Re: [xmca] Intelligent Design decision

From: Debdowningw@aol.com
Date: Thu Dec 22 2005 - 08:47:45 PST

Next message: Mike Cole: "Re: [xmca] Intelligent Design decision"
Previous message: Lois Holzman: "Re: [xmca] The past becomes the present."
Maybe in reply to: Steve Gabosch: "[xmca] Intelligent Design decision"
Next in thread: Mike Cole: "Re: [xmca] Intelligent Design decision"
Reply: Mike Cole: "Re: [xmca] Intelligent Design decision"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

It's worth a lot. Years ago James provided me with a critical yet respectful
point of entry for exploring my religious heritage and how that manifests
itself in my life. I've neglected him recently. Thanks for the reminder.

DDW

In a message dated 12/21/2005 6:52:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cunningh@indiana.edu writes:

For what its worth:

"I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer (whose)... religion
has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition,
determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would
profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make
search rather for the original experiences which were the
pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated
conduct." (The Varieties of Religious Experience, 1902)

There is a pretty interesting article in the current Atlantic Monthly on
this called "Is God an Accident?" Here is a temporary link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/god-accident?ca=5i4bJGZfamjHTnuxm1
rMWagmfY5nDXzLIIJeRAaCjUw%3D

But perhaps this should wait until next month.

Don Cunningham

Indiana University

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Kevin Rocap
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:08 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Intelligent Design decision

Dear Deb,

I noticed your posting. My two cents here. ;-)

I'm imagining the issues was less one of teaching the scientific view

versus the view from religious belief as it was the issue of the

proponents wanting the religious belief to masquerade as a scientific

theory alongside of evolutionary theory. To teach children that both

are equally valid *scientific* theories, by teaching it in biology
class.

You mention social science. And I guess I'd agree that I'd consider

there to be more a case, if they were arguing that in social studies

they'd want to have their kids exposed to the religious creation

viewpoint and to let their kids know that some folks reject the

scientific theoretical approach in favor of these beliefs based on