Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.
But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion. Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."
Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology. Schönborn's proclamation that it cannot exist unguided--that it is driven by an intelligent designer pushing and pulling and planning and shaping the process along the way--is a perfectly legitimate statement of faith. If he and the Evangelicals just stopped there and asked that intelligent design be included in a religion curriculum, I would support them. The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation.
In this slippery slide from "reason" to science, Schönborn is a direct descendant of the early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. "With your ellipse," Fabricius wrote Kepler, "you abolish the circularity and uniformity of the motions, which appears to me increasingly absurd the more profoundly I think about it." No matter that, using Tycho Brahe's most exhaustive astronomical observations in history, Kepler had empirically demonstrated that the planets orbit elliptically.
This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer.
How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.
To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.
Of course it was the *third* possible definition, and you'd ignored the appropriate definition that was above it.
Beware of Chugabrews toting dictionaries.
nonexistent "moral science".
I don't know if I am the one whom, in the past, you took note of in this regard or not. Nevertheless, that definition certainly qualifies as common usage. Most people use the word "theory" in a manner that implies lack of certitude.
My point is, even under a strictly scientific definition of "theory," which denotes great certitude, evolutionism does not qualify. Evolutionism has hijacked the word "theory" much as certain Islamic folks, not to mention innumerable kooky cults, quasi-religions, and astrologers, have hijacked theology.
It is not artful, it is just plain talk in exposing these idiotic posts.
No fair. I wasn't looking.
Hmmm. Y'all better get together on your story. You say that "theory" is a higher standard that is not met by evolution while your buddies say that evolution is 'just a theory' indicating that 'theory' is a low standard of judgement. Which is it?
Why are you pinging me ?
Please refrain.
Thanks !
In this case it appears both definitions apply. One can understand evolution as having little scientific basis whether the word "theory" means "guess" or "scientific certitude." Hence "Theory of Evolution" is a misnomer, and, under common use of the word "theory," it is little more than one mental construct among many as a way of explaining reality.
In short, it's your story. You can tell it any way you want to. Just don't expect the rest of the world to call it "science." I don't expect the rest of the world to consider the biblical text of Genesis to be "science," either. But I certainly would consider its words to be worthy of consideration where matters beyond science are concerned.
Thank you, WJC.
True faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, which is demonstrated through repentance and obedience.
It is something that all Baptists, Methodists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Non-Denominationalists, and etc. can agree on.
The experiments don't have to be conducted back then. Tests of the physics can be made right now. Folks that know what they're doing look at ~5Byrs ago and further. The physics are the same. Your failure to know and understand what you're talking about is the reason you're still stuck on that point and why you think it's "history, or philosophy".
" if you believe addressing Ichneumon's posts in detail makes for a paragon of scientific knowledge and practice..."
You don't know the fundamentals,
"Why should I pay attention to your response when it does not directly address the points I have made, but instead engages in ad hominem?"
You think ignorance is an ad hominum? It's not. It's simply a qualifier used to denote some low measure of knowledge. I'm ignorant regarding a lot of stuff. That's a fact, not an ad hominum. I recognize where I'm ignorant and don't argue with those that aren't on the subject.
"Tell me how educated guesses about history are collectively worthy of the name "theory.""
They are not guesses about history. The laws of physics are constant. All the evidence points to that. The laws of chemistry and physics now, are the same now as they were before and will be in the future. We can see the past and look to the future(prediction). All evidence confirms that. This is basic, fundamental stuff that you've failed to grasp.
Science holds a theory that says, "the laws of physics are sufficient to describe the world." It's a theory, because all available evedence supports it. ID holds a hypothesis that says, "the laws of physics are insufficient to describe the world." It's still a hypothesis, because there's zero evidence to support it.
How would you like to actually specify what you don't like about evolution other than it conflicts with your conception of reality. Go through Ichnueman's post of evidence and pick one you feel is wrong. Then back your opinion up with some evidence.
I know, but these creationists drive me nuts with their stubborn idiocy.. its like arguing with Kindergarten kids over Toffee.
Sorry. Faith alone will not get you very far in the Catholic Church.
The Church of Rome does not adhere to salvation by faith in Christ alone.
Besides, hasn't the post Vatican II Church of Rome become much more of a universalist church? Or am I just making an incorrect conclusion based on statements by Mother Teresa, Mel Gibson and others?
I notice that you exclude Catholics from your list of Christians.
You can't even back that wild assertion up with evidence can you?
You really have no intention of debating do you. How many points do you think you'll get by just calling names?
BTW, aren't evolutionary scientists more likely to be relativists? Absolutism is pretty much a religious thing.
Your name was pinged to me. So go bother the person responsible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.