Abnormal Interests

You have a good blog site. I am late to this post, but I hope you don't mind my comments about ID.

Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, has been in the middle of the Intelligent Design (ID) controversy. Proponents of ID have advocated teaching ID along side evolution. Recently, Facchini made statements that suggested that ID was not science and that ID should not be taught in school. His statements regarding ID and his opinion that ID should not be taught in school is reasonable.

Opponents of ID have quoted this professor to advance their argument that ID is not science and that ID should not be taught in school. However, Facchini's statements suggest that he indeed believes in God's creative work.

A further review of Facchini's comments will suggest that he in fact supports a form of ID (Theistic Evolution). The following quote from Facchini will be helpful in understanding his ideas about ID.

"He said he recognized some Darwin proponents erroneously assume that evolution explains everything." And, "Better to recognize that the problem from the scientific point of view remains open." He continued, "In a vision that goes beyond the empirical horizon, we can say that we aren't men by chance or by necessity, and that the human experience has a sense and a direction signaled by a superior design."

Recently, the Pope addressed the ID issue in the following: "Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed in off-the-cuff comments in November that the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticized those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order."

In conclusion, it appears that Facchini and the Pope are reaffirming their belief in an intelligent project, superior design, or Intelligent Design. Regardless of how we explain humanity, God's universe is beautiful and at the same time mysterious.

Mild Mannered Reporter,

You are certainly correct that Fiorenzo Facchini (and the Pope) believe in theistic evolution. However, this is very different from Intelligent Design Creationism and the folks at the Discovery Institute certainly know it. Father Facchini seems to be saying that there is more to the story than evolution but that evolution is a subset of the complete story and whatever there is in addition to evolution does not replace it but adds to it. Intelligent Design Creationists want to replace evolution with Intelligent Design. I see that as a very big difference.

Good golly, I just could not stay away. I see you went to college in Claremont. I lived in Claremont for 10 years and graduated from Univeristy of La Verne, BS & MS. I also attended church at the United Church of Christ in Claremont. It was a real supportive experience and restored my faith.

I would like to add to my previous comments regarding the subject of teaching only evolution. In general, I agree with you. However, we may differ on the issue of Christian traditions in schools and the public square.

Public educators in America advocate teaching Evolution only. Proponents of Evolution advance the idea that all other explanations that use theological views or point to supernatural origins are beyond the scope of the scientific method. Therefore, theological or supernatural ideas about the origins of life are akin to backward mythology. And, the Bible's creation story is just simple spookism.

Teaching only the theory of Evolution is problematic. Because, an Evolution world view based on an atheistic approach devalues religion. Evolution suggests that human life is no more than an accident of nature. This in turn, reduces religious traditions to superstition.

I suggest that the theory of Evolution is not capable of explaining our infinite universe. I will also argue that a theory that advances a theological explanation in order to study human development, the human condition, and social ethics is spiritually and socially advantageous.

In addition, a theological approach to Evolution will promote a more humanitarian and philanthopic social environment. This is based on an American model of humanitarianism. The American spirit of "helping those in need" is based primarily on Christianity and other religions. Our human compassion for helping the less fortunate is complex, but theological reasons for helping others plays a key role. The majority of aid to the world's poor comes from Christian based ministries, other religious organizations, and American funded aid programs. Therefore, it would be highly beneficial, from a social perspective, to advance a theological study of the human condition.

Evolution, as used by the scientific and secularist communities, is the sum total of the scientific theories and observational implications that explain human existence. They see that natural laws alone are sufficient to account for all observations in nature. Furthermore, proponents claim Evolution has no need to accommodate any explanation that suggests a supernatural intelligence, master designer, or creator.

One could argue that proponents of Evolution are also advancing an atheistic approach to life. And, they advocate the wonders of our infinite universe can be reduced to life-less equations and natural selection theories. By doing so, human existence is reduced to a "survival of fittest" mentality. Furthermore, our theologically based humanitarian concepts of "helping those in need" could be replaced with an Evolution and natural selection theory based "the strong shall survive" approach to life.

The teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools has become an issue for many. ID is a concept that states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Proponents of ID say that life is not an undirected process such as natural selection. Its leading proponents say that ID is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views ID as pseudoscience or junk science. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that ID and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science.

An alternative to the debate regarding Evolution and ID is Theistic Evolution (TE). TE advances a general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution. TE allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it.

Trying to teach Evolution and ID side by side in public schools is problematic, because it could be confusing to young students trying to grasp the fundamentals of scientific methods while trying to understand an ID world view.

While it may not be appropriate to teach ID as a science, it does seem appropriate to accommodate TE in the study of philosophy, history, and social science. To divorce human existence from all theological content is counterproductive and may have a negative impact on individual and collective social interaction and social ethics. Plus, for many Americans, individual spirituality is essential in human growth and development. So, a theological world view can have a positive impact of individuals and society.

This being said, TE will not be promoted by secularists and evolutionists. This is unfortunate. The scientific and secular communities will continue advocating a teaching philosophy based only on Evolution. It doesn't appear that advocate groups that oppose ID will support TE or any concept except the theory of Evolution. Teaching any type of theological based views about human existence in any course of study will be fought with determined vigor by secularists and evolutionists. Furthermore, the "Separation of Church and State" constitutional idea will be advanced in order to purge all references to religion from schools and the public square.

In a much more broader sense, it appears that advocates for maintaining Christian symbols and traditions in schools and the public square have been inflamed and motivated to challenge teaching Evolution in the classroom. Because, secularists have been highly aggressive in trying to ban all forms of religion, especially Christianity, and associated symbols from schools and the public square. Therefore, proponents of Christian traditions have been provoked into supporting ID by a highly contentious secularist movement. It appears that the Evolution verses ID debate is only part of ongoing discussion regarding the role of religion, especially Christianity, in American life.

Regardless, I suggest that Theistic Evolution is a reasonable alternative in the Evolution verse ID debate. And, it would be in the best interest of our society to allow for teaching a world view that includes Theistic Evolution.

Cross posted at the Rosemead Times and The Journal of a Future President
0 Comments:

Post a Comment