Re: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong - says a non-sociologist

But David Clounch -- the ID movement *is* religiously motivated. Certainly
that was clear in the Dover case. If you want such a view not to be
excluded, it seems to me more useful to argue that the law is incorrect,
rather than trying to hide the religious motivation for the ID position.
Ultimately, hiding the religious motivation for seeing "design" is
self-defeating -- it leads to all kinds of epistemological and theological
problems because you have to accept the ground rules of logical positivism.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>wrote:

> Campalo says,
>
> "Many supporters of the principle of separation of church and state
> say that the Intelligent Design Theory of creation ought not to be
> taught in public schools because that it contains a religious bias."
>
> He is describing a claim we have all heard a million times. And many
> on this list have repeated that claim as far as I remember.
>
> My frustration is that Bernie apparently has never heard this claim
> that looking for design is a religious activity born out of a
> religious bias. So I just wanted to point out that here it is again!!
> Campolo isn't himself claiming it, he is merely describing those
> who do claim it. If anyone here wants to deny that such a claim has
> commonly been made then let them do so.
>
> -Dave
>
>
> The real question for me is whether one can rule out looking for
> design based on purely scientific and/or empirical criteria. I suspect
> the answer is no. In fact, many list members have said so.
>
> But if it is no, then how does one rule it out? By considering
> religion, of course. But that consideration *itself* is an act of
> religion (given that it is not an act of science).
> And I object to that religion trumping any other religion. That is
> why there is an establishment clause issue at stake. One religious
> act trumping another religious act is a clear violation of the
> constitution.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> > And it not only simply seems, but is rather quite apparent that you do
> not
> > understand Darwinism at all, Michael Roberts! Darwin, yes (I'll gladly
> join
> > on one of your annual Darwin tours in the U.K.), but Darwinism, no,
> > certainly not. So I guess that speaks of some equality between you an
> > Campolo.
> >
> > Many interesting things in that article, sociologically speaking. But
> then
> > geologist-theologians are not renowned for studying '-isms,' are they? I
> > doubt the impact of Darwinism on society (other than defending CoE
> priests)
> > is on the radar of Rev. Roberts, which is why he can't/won't understand
> an
> > American Sociologist-Pastor on this issue. There still seems to be an
> > unfilled gap in communication here.
> >
> > - Gregory
> >
> > --- On Sat, 2/28/09, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > From: Michael Roberts michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
> >
> > It seems Campolo does not understand Darwin at all
> >
> > ________________________________
> > All new Yahoo! Mail - Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading
> > pane.
>
>
> 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 Sat Feb 28 11:02:50 2009