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

I have just finished reading the entire document. There are a very few
places where I would have used slightly different language, but I believe
that it because the English version is a translation of the original
French one. I found nothing seriously wrong with it, and much to commend
strongly. The fears expressed are a product of imagination, not evidence.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:11:06 -0400 "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>
writes:
>
>
> I never said the document itself criminalizes faith, but rather
> there are
> forces at work in or culture that are. Consider that they may have
> "wedge"
> documents of their own.
>
> I can accept that there in fact may be a need for these guidelines
> especially in light of other religious influences that may seek to
> hijack
> science to its own ends. But I contend atheism is as guilty of this
> as is
> Christianity and Islam.
>
> So I ask, at what point has atheism in science gone too far?
> Consider a
> modern day paraphrase of Niemöller:
>
> First they outlawed the creationists but I said nothing because I
> wasn't a
> creationist.
>
> Then they outlawed the IDers and I said nothing because I wasn't an
> IDer.
>
> Then they outlawed TE's but I said nothing because I wasn't a TE.
>
> You get the picture...
>
> 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 11:54 PM
> To: John Walley
> Cc: 'George Murphy'; 'James Mahaffy';
> 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'
> Subject: 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.
>
>
>
> 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 Sat Sep 22 00:33:25 2007