Re: [asa] John West confirms my interpretation of his view

> Thanks for cc'ing me on this. You do get the precise point I was
> making. I make clear in my talk that an impartial discussion of
> different religious views is OF COURSE constitutionally OK--although
> I do question whether such discussions should be in science class if
> Darwinists really want to keep the focus on science. But, as I
> pointed out, what Eugenie is advocating is NOT an impartial
> discussion of religious views. It is the government promotion of one
> particular religious view toward religion. My comments regarding Ken
> Miller's book were similar. Last year at a conference I was at Miller
> boasted that his book was used by teachers in science classes
> specifically to help students come to a better understanding of God
> and evolution. Miller's book would of course be a good resource for a
> discussion as ONE position in the debate. But that's not what Miller
> was talking about. He was praising the use of his book as the correct
> way for religious people to view evolution.

A challenge here is assessing exactly what is being said. As a matter
of fact, I often have similar objections to what Eugenie Scott says on
the topic; in particular, Gouldian non-overlapping magesteria are
often promoted as _the_ approach by well-meaning but theologically
clueless scientists. On the other hand, I don't believe that the DI
has any interest in promoting more than one view on the relationship
of evolution and faith, either. (Exactly what that one view is
depends on which ID advocate is facing which audience.)

On the other hand, it is objectively false to claim that evolution is
at odds with all religious positions, no matter how loudly Dawkins or
Johnson says it is. I think, as someone with no legal training and a
rather low opinion of the U.S. legal system's general stance on
religious issues (i.e., as an unqualified but opinionated bystander),
that there should be no problem with stating that many people from a
wide range of religious perspectives, including theologically
conservative ones, accept evolution, though some religious
perspectives object to evolution.

Of course Miller is going to advocate the view that he believes to be
correct, but the fact that Miller says at a conference that his view
is the correct one doesn't prove that his textbook imposes a
particular view.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.