RE: [asa] EU proposed regulation of creationism and ID

What is wrong with that is that while most of the focus on this list is
straining gnats to protect science from faith, in contrast by allowing the
marginalization and even criminalization of all forms of faith in our
society under the guise of science, it is the equivalent of swallowing
camels.

I do not think the forces behind these movements are as benign as you may
think in defending science from overzealous Christians. With prominent
scientists like Dawkins publicly equating faith with child-abuse and
prominent politicians like Al Gore equating Christian faith with Islamic
terrorism, it doesn’t take a genius to see where this is all heading. Having
pure science will be little consolation when they come for you. A paraphrase
of Martin Niemöller would be appropriate here.

The resistance to this growing trend that Denyse and others is appropriate
even if politically misguided and the science is somewhat tenous.
Regardless, if you share the bonds of Christ, then you have more in common
with Denyse and ID proponents than you do with Dawkins and those behind this
trend to criminalize faith. I would think that should be obvious to you.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Don Nield
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:03 PM
To: John Walley
Cc: 'George Murphy'; 'James Mahaffy'; 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'
Subject: Re: [asa] EU proposed regulation of creationism and ID

John Walley wrote:
> But in fairness, by this definition of ID below which they still term
> "dangerous", it disqualifies any form of theism and accepts only natural
> selection as science.
>
>
>

What is wrong with that? Is not the implication of the document that
science employs methodological naturalism?
> While granted it may be more properly addressed in philosophy or religion
> classes, at least the NAS concedes that TE is not in conflict with
science.
> That sounds liberal compared to these regulations.
>
Not to me. These are not regulations but rather guidelines as to what is
good science and what is not.
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> "Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The "intelligent design"
>
> theory, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does
>
> not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work
>
> of a superior intelligence and not natural selection. Though more subtle
>
>
> in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less
>
> dangerous."
>
Don

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 Fri Sep 21 22:28:52 2007