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 ... 1,721-1,7401,741-1,7601,761-1,7801,781-1,792 last
To: spunkets; Alamo-Girl; Doctor Stochastic; marron; PatrickHenry
The fifth only appears to unite EM, gravity and account for most of the particles in the std model. This 5d construction results in mass appearing in the 4d space, unites EM and gravity and accounts for most of the particles in the std model with limits of... =>

Well gee, spunkets, I'd be pretty impressed if that's all (!!!) it could do.... Why so blase about it?

You wrote:

It's ~10/11d string theory, w, or w/o supersym. I think 26d is required to account for all the particles. Some fermions are missing with 10/11d.

What I'm about to say isn't exactly a "scientific observation" at all; but here goes anyway.

Things that are overly complicated are usually not beautiful. Beauty is spare, elegant, and above all truthful and just. Beauty is a beacon for the human mind. Coming up with one dimension per particle seems like a case of nature doing it the hard way, a tad kludgy to me. It just seems too complicated to be beautiful, in any classical sense.... There are mathematicians who believe that if the mathematics isn't beautiful, then it's probably not truthful either. Einstein, Dirac, Godel come to mind here....

Hey, FWIW. it's late; I'm tired; and I wish you a very good night, spunkets. Thank you so much for writing!

1,781 posted on 08/07/2005 9:39:32 PM PDT by betty boop (Nature loves to hide. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1776 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

;^)


1,782 posted on 08/08/2005 5:43:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1769 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Indeed, the word "myth" has morphed over the years to mean something unseemly.

The folks at Bedrock would agree.

"Gay ol' time indeed!

1,783 posted on 08/08/2005 5:44:16 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1771 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
It's amusing (if not dangerous) to follow the money.

I agree. Interesting that any scientist that dares to question the theory of evolution is 'punished' by withholding grant money from him/her. Following the money can tell you many things.

1,784 posted on 08/08/2005 5:48:00 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1748 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Interesting that any scientist that dares to question the theory of evolution is 'punished' by withholding grant money from him/her.

Absolute false. I've worked in these fields and no such thing happens.

You might want to look at the funding of Discovery Institute though.

1,785 posted on 08/08/2005 6:34:32 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1784 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Things that are overly complicated are usually not beautiful. Beauty is spare, elegant, and above all truthful and just. Beauty is a beacon for the human mind. Coming up with one dimension per particle seems like a case of nature doing it the hard way, a tad kludgy to me. It just seems too complicated to be beautiful, in any classical sense.... There are mathematicians who believe that if the mathematics isn't beautiful, then it's probably not truthful either. Einstein, Dirac, Godel come to mind here....

Very well said. Thank you!!!

1,786 posted on 08/08/2005 6:37:10 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1781 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Er, I didn't get your point. Would you care to explain further?
1,787 posted on 08/08/2005 6:38:10 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1783 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Absolute false. I've worked in these fields and no such thing happens.

LOL!

Sure. Of course. Right.

::::Snicker::::

1,788 posted on 08/08/2005 9:14:14 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1785 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

It's how the usage of words change over time.

Bedrock (Barney & Wilma) of Flintstone fame, singing the theme song.

Gay used to be happy, joyful, giddy: NOW look at it's major usage!


The musical WestSideStory has even had the lines changed from gay to bright (to rhyme with night instead of day) in it's song : I Feel Pretty


1,789 posted on 08/08/2005 1:36:56 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1787 | View Replies]

P L A C E M A R K E R
1,790 posted on 08/08/2005 2:21:59 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1789 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Snickering-stooge placemarker.


1,791 posted on 08/08/2005 7:36:41 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1790 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Ahhh. Thank you so much for the explanation!
1,792 posted on 08/08/2005 8:50:38 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1789 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,721-1,7401,741-1,7601,761-1,7801,781-1,792 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