Re: [asa] Brownback on evolution

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Sat Jun 02 2007 - 23:00:18 EDT

Informed estimates *are* *not* *facts*. They are inferences, and as you
point out, subject to change as new data becomes available. Yet we have
courts telling school boards that they cannot say this as a disclaimer
because it violates separation of church and state?
(re: Cobb County Ga.) Instead they must say the informed estimates are
"facts" (so says science).

A friend asked me to ask you if you live in a cave because you seem unaware
of whats going on. I told him that was unkind.

But speaking of unkindness, what happened in Georgia is going on in my
school district too. People lose their jobs over having a politically
incorrect view of the informed estimates. Books are banned. Next they will
be hunting witches.

What is the source of this miscarriage of justice?


On 6/2/07, PvM <> wrote:
> Let's look at it in more detail
> On 6/2/07, David Clounch <> wrote:
> > Here is an interesting debate touching on this subject:
> >
> >
> >
> > David Xia reports,
> > "Dawkins, a British evolutionary scientist, wrote that the science of
> > evolution disproves the existence of a god and the abolishment of
> religion
> > will effectively do away with violence."
> >
> > So how is Brownback supposed to discount the entire set of Dawkinsonian
> > thinkers?
> Ignore them? Why repeat the same mistake? And perhaps David Xia may
> want to familiarize himself with Dawkins' arguments?
> > And, one has to ask, if evolution != accident, why do so
> many scientists
> > claim it does?
> Sigh...
> > Or perhaps they don't really?
> >
> > Here's a shocking quote from Hefland (the atheist chair of Columbia's
> > astronomy department):
> >
> > "I don't think science can prove anything," said Helfand who described
> > science as only a method of describing the natural world through models
> and
> > not a way of explaining why things are the way they are.
> Well she is right, science does not prove anything.
> > Wow. See if he gets tenure at Iowa State! ;)
> If she shows promise in her publications, funding and other activities
> then sure why not?
> > My question is what are the implications of all this for the
> naturalistic
> > world-view?
> > Evolutionary patterns can be an accurate description of the history of
> life
> > (and I believe they are), but does that mean we know what is going on,
> what
> > was going on, and both the proximate causes and the ultimate causes?
> I
> > would like to see more details about the these subjects before being
> told by
> > anybody that I (or my school board) must embrace naturalism.
> Noone is telling you that you should embrace naturalism. So the
> question now becomes, how do we best explain the data we have
> collected so far.
> Is such an explanation accurate? Only to the extent of it capturing
> the data so far. If it survives adding additional data, it gains
> strength, otherwise it disappears into obscurity. Do we know what
> happened? Perhaps never, but we can make some informed estimates,
> without jumping to blaming neptune for the waves and winds on the
> oceans, or proposing a deity in charge of keeping our planets in
> proper orbit.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 2 23:00:59 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 02 2007 - 23:00:59 EDT