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.
You have shown no desire for discussion and dialog. Please start.
Actually evolutionists here sound pretty absolute. It's the creationists who are willing to allow all theories in the classroom.
Yes. And tests of physics do well to explain the universe as we know it today. They are not necessarily reliable in determining the course of unobserved, unrecorded history, no matter how much you feel to the contrary. You say the physics are "the same." But you do not know if they were the same 10,000 years ago. You only assume as much.
You think ignorance is an ad hominum?
No. I think accusations of willful ignorance are ad hominem, such as when you asserted that I "don't even try to know to attempt understanding." The "fundamentals" you hold so dear, and declare me to be so ignorant of, involve assumptions that are not scientifically accessible. Deal with it.
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.
I reckon you would deny Einstein a say had you lived a century before he was born. You would also say the Periodic Table of Elements is incapable of expansion. Frankly, in asserting the above, you reveal your own ignorance as to the purpose and scope of science.
But it sounds good. The laws of physics operate as they were designed, albeit to a lesser degree than originally intended. That is to say they are fading, but nevertheless demonstrate order. They are certainly within the realm of scientific endeavor. Evolutionism makes extrapolations that, while on the surface may be reasonable, are simply outside the realm of science. Deal with it.
Catholics are not Christians?
That would exclude creationism and ID from the discussion.
You haven't even begun to argue. All you've done is soil your verbal trousers all over this thread. I expect you will continue to do so without regard to either common sense or decency. Such is your lot.
I am not in the mood to argue with absolutists like evolutionists. Dialogue is impossible with people who actively suppress anything other than their narrow views.
That would exclude creationism and ID from the discussion
I can only assume that some are and some are not.
"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. "
It looks from that site that moral science is the study of morals. Your use of the term implied science done according to some standard of moral behavior. If these are supposed to be the same, I'm sure you'll connect the dots for us.
First lesson. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive). Attacking the person rather than the argument
I assume nothing. Regarding the laws of physics, I told you, that I can look back ~5B yrs ago and beyond. Why did you ignore that and make the above claim? Do you realize you're making claims about what you know nothing about?
Only after awarding scientific diplomas to monkeys has been outlawed.
You decided that the set of theories would be included. That excludes creationism and ID.
Again with the unfounded assertion. Back those babies up. You must have evidence that 'evolutionists' will not allow other theories into the classroom.You must also have evidence that Christian Science has a theory to present in the classroom. I have no doubt you have evidence that ID has a theory that can be presented in the classroom.
Show me the money!
YOu could say the same about Baptists but you included them on your list. I think you just blew it and are trying to wordsmith your way out of it, WJC.
Because you cannot make such a claim with any certitude. You can only do so by making a number of assumptions and hoping you are correct. It is you who are "making claims about what you know nothing about." Whatever you have as a compass for determing what is worthy of acceptation, it is no more worthy of scientific consideration than the Koran.
Evolutionists have publicly and loudly denounced anything to do with theories of human development other than those steeped in Darwinian cult theory.
My concern is with their arrogance and unwillingness to look outside the box. They are stuck in the Enlightment of the 18th century and can't see past their Darwinian noses.
No 'evolutionist' here has suppressed your or any other anti-evolutionist's views or ideas. All we ask for is evidence to back up your claims. That is not suppression.
Your attitude is less antagonistic than earlier. Now may be the time to give us an indication of what information you base your conclusions on. Up to you.
Just for information sake, all the presenters of new hypotheses in evolution have gone through tougher cross examinations than anyone here has, including creationists.
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.