatible with religious faith"
a religiously neutral statement? Doesn't it necessarily involve the content
of religious faith? Or are you suggesting that it's a valid governmental
purpose to promote the kind of religious faith that finds evolution to be
compatible?

**

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:42 AM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 27 16:45:41 2008