Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both
Time Magazine ^ | Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: acanthostega; charleskrauthammer; creation; crevolist; faith; ichthyostega; krauthammer; science; scienceeducation; scopes; smallpenismen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 981-1,0001,001-1,0201,021-1,040 ... 1,781-1,792 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew
Fester, were you the creationist that insisted that the dictionary definition of "Theory" was "a guess"?.

Of course it was the *third* possible definition, and you'd ignored the appropriate definition that was above it.

Beware of Chugabrews toting dictionaries.

1,001 posted on 08/02/2005 5:46:59 PM PDT by narby (There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Closed minded and fearful evolutionists sound just like you: unwiling to open the doors to discussion and dialogue concerning matters of science.

Nice way to distract from the fact that you made a fool of yourself by referring to nonexistent "moral science". Call the other person names, completely ignore substance.

Par for the course from a creationist.
1,002 posted on 08/02/2005 5:50:55 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 998 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

nonexistent "moral science".




Why am I not surprised at your feeble lack of awareness. Moral science has been around for quite a while actually. Not that Darweenies would know about it. They are too busy with their heads up their collective dustbins of history to notice.

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/wayland/


1,003 posted on 08/02/2005 5:57:29 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies]

To: narby
Fester, were you the creationist that insisted that the dictionary definition of "Theory" was "a guess"?

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.

1,004 posted on 08/02/2005 5:59:13 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
the artful exploitation by evolutionists of those who have opposing viewpoints.

It is not artful, it is just plain talk in exposing these idiotic posts.

1,005 posted on 08/02/2005 6:06:57 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies]

To: narby

No fair. I wasn't looking.


1,006 posted on 08/02/2005 6:09:39 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1000 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

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?


1,007 posted on 08/02/2005 6:11:45 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

Why are you pinging me ?
Please refrain.
Thanks !


1,008 posted on 08/02/2005 6:17:58 PM PDT by Selkie (All pung'd out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 995 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Which is it?

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.

1,009 posted on 08/02/2005 6:22:15 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1007 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
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."

Thank you, WJC.

1,010 posted on 08/02/2005 6:25:07 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1009 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Yes I am...Faith alone.

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.

1,011 posted on 08/02/2005 6:29:56 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 985 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"The fact is, science operates in terms of observable, repeatable experiments to back up its claims. What happened 4.5 billion years ago ipso facto does not qualify as science, but as history and/or philosophy."

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.

1,012 posted on 08/02/2005 6:31:07 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Your inability to think logically and process information has been noted.

You should perhaps hit the books, learn a little about critical thinking, learn some science and most importantly learn to debate.

First lesson. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive). Attacking the person rather than the argument. Used when no response is available for the actual argument.

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.

1,013 posted on 08/02/2005 6:32:03 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 982 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

I know, but these creationists drive me nuts with their stubborn idiocy.. its like arguing with Kindergarten kids over Toffee.


1,014 posted on 08/02/2005 6:37:57 PM PDT by Analog Artist (My thoughts are like silvery liquid metal floating through infinite white space in zero gravity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 952 | View Replies]

To: pby
Yes I am...Faith alone.

Sorry. Faith alone will not get you very far in the Catholic Church.

1,015 posted on 08/02/2005 6:41:08 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1011 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Perhaps you should have stated it that way instead of, however unintentionally, bringing in Nazism.
1,016 posted on 08/02/2005 6:41:10 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 995 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I was not referencing the Catholic Church when I made my statement relative to Christian denominations.

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?

1,017 posted on 08/02/2005 6:42:45 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 987 | View Replies]

To: pby

I notice that you exclude Catholics from your list of Christians.


1,018 posted on 08/02/2005 6:43:00 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1011 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"What is disgusting here - and very telling - is the artful exploitation by evolutionists of those who have opposing viewpoints. It seems that the well known criticisms of Darwinists - that they are egomaniacs and absolutists - is probably true. "

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.

1,019 posted on 08/02/2005 6:47:19 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies]

To: Selkie

Your name was pinged to me. So go bother the person responsible.


1,020 posted on 08/02/2005 6:47:37 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 981-1,0001,001-1,0201,021-1,040 ... 1,781-1,792 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson