May I suggest a little humility from both sides. Claims of knowledge on the part of science - especially as to what is known about the origin of the universe - are being made which way over reach what is actually known and are belied by the frequent changes in the theories.
As for religeon, I think that we ought to take the Bible literally unless there is significant scientific evidence to the contrary. It seems pretty clear to me that the Bible was not intended to have the scientific exactitude for dating that us moderns are used to. Mankind's very concept of time has evolved since ancient days.
To be fair here, today's aggressors do seem to come from not from science itself but from left-wingers who use science to advance an anti-Christian agenda. Creationism controversies in the news have wanted to include "intelligent design" as well as evolution in the schools. The other side has wanted only their own views taught. Even despite their lack of tolerance for the other side's point of view, the evolutionists would still have my sympathy if only they weren't so militant about it.
Here is an interesting article about the latest developments in this area from science's point of view.
Posts
The End
-
I’m suspending further publication of this blog due to lack of time. This
notice formalizes what has been evident for some time. I intend to
concentrate on...
12 years ago
As a biologist, I know that if a fellow scientist tried to get his theories accepted via school boards and legal maneuvers, I would laugh at him. He would immediately be dismissed as a crackpot by the scientific community if he went to congress: "Look there is this theory of gravity that contradicts Einstein and (boo hoo) the scientists are all ignoring me. You need to make it a law that this be included in High School science classes along with general relativity." How do you think physicists would react to such a person? That is exactly how we biologists respond to the Creationists.
ReplyDeleteThe way to gain credibility is by doing good science, which is something we never see from the Creationists. They are not acting like scientists act (i.e., experiments, peer review, etc), but like politicians. Until that stops, they have no chance of being taken seriously outside of a political context.
As for the claim that the ID proponents are more "open minded" because they want both views taught while the other side only wants one side taught, that really doesn't tell us much. Should we give 9/11 conspiracy theorists (or Holocaust deniers) equal time in history classes? No, because no historian takes them seriously, there is no real controversy, and there are other perfectly real controversies to teach in history (and biology).
Perhaps it should be taught in a religion class, or a social studies class. But presented as serious biology? When the Creationists act as serious biologists act, then the debate might be worth having.
Science is a form of superstition that sometimes can yield amazing good results.
ReplyDeleteReligion not religeon.
ReplyDeleteI feel myself obliged to make a comment about what you said -
"As for religeon, I think that we ought to take the Bible literally unless there is significant scientific evidence to the contrary. "
This is just complete and utter nonsense. Bertrand Russell does a far better job than I could of demonstrating why.
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
- Bertrand Russell
The point is that since one can not disprove the existence of god, why on earth should people take what the bible (or any other religious book for that matter) says literally? The notion that for something not to be true it needs to be disproved first is absurd. To demonstrate this further I will re-word what you said to put it into a better context:
"As for religion, I think that we ought to take the story of Santa Claus literally unless there is significant scientific evidence to the contrary."
Any normal person, like yourself, would of course laugh at this and reject it outright on the basis that, although Santa Claus cannot be proven to not exist (like fairies or anything else you could come up with), it is ridiculous to then say that because we cannot prove that he does not exist that we should assume that he does.
Niall
The expulsion of Adam from the garden gives us a clear and true ancient account of the Neolithic Revolution, but it is much harder to see that through a literal reading. Literalists miss the truths that agree with science, creating conflict where none is necessary.
ReplyDelete