Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both

Time Magazine ^ | Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

[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.

[pby]

You have a flawed view of history.

[WildHorseCrash]

No, I was pointing out that the degree to which someone aids another in a rural or religious community vs. in a tony suburb has no more to do with evolution than does the degree of medical care one can expect in Guatemala vs. that in Baltimore.

In other words, the fact that people in rural communities are nice and disbelieve evolution creates a false association that they are nice because they disbelieve evolution. That is no more true than it is to say that hospitals are bad in Guatemala because they disbelieve evolution. That is clearly false. The hospitals are bad there because they are a poor country. That they disbelieve evolution is irrelevant, as it is to the question of whether someone will help another.

[BibChr]

There's a lot of sense in what you say, and I agree that God doesn't put misleading clues in creation. But I think that if we're misled, because we set aside His testimony, we have only ourselves to blame.

Suppose I decide to clean my wife's and my bedroom. First stage in cleaning often is total demolition. So I get just far enough that I've pulled everything apart, and then I get called away to something urgent. I close the bedroom door and leave a note on the door saying, "Honey, I know it looks like trash, but I'm in the middle of cleaning. I'll finish it up with I get back. Love, Dan."

Then further suppose that my wife arrives, reads my note, walks into the bedroom, and blows her stack. Then, when I get home, she reads me the riot act for being so thoughtless and irresponsible and selfish as to tear the whole bedroom apart for no reason, and just leave it for her to clean up.

Whose fault would her explosion be? And what would it say? If she concluded that I was selfish and abusive, is it because I left misleading clues? Or did I not myself leave a framework for understanding the OTHERWISE-misleading clues? Are they not only misleading if my explicit word is ignored?

God says explicitly that He created everything in a six-day timeframe, and more recently than billions of years ago. The approach the modern materialistic priesthood takes says in effect, "OK, forget that, and assume that all processes have always played out just as we see them today, and -- hey, look! We come up with different conclusions!"

Ignore the note, screw up the interpretation -- and don't blame the note-writer.

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG

[malakhi]

Any other implications in there? How does that suffice as an answer to a question about where the original matter for the Universe came from? I understand what you are saying, but I don't get the connection.

Perhaps this had something to do with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

[Al Simmons]

*PHEW* It was a bit late and I'm glad you didn't take the bait.

Thanks.

Al

[narby]

Like this guy: Dr.Francis S. Collins, physician, geneticist

So what's this guy's problem. Can't even someone of his stature write a paper against evolution and get it published?

Here's a link to his recommended reading, "Mere Christianity". Quite obviously he's allowed his religion to override his science.

Ironically, Ichneumon's fantastic posts examining identical viral gene "scars" in the DNA of primates and humans were apparently based on Dr. Collins' work. Sad he apparently paid no attention to what his work produced. Or perhaps he'd like to disavow it?

[narby]

I have an education thank you very much. I also know the difference between a THEORY and a FACT, and evolution is only a THEORY. Yet every current textbook teaches it as if it were fact. The fact that you disagree with my statement does not give you the right to question my intelligence nor my integrity.

Obviously your "education" is flawed. If you don't understand what a scientific "theory" is in the first place, then you have no business critiquing the Theory of Evolution.

By the way, evolution, for all practical purposes has also been established as a "fact". Which is quite a different thing from evolution "theory".

When you know the difference between those two things, talk to me.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The trouble with Darwin is that it's a relatively easy theory to understand.

Then why do most creationists describe it incorrectly?

[Gumlegs]

So, you and me and Gummy form our own 3 Stooges?

Why do I get the feeling I'll be Joe Besser?

[narby]

Behold the belligerent ignorance of the creationists: They don't know the first thing about biology, and don't have a clue about any of the research, but by gosh, they don't *have* to, because they presume that no one else really does either. It's all just made up, don'tcha know.

Ichneumon, you da man ... (I assume male).

I rarely spell your screen name right, but you still da man.

[Doctor Stochastic]

LIX.

The Grape that can with Logic absolute
The Two-and-Seventy jarring Sects confute:
The sovereign Alchemist that in a trice
Life's leaden metal into Gold transmute;


LX.

The mighty Mahmud, Allah-breathing Lord,
That all the misbelieving and black Horde
Of Fears and Sorrows that infest the Soul
Scatters before him with his whirlwind Sword.


LXI.

Why, be this Juice the growth of God, who dare
Blaspheme the twisted tendril as a Snare?
A Blessing, we should use it, should we not?
And if a Curse--why, then, Who set it there?

--Omar & Fitzgerald

[Doctor Stochastic]

...nor did Solomon have strength through his long hair...

Nor does long hair confer wisdom, either. (Maybe it does get one many wives and concubines, though.)

[MEGoody]

Belief has nothing to do with it.

Sure it does. You find 'sources' that provide information to support your views, and others do the same.

[Junior]

My source specifically points out that a number of the "signers" have since rescinded their signatures. It also points out the question posed to the signers was not the same their names appeared under later.

You were on the OJ jury, weren't you?

[narby]

The "church" has held to a six literal day interpretation for hundreds of years (in accordance with creeds and confessions that I informed you of previously). It is not new...you just keep repeating that inaccuracy post after post.

I can see why the more serious evolution posters just never engage hard core creationists in dialog.

We've discussed this before.

1) There is no "church". There are lots of churches. All of them claim to be "the" church, but that claim is laughable on its face.

2) There was an effort among many Christian denominations in the 20's-40's to reconcile with science. They no doubt read the writing on the wall that if they did not, they would be marginalized away from their then current status of virtual 100% acceptance in the population. Or at least the respect of virtually 100% of the population.

3) The "Creation Science" movement in the 70's, and the current "ID" movement is *New*. It broke with the attempt at reconciliation with science that had been going on in previous decades. Maybe your church never reconciled with science in those years, but as in point 1) above, there is no single "church". One can only speak of the majority of churches.

I have not been repeating an "inaccuracy". As far as I'm concerned, I'm correct, but we disagree. Since the judgment on this issue is subjective, such words accusing me of "inaccuracy" are over the top. And in my opinion, un-Christian.

[MEGoody]

My source specifically points out that a number of the "signers" have since rescinded their signatures.

And other sources say otherwise. Point is, you are going to believe what you want.

You were on the OJ jury, weren't you?

Irrelevant to this post, however, it does lend itself to proving other points I've made in other posts. :)

[b_sharp]

I also looked at your first to links.

They may be construed as anti-creationist, but they are hardly anti-God.

[LucyJo]

The criterion for truth is much higher. May we all aspire to it.

[durasell]

The trouble with Darwin is that it's a relatively easy theory to understand.
Then why do most creationists describe it incorrectly?


Wait until they get ahold of qunatum physics and learn that time and space aren't constants -- that at the sub-atomic level the things they took for granted are pretty screwed up.

[b_sharp]

"Odd, but I seldom hear the same generous standard applied to Christianity.

My comment was a simple statement that guilt by association can not be used logically in an argument. Anything more and the inference is yours. I have never initiated this type of logical fallacy in any debate.

"The problem with evolution is not its application in the rarefied precincts of the experts, but the vulgar concept of evolution taught and advocated as a disproof of Christian faith. Except for such overreaching, evolution would not be an issue with the public or with Christians.

This has nothing to do with my post.

I have heard this claimed by anti-evolutionists many times but have seen no evidence for it outside the minds of anti-evolutionists. Evolution may be used by atheists to promote their agenda but as stated before this is a reflection on their ethics not evolution. I am an atheist and know that if I desired to I could use many more disciplines of science to debunk religion. I choose not to, but I do use them to debunk anti-evolutionist claims against evolution. If this is what you consider an advocation of the use of evolution to disprove Christianity, you have misunderstood it.

Christians have fallen prey to the manipulations of zealous anti-evolutionists whose only talent is concocting convincing lies.