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

John is reading into the EU document something that is not there.
Sure, I have more in common with Denyse and ID than I have with Dawkins
when it comes to religion-- far more. But when Denyse and those of like
mind talk nonsense about the teaching of science they do not advance the
teaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Further, it is unreasonable to see the current EU resolution as a trend
to criminalize faith. It does no such thing. It sets out guidelines as
to what is good science.
Don

John Walley wrote:
> 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.
Received on Fri Sep 21 23:54:23 2007