RE: [asa] Science and the Public Good was Re: World sets ocean temperature record

"DI has never called for government to endorse or prefer DI's views in any sort of exclusive fashion."

The DI also tried to distance themselves from the court case in Dover. So why all the distance? Maybe because they know they can't win. If they had a case, they could be more bold. So it isn't a matter of being open-minded or humble or open to diversity of thought (as you imply), but of having a solid case (or lack of it).

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Clounch
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:41 AM
To: Rich Blinne
Cc: Ted Davis; Schwarzwald; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Science and the Public Good was Re: World sets ocean temperature record

ASA-ers,

I wanted to say something about Discovery Institute.

I am not a fan of DI, but.....to the best of my knowledge, and anyone is welcome to inform us of better data here, DI has never called for government to endorse or prefer DI's views in any sort of exclusive fashion. Contrast this with other groups who regularly call for the exclusion of ideas from other groups that the preferred group thinks is wrong.

So, DI is defending freedom to consider various alternative views, other groups are doing quite the opposite. Filing suits to throw out ideas they deem unacceptable. To date, where has DI engaged in that type of activity?

 Defending the [no] establishment clause is the best way to defend liberty and civil rights.

Remember the US Supreme Court has said government cannot prefer one religion over another, and cannot prefer religion over no religion nor no-religion over religion.

This is why it is problematical for someone with thousands of signatures from clerics who hold to a certain view on the relationship between science and religion to go to a government agency and say "you have to endorse my viewpoint exclusively". If they were saying "include my viewpoint among the others" that would be a different story. But what they are doing is *objecting* to the viewpoints of others. If they weren't making a statement that impacts religion, that would be different too. But they are. They are asking government to weigh in on which religious group has the proper view of the relationship between science and religion. Government cannot do that.

It gets worse. These groups are asking for systemic preference.

Where has DI has ever done any of that?

So my problem with the debate, and what I think is poisonous, is religious groups who want to violate the constitution. I'd be just as against the Discovery Institute too, if it wanted to do that.

David Clounch

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:36 AM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com<mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com>> wrote:
So, Rich, how about promoting civil rights for everybody?

PS.
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com<mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Aug 23, 2009, at 10:43 AM, David Clounch wrote:
Why is it good for society for one group of Christians (NCSE) to battle in court with another group of Christians (YECs)?

The NCSE is not a Christian organization.

Promoting a faith based viewpoint, what religion isn't it again? I missed that part.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 27 14:57:08 2009