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.
And how is that NOT true?
Truth hurts?
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
The difference between Darwin and God:
Darwin could not control who people twisted his ideas, God mastermind whole races to slavery.
Friend,
As one sinner to another, let me say that God loves us both. He gave his Son that whoever places his faith in Him to save them will have everlasting life.
I placed my faith in my Savior years ago, and even though I still sin, I am counting on Him to give me everlasting life as He promised.
I don't say this to convince anyone one way or another about evolution; I never argue about that.
Just know God loves you and wants to spare all of us from hell.
SD
show me some truth and I will let you know.
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
He only promised an elect few and I think the openings are already filled. Sorry.
Nice God you have ... From God to the Bible to Slavery.
"Tracing the continuum between racial apartheid and the southern ruling class's exaggerated sense of honor, between the curse of Noah and the Confederate flags that still wave over some state capitols, Stephen R. Haynes here makes the compelling case that the Bible is in fact one of the foundational texts of American slavery."
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER:
EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
by
Richard Weikart
Dustjacket blurb:
In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.
Maybe. He may belong in a comparative religions or religious studies classroom. God does not belong in a science class.
I'll give you a quick rundown as to why.
Science has a specific sequence of procedures, depending on the field. In a very general sense, science follows the sequence I'll give here. Some sciences cannot follow it precisely, some add, some subtract, but vary as little as possible.
Science first observes some phenomenon that needs explaining.
It then makes observations related to the causes of that phenomenon and puts together a number of best guesses as to the cause. For good measure a few implausible but possible guesses are also thrown into the mix.
For each of these guesses, or possibilities, tests are determined that would disprove it as an explanation for the phenomenon. This is where God (or anything supernatural) as an explanation first causes problems. If you haven't guessed yet, these best guesses are the foundation of a theory:hypotheses.
The tests are performed, and one by one the hypotheses are falsified. If a modification of the hypothesis makes the falsification questionable, the hypothesis is modified, tests are developed and run. If the hypothesis fails in a big way and there is no hope of rescue by modification it is set aside. Future findings may resurrect it at a later time but it still goes through the process of testing at that time. Within the tests, even for evolution, statistical analysis and the ability to predict are major evaluation points.
In the end, we have a theory built of a number of hypotheses that we were unable to falsify. None have been proved as such, just have passed tests of falsification. The theory must also cover more than just the observed phenomenon, it must hold true for other predicted phenomena.
This is part and parcel of science, falsifiability is necessary to reduce the number of possible explanations to a few that have a confidence level that is beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can see that with an explanation such as God who can be blamed for any cause or effect, none of the original hypotheses would be falsifiable. In fact we could come up with any number of ridiculous, improbable hypotheses we wanted and not be able to eliminate any of them.
That, in a nut shell, is why God does not belong in the science class. Remember, however, that this is an overly simplified version of what really happens.
If there are any scientists out there that would like to correct me, please do so. Gently.
Which God? And which classroom?
The ancient rabbis suggested that every biblical text has seventy legitimate meanings (and no doubt an infinite number of illegitimate ones). Stephen Haynes has produced an amazing history of interpretation of the Ham and Nimrod narratives. It becomes clear through his careful research that such texts are supple and vulnerable to misguided theological passion. This book lets us reflect on old mistakes and, by inference, invites us to reflect on our own availability for parallel misreadings. Noah's curse is an exercise in historical disclosure not to be missed by those who care about the crisis of reading in the church and in a Bible-rooted culture.
--Walter Brueggemann,
""Whosover will, come."
I'm not trying to contend with you on an internet forum (which is sort of adversarial by design) and will leave you alone now.
Just know that the door is open, and God is willing to accept you, warts and all, (just like he did me) right now.
Take care.
SD
"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."
That isn't true. Its just that those that have been accepted have nothing to do with the supernatural...for a reason.
I knew I was leaving part of it out.
Thanks. Excellent information.
16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
;-)
I'm not trying to argue you into heaven.
Just hope to see you there. You have NO IDEA how much God loves you.
Take care.
:-)))
"Scientists who go about teaching evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
Dr. T.N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in 'The Fresno Bee', August 10, 1959. As quoted by N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title page.
And you sir, have no idea what I think and I resent your condescending attitude.
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.