Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

From: RC Metcalf <>
Date: Mon Apr 28 2008 - 00:36:54 EDT

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Clounch
  To: David Opderbeck
  Cc: Dennis Venema ; D. F. Siemens, Jr. ; ;
  Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

  On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:56 AM, David Opderbeck <> wrote:

    Dave Clounch asks: Given Barr's statements on the strong evidence for cosmological design, is it constitututional to inform school children that cosmological design is supported by science?

    I respond: Not in those terms. That would be an official endorsement of religion. It might be possible, in the context of a comparative religion or philosophy class, to discuss such a claim generally.
  Dave O,

  I think if schools would take scientific materialism and various forms of naturalism down the hallway into the history or philosophy class, then I'd be a happy camper.
  Dave C
  PS, A couple more questions, if I may:

  1)So, if Lisa Randall wrote in her book on Brane Theory that physics has theological implications, this book too must be disallowed from the premises?

  Lisa Randall never implicated a specific religion in her book. I just finished a book (Colliding with Christ: The Science of the Resurrection) that takes the next step, citing Randall and spelling out the implications for Christian theology. Her book would be allowable, mine wouldn't. However, should that be the case?... Whether it should or not, it IS the case, which is why my book is written at a relatively lay level. The only way, at present, that the Christian implications of her model will reach the general public is, not through the science classroom, but through philosophy, sociology, and comp religion classes, and by interesting the lay reader, as well.

  2) What about a school district such as mine who declared that these sorts of materials cannot even be used in history or philosophy class, as you suggested? Every book, every scrap of paper, everywhere, was declared as "must support the curriculum". And since Behe's and Johnsons books are said to not support the curriculum they arent allowed anywhere. Not in any classroom nor in the libraries. Not in history class. Not in philosophy class. Perhaps not even in backpacks. Phillip Johnson's book specifically was banned because one paragraph said the book "explains a Christian world view". That was what the Connie O'Sullivan stated as the reason it must be disallowed. Makes me wonder, must Paul Johnson's 'History of Christianity" be thrown out too? And Barr's book? Are these really the actions of someone seeking neutrality? And what about the Koran and Islamic books on science? All expelled?

  And here is the problem. It's one thing to expel my book from science classrooms, but another thing entirely to expel it entirely. The same goes for Behe's and Johnson's books. I think it is in this direction that we should be focusing our efforts. Not to interject religion into science classrooms, rather to allow science into comp religion classrooms. When new scientific advances support the Christian worldview, we need to make sure the world-at-large is aware of them. We can't just cower under the din of the atheists' mantra that we blindly believe in something that is devoid of evidence, when the evidence actually exists.
  RC Metcalf

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 28 00:38:19 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 28 2008 - 00:38:19 EDT