RE: [asa] The term Darwinism (school's teaching)

David C :
"What they want is to affect government policy on education at all levels, even K-12, so that government endorses this metaphysical or theological view."

Maybe the highest priority thing they want to do is simply teach evolution in school, because Americans are so naïve about evolutionary details. In my education, evolution-teaching was insignificant. That includes my college, though I don't think I had a biology class (but evolution is more than just biology).

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Clounch
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Don Nield
Cc: Ted Davis; Douglas Hayworth; Cameron Wybrow; Gregory Arago; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] The term Darwinism

Ted,

> His standard response
> to the whole origins controversy is to point out that design or its absence
> is a metaphysical conclusion, not a scientific conclusion.

Elsewhere today Cameron quotes Randy as saying the very same thing and challenges Terry that his position on unguided processes is not scientific but is something else, perhaps theological?

I'd agree with Barr,Cameron, and Randy. But what bothers me then is Minnesota Citizens for Science leaders (professors of EEB at the University of Minnesota ) are telling people there is nothing in the scientific literature about design and therefore design is dead and doesn't exist.
I've heard that in person and I've read it in the university newspaper.

But if the absence of design is not a scientific question then they aren't making a scientific statement. They aren't even speaking for science. Instead they are making a metaphysical or theological statement.

If they, as university professors, want to believe that and promote it that's fine by me (as long as they don't punish someone for disagreeing with them). But thats not what they want. What they want is to affect government policy on education at all levels, even K-12, so that government endorses this metaphysical or theological view. This is definitely over the line in terms of the establishment clause and the lemon test. That is why to me it is a civil rights issue. These metaphysical or theological viewpoints that design doesn't exist belong in church, not in government institutions or government policy.

Thank You,
David Clounch

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz<mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>> wrote:
It might help the class to note that according to Amazon.com the title of the book is "Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue" The cover of the book and the copyright statement each concur with the bookseller.
Don

Ted Davis wrote:
... I recommend an essay by Oxford mathematician John Lennox,

"Intelligent Design: Some Critical Reflections on the Current Debate," ed.
Robert B. Stewart (Fortress Press, 2007), 179-95. This is a collection of
essays on both "sides" of the ID controversy, .... OK, class, now go out and buy the book,

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto: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 Fri Jul 10 13:54:54 2009