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

I think the discussion thus far is overlooking the influence of Yahya and
Islam in Europe. It's not just Christianity that's involved.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:28:28 -0400 "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>
writes:
>
> 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.
>
>

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 23:40:22 2007