The issue is not whether a person can see God in creation. I do, even though I
am comfortable with what science has revealed about the process of "creation"
and "evolution." If God is God, God can "create the world any way God wants,"
instant or evolving.

The issue is teaching intelligent design as science, or rather in a science
class room. Science is about the mechanism of creation. Intelligent design is
about the power and purpose people see behind the mechanism. They can be
discussed together, but do not belong together in a science classroom. I think
about it this way. Two people are standing by the road. A car flys down the
road at them, hits a spot of ice and begins to spin toward them. At the last
minute it hits solid earth, and is deflected away from the two. One sees it as
God at work. The other sees a car that hit some dirt and bounced another way.
Who is right? Perhaps both. But one has to do with physics the other with
faith. The Bible is full of events that happened, but were, to most of the
world small and meaningless. However to people of faith, who look at the event
from a particular perspective, earth shattering.

I would agree intelligent design has a place, but I would put it into the realm
of philosophy or religion, not science (and I am a theologian, not a scientist).

I would suggest that the emotionalism in the argument has not, at least initial,
come from the scientists, but from the religious.

At any rate, I see problem with my stance that how God was involved in creation
is immaterial, as long as I affirm God was involved. If God chose to use
evolution? That, by the way does not preclude the statistics mentioned. Is
this "intelligent design"? Perhaps.

But it is my perspective of the power and purpose, and I'm comfortable. If I
had a child learning about evolution, I would simply say, "by the way, from our
perspective God is the author of all this. God set it up... pretty cool way to
do it, yes!?"

Stephen Kliewer. D.Min.
Assistant Professor
Department of Family Medicine
Oregon Health and Science University

Phone: 541-426-4524
Cell: 541-398-0547
FAX 541-426-3035


Email: kliewers@...
>>> colcol02@... 12/28/05 3:06 PM >>>
Just to throw another thought into this mix, which is not really restricted to
spirituality in medicine: why are so many scientifically-oriented people, who
should have their minds open to any possibility, so antagonized by the
intelligent design debate? Certainly modern science doesn't have all the
answers to the origins of the universe. One of the strongest arguments for
intelligent design is based on statistics, not religion. How many events had to
occur in sequence in order to spontaneously produce mammals from reptiles, much
less human beings from microbes? And what is the probability of that sequence
occurring, even given four or five billion years? Multiplying a sequence of
even modest probabilities can quickly come up with a number larger than the
number of stars in the known universe, not all of which have Earthlike planets.
How would something like music ever emerge spontaneously, with simple vibrations
of molecules being perceived as octaves, chords, and sca
les? What about the perception of color? What about the human conscience (OK,
I stole that one from C.S. Lewis)?
My biggest question is, why can't these issues be discussed without being
eclipsed by emotional reactions and the closing down of minds?
I'm not personally an advocate of any specific intelligent design
curriculum, but I think discussing them should not be taboo.

Thanks, all.

Colin M. Greene, MD
Deputy Commander for Clinical Services
Womack Army Medical Center
Fort Bragg, NC

"Stephen Kliewer" <kliewers@...> wrote:

>Rob
>Could to hear from you again!
>Your inventory, which you graciously allowed us to use
>is part of the manuscript. We hope it will be a very practical book. I agree
with you that some of the "domestic" battles around ideology are having a toll,
and I would agree that the highly publicised discussions, intelligent design,
the Shaivo case, and even the "battle for Christmas" are creating resistence
among our students.
>
>I asked a group of about 150 students how many of them were uncomfortable with
the idea of addressing spirituality in healthcare settings. Only a few raised
their hands. When I changed the term ot religiontoalmost every hand went up.
So I think people are still clearly making the distinction between religion and
spirituality. But the aggressiveness of those groups who believe their
perspective is the only perspective is taking its toll and affecting even a
spiritual versus religious approach. Most of the young physicians seem more
concerned that patients will be uncomfortable with them, because of their
spiritual stance, than are worried that they won't be able to deal with the
religious/spiritual cultures of their patients. This may be naive, based on the
amount of judgementalism thatjudgmentalism from the students about certain parts
of the religious spectrum.
>
>Stephen Kliewer. D.Min.
>Assistant Professor
>Department of Family Medicine
>Oregon Health and Science University
>
>Phone: 541-426-4524
>Cell: 541-398-0547
>FAX 541-426-3035
>
>
>Email: kliewers@...
>>>> hatch@... 12/28/05 10:19 AM >>>
>Hi, Steve.
>Congrats on the book and thanks for the nice discussion of
>fundamentalism. I wasn't aware it had been looked at that intently by
>such groups - nice to see.
>Re: impact of recent upsurg in fundamentalism, here is what I have
>observed. Over the last 10 years, there has been more and more openness
>to spirituality as a legitimate area for health care providers to attend
>to with patients. The Wall between the medical domain and the spiritual
>domain had been steadilly lowering. However, the Intelligent Design
>movement, which I see very much as a fundamentalist initiative,
>singlehandedly replaced many bricks that had been slowly removed from
>the wall. A lot of scientifically oriented people who used to be
>indifferent but tolerant are now more antagonistic towards
>religion/spirituality.
>Other recent effects of fundamentalism (Christian as well as Islamic)
>did not seem to have much impact on the wall, but perhaps they helped
>set the stage for Intelligent Design to hit such a nerve.
>Rob Hatch, MD, MPH
>University of Florida
>
>>>> kliewers@... 12/27/05 02:06PM >>>
>Steven
>Let me respond to your questions
>
>Question One: What is GWISH
>
>GWISH is the George Washington Institute on Spirituality and Health.
>It has been heavily funded by the Templeton Foundation, and is the group
>that offers the curricular awards. It is can be found at GWISH.ORG
>
>Question Two: What is religious fundamentalism exactly? Isn't this
>term sort of derogatory regarding some people's chosen spirituality?
>
>You are correct in noting that the term fundamentalism has negative
>connotations for many. It is a word that carriers with it some baggage.
> One can hardly read a weekly news magazine without encountering the
>term `fundamentalist' with reference to some group active on the world
>stage. In fact, the popularity of the term is part of the problem.
>
>I wish I had a better term to use.
>
>Bruce Lawrence in his book, Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt
>Against the Modern Age defines fundamentalism as " the affirmation of
>religious authority as holistic and absolute, admitting of neither
>criticism nor reduction; it is expressed through the collective demand
>that specific creedal and ethical dictates derived from scripture be
>publicly recognized and legally enforced ."
>
>The American Academy of Arts and Sciences funded a multiyear project
>that brought scholars from around the world together to study
>Fundamentalism. Ultimately they produced 5 volumes containing almost
>8,000 pages of material. Admitting some difficulty with the term, the
>project opts to use it anyway for a variety of reasons. Essentially,
>they argue that it is commonly accepted, here to stay, and the best term
>anyone can come up with for this phenomena. At one point in the study
>the researchers list 5 ideological characteristics and 4 organizational
>characteristics of fundamentalism. The Five ideological characteristics
>are:
>*fundamentalists are concerned "first" with the erosion of religion and
>its proper role in society;
>*fundamentalism is selective of their tradition and what part of
>modernity they accept or choose to react against;
>*they embrace some form of Manicheanism (dualism);
>*fundamentalists stress absolutism and inerrancy in their sources of
>revelation; and
>*they opt for some form of Millennialism or Messianism.
>
>The organizational characteristics include:
>*an elect or chosen membership;
>*sharp group boundaries;
>*charismatic authoritarian leaders; and
>*mandated behavioral requirements.
>
>Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe, in their work "Secularization and
>Fundamentalism Reconsidered" offer this definition, " a proclamation of
>reclaimed authority over a sacred tradition which is to be reinstated as
>an antidote for a society that has strayed from its cultural moorings."
>
>Obviously people respond to the dynamics illustrated in all of the
>above descriptions differently. Some like it, some find it frightening,
>and others are very judgemental of such a stance. People will accept
>such a stance with respect to their own faith system and find it
>appalling in another faith system.
>
>I am not trying to make a judgement about it. It simply is, and it is
>having a powerful impact on our world. In my part of the world, it has
>made many of those who were ambivelant about religions very negative.
>It has led to increased polarization, even among those who are from the
>same system. There may be some benefits as well. It has certainly
>brought some important issues into public awareness and created much
>dialouge.
>
>Thinking back over your response, I am trying to think of a term that
>carries less baggage, but I find it difficult. If I talk about
>religious radicalism, I think there is still some degree of judgement.
>The advantage of that kind of term is that it may lead to a broader
>understanding of the issue. Since fundamentalism can be seen as a
>specific branch, normally conservative, of a religion. If we think
>about people who have "radical" views, there may be an ability to think
>of people on both ends of the theological spectrum. Some of those on
>the liberal end of the spectrum can be ideologically radically, rigid,
>and judgemental.
>
>So you raise a very good issue.
>Perhaps I'll rephrase the question this way...
>We are seeing an increase in religious intensity, and spiritual and/or
>religious perspectives are being applied culturally, even politically -
>there are attempts to resacralize public life. How does this impact
>efforts to develop curriculum? Does it help, or hinder? Does the
>impact vary in different regions of the country (it has made it harder
>in Oregon), and how does it impact efforts to integrated healthcare and
>spirituality?
>
>Steve K.
>
>In reply to ...
>Steven E. Roskos, MD
>
>Department of Family Medicine
>
>University of Tennessee - Knoxville
>
>sroskos@...
>
>865-544-9352, ext. 5059
>
>Fax: 865-544-6532
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: Stephen Kliewer [mailto:kliewers@...]
>Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 11:45 PM
>To: STFM-Spirituality@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [STFM-Spirituality] (unknown)
>
>
>
>Greetings
>
>Just to let you know, John Saulz, MD, Chair of Family Medicine at
>Oregon =
>Health Science University and I have finally finished out book on =
>Healthcare and Spirituality. I invite you all to take a look at it on
>=
>Amazon.com.
>
>It was published in England by Radcliffe Medical Press, and is on its
>way =
>to US warehouses now. Hope you find it useful.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857756223/qid=3D1135653337/sr=3D8-1/ref=
>
><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857756223/qid=3D1135653337/sr=3D8-1/ref=><~!\
B*+R^&><~!B*+R^&>=3Dsr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9389205-0697405?n=3D507846&s=3Dbooks\
&v=3Dglance<~!B*+R^&><~!B*+R^&>Also, GWISH will soon be sending information
about its latest round of
>=
>curricular awards. As a past award winner for both predoc and graduate
>I =
>encourage you to look into this program. It is amazing how open
>administra=
>tions can be when there is a little money attached.
>
>There are some changes to the program you may find intriguing.
>
>I would encourage any of you, if you run across resources you find
>useful, =
>to post them on the listserve. Also let us know of events you think =
>people might find of interest.
>
>Finally, I'd like to end with a question that I would appreciate
>thoughts =
>around. We are finding, Ithink a resurgence of religious
>fundamentalism. =
>Has this impacted efforts to develop curricular elements? Does this =
>affect the intergration of healthcare and spirituality?
>
>Would love to hear your thoughts!
>
>STEVE
>
>
>
>Stephen Kliewer. D.Min.
>Assistant Professor
>Department of Family Medicine
>Oregon Health and Science University
>
>Phone: 541-426-4524
>Cell: 541-398-0547
>FAX 541-426-3035
>
>
>Email: kliewers@...
>
>
>
>Community email addresses:
> Post message: STFM-Spirituality@onelist.com
> Subscribe: STFM-Spirituality-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: STFM-Spirituality-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: STFM-Spirituality-owner@onelist.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/STFM-Spirituality
><http://www.onelist.com/community/STFM-Spirituality>
>
>
>
>
>SPONSORED LINKS
>
>
>Health and wellness
>
>Health wellness product
>
>Health and wellness program
>
>
>Diet fitness health nutrition wellness
>
>Health promotion and wellness
>
>Business health wellness
>
>
>
> _____
>
>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
>* Visit your group "STFM-Spirituality
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STFM-Spirituality> " on the web.
>
>* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> STFM-Spirituality-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
><mailto:STFM-Spirituality-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe><~!B*\
+R^&><~!B*+R^&>
>* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
>Stephen Kliewer. D.Min.
>Assistant Professor
>Department of Family Medicine
>Oregon Health and Science University
>
>Phone: 541-426-4524
>Cell: 541-398-0547
>FAX 541-426-3035
>
>
>Email: kliewers@...
>
>
>
>
>
>Community email addresses:
> Post message: STFM-Spirituality@onelist.com
> Subscribe: STFM-Spirituality-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: STFM-Spirituality-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: STFM-Spirituality-owner@onelist.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/STFM-Spirituality
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Community email addresses:
> Post message: STFM-Spirituality@onelist.com
> Subscribe: STFM-Spirituality-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: STFM-Spirituality-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: STFM-Spirituality-owner@onelist.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/STFM-Spirituality
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Community email addresses:
> Post message: STFM-Spirituality@onelist.com
> Subscribe: STFM-Spirituality-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: STFM-Spirituality-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: STFM-Spirituality-owner@onelist.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/STFM-Spirituality
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Community email addresses:
Post message: STFM-Spirituality@onelist.com
Subscribe: STFM-Spirituality-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: STFM-Spirituality-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: STFM-Spirituality-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/STFM-Spirituality
Yahoo! Groups Links