|
Intelligent design, at least as noted in the article, got ONE thing right. Evolution is a theory, albeit one with quite a bit of support.
But the issues are being skewed here: science is NOT supposed to provide TRUTH. Science catalogs facts in the observed universe, and uses those facts to create highly-detailed working models of reality, accurately matching the universe at large in sufficient detail to be reliably used for engineering or predictive purposes. It may be totally wrong (especially in causation), but it provides RELIABLE RESULTS. . .
You want Truth, hit the Religion or Philosophy Departments. . .you want reliable, empirical results, hit the Science Department and the Engineering School
It is evolution that is anti-Science.
It is CHRISTIANS that developed every major science field to the greatness it is, and each of those Christians was a Creationist of some sort.
The ones who read the Guardian, certainly - bunch of elitist snobs.
Evolution is a fact: it is the way God has created our bodies. Not so our souls.
Of more pressing concern is this idea that Science and Religion somehow contradict each other. This cannot be. There is only one truth, not two or three parallel truths.
If a fact really is true, then by definition no other path of truth can contradict it. No observable fact in the universe can really deny the existence of God, if he exists. Aquinas was right on top of this. Those of us on this board who believe need not fear any scientific revelation.
Ever hear of Heinlein's Interregnum of the Prophets?
We're on our way.
By the odds, it should have taken many billions of years - if ever - to cook it just right, yet there it was.
Replication seems out of reach.
Strange indeed?
Interesting that it seems only Christians that have an argument with the THEORY of evolution?
Wonder what other religions think, the Jews for example?
Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam, used to teach that the white race was created in a test tube by black scientists. Does that qualify for teaching as an Intelligent Design theory?
Well, there are plenty of Bush voters, probably even within the so called "religious right," who accept evolution as a valid theory, but still believe in God, and even in intelligent design.
OTOH, the black population, to a great extent, is religiously identical to the religious right, but mirrors them in voting patterns.
I think most "liberals" believe Bush lost primarily because of moral values. It played a part, but, IMO, was not the greatest factor.
God and science are not at odds at all. He and his believers are only painted as anti-science by those who can't accept God or his power. This article is an example of that. Notice the skewed writing, even in the title, framing believers as ignorant?
"Every chance the press gets, they link this anti-science stuff to conservatism."
Unfortunately, 'conservatism' no longer seems to have any real 'fiscal' meanings but comes across with a theological tone these days, making the link you speak of quite real.
In their wild-eyed intolerance for deviation from the party line, one brings to mind any given inquisition.
But particlarly this insistence on speaking of "science," as if it were an all-inclusive monolith.... When an RC talks with a Christian, the RCC is a unified, seamless entity over against the hopeless fragmentation of "Protestantism"; but look under the sheet, and you see Ted Kennedy RC's, John Kerry RC's, "Mother" Theresa RC's, Dominic Crossan RC's, Raymond Brown RC's, Hans Kung RC's, Pat Buchanan RC's, Mel Gibson RC's, and on and on.
The talk of "unity" is a myth brought out only to smack down any deviant thought, whether people actually examining the facts of nature (in the one case) or the Bible (in the other).
Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board
Biblical Christianity BLOG
It is not anti-science. But this debate is getting fun. Finally, the "evolutionists" must make their case, as opposed to just saying that if you disagree with them you must be "anti-science."
Thanks to the internet, both Dan Rather AND "evolutionists" have learned that the ad-Hominem attack has gone the way of the longbow as a useful weapon.
This is a false portrayal of Creationists!
Only with regard to the creation do we view naturalism as atheistic. We are not attacking all science just evolution both as an origin of life and as an origin of higher life forms.
Time may change the shape of rocks, but it can not create life. Just look at the face of most living things the two eyes are above the nose which is always above the mouth, this shows design. From the smallist thing such as the atom to the largest thing such as the universe they both appear much the same through the microscrope or telecsope.
Here's the problem. Why shouldn't science teaches be questioning the theroy of evolution? We want our science students to question everything until it's proved to their satisfaction.
Evolution (apart from natural selection) is a theory not a fact