« Harriet Miers - The Perfect Supreme Court Nominee: No Experience, No Record
Main
"To What Purpose Then Require The Co-Operation Of The Senate?" »
October 4, 2005
Creationism: The Reasonable, the Flexible and the Unreasonable
The Los Angeles Times has a very reasonable editorial entitled, "Designed and confused" on Intelligent Design creationism, religion and teaching religion in the public schools,
Here are a few teasers,
The business of science is to observe the physical world, develop theories about how it works and then test them. Science is neither atheistic nor godly.[snip]
Those studying Charles Darwin's theories observe and describe the vast evidence that living things adapted through random mutation. Some will conclude from this evidence that there is no God. Others will conclude that it must have taken a marvelous Creator to come up with such a nuanced way for the world to change and rebalance itself.
Either view is valid. But both are unprovable conclusions that are the realm of philosophy or religion, not science.
[snip]
There is a public place and time for one of the seminal texts of Western culture. It is not science class.
I have a few nits and picks. For example, why can't one discuss evolution without always bringing up Darwin? Biology and evolution have moved well beyond Darwin into exciting areas that Darwin knew nothing about. However the three points of the editorial are correct: Intelligent Design creationism is not science, only science should be taught as science and there is a place outside of science to discuss the Bible and religion. I will point out that there are more or less objective methods for studying the Bible and religion. I favor the more objective approaches.
The position of the Los Angeles Times editorial writer is far better that the latest incarnation of Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna's position and which is a considerable improvement on his previously stated position. Reuters reports that Cardinal Schoenborn now believes,
"Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history," Schoenborn declared in a lecture in St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna on Sunday."I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," he said.
Science studies what is observable and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal, 60, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict.
"It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question," said the cardinal.
It does look like he wants it both ways,
You can read opinions on the Cardina'ls new position at The Panda's Thumb, Gibberish and at the Loom. PZ Myers speculates,
I wonder if some sensible nun walked up to him and whacked his knuckles with a ruler?
Finely, I find the following quotations from Bob Jones University Press' Biology for Christian Schools, frightenly consistent,
Biology for Christian Schools'' is a high school textbook for Bible-believing Christians. Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling. This book was not written for them.
Many current scientific observations, therefore, are open to various interpretations. We can be sure, though, that anything that contradicts the Word of God is wrong. You should be tolerant of other Christians who believe theories different from yours unless their theories are un-Scriptural.
Enough said. No, I mean it, enough said about this dangerous book.
Posted by Duane Smith at October 4, 2005 3:47 PM | Read more on Evolution |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1388
Comments
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.