Marc,
I think it is a victory (albeit a very small one) for ID supporters because it means a textbook publisher had the nerve to acknowledge that many people do not believe in evolution. And Americans United is undoubtedly unhappy that not every publisher is drinking the koolaid.
Marty,
Isn't it possible that this is somewhat less Machiavellian than you are describing? It's not about providing students "with a fuller understanding of the diversity of religious beliefs" or undermining science. It's as Marc described it: simply an acknowledgment that not everybody believes in evolution, and that those who don't believe in evolution, demographically speaking, are largely viewing the matter from a religious perspective.
Marc wrote:
Supporters of ID are claiming victory; and Americans United is complaining that the wall of separation is falling. I feel stupid because I see nothing of ID in this description, merely factual descriptions of peoples’ beliefs. What am I missing that the activists see?
Marty replied:
Marc: Might it have something to do with the fact that the statement appears in a biology text, rather than in a comparative religions text, and that therefore the foreseeable -- and, dare I surmise, intended -- effect of the statement is not to provide the students with a fuller understanding of the diversity of religious beliefs, but instead to call into question, and to undermine, the actual science information that appears on pages 1-387 and 389f?
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
