RE: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong - says a non-sociologist

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Mon Mar 02 2009 - 13:15:01 EST

ID by definition doesn't have a religious bias. The religious bias (underpinnings) came out in the Dover court case when you see were the instructional documents are coming from- they took a creationist textbook and pretty much did a "search and replace" of "creationists" with "ID proponents" (or something similar- not looking up the details for now).


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of David Clounch
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 6:51 AM
Cc:; Michael Roberts
Subject: Re: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong - says a non-sociologist

Campalo says,

"Many supporters of the principle of separation of church and state
say that the Intelligent Design Theory of creation ought not to be
taught in public schools because that it contains a religious bias."

He is describing a claim we have all heard a million times. And many
on this list have repeated that claim as far as I remember.

My frustration is that Bernie apparently has never heard this claim
that looking for design is a religious activity born out of a
religious bias. So I just wanted to point out that here it is again!!
   Campolo isn't himself claiming it, he is merely describing those
who do claim it. If anyone here wants to deny that such a claim has
commonly been made then let them do so.


The real question for me is whether one can rule out looking for
design based on purely scientific and/or empirical criteria. I suspect
the answer is no. In fact, many list members have said so.

But if it is no, then how does one rule it out? By considering
religion, of course. But that consideration *itself* is an act of
religion (given that it is not an act of science).
And I object to that religion trumping any other religion. That is
why there is an establishment clause issue at stake. One religious
act trumping another religious act is a clear violation of the

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Gregory Arago <> wrote:
> And it not only simply seems, but is rather quite apparent that you do not
> understand Darwinism at all, Michael Roberts! Darwin, yes (I'll gladly join
> on one of your annual Darwin tours in the U.K.), but Darwinism, no,
> certainly not. So I guess that speaks of some equality between you an
> Campolo.
> Many interesting things in that article, sociologically speaking. But then
> geologist-theologians are not renowned for studying '-isms,' are they? I
> doubt the impact of Darwinism on society (other than defending CoE priests)
> is on the radar of Rev. Roberts, which is why he can't/won't understand an
> American Sociologist-Pastor on this issue. There still seems to be an
> unfilled gap in communication here.
> - Gregory
> --- On Sat, 2/28/09, Michael Roberts <>
> wrote:
> From: Michael Roberts
> It seems Campolo does not understand Darwin at all
> ________________________________
> All new Yahoo! Mail - Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading
> pane.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 2 13:15:29 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 02 2009 - 13:15:45 EST