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.

[trisham]

You do know that Krauthammer is an MD don't you?

***************

Thank you for the information. I didn't know that.

And your point is?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Have faith, Christians will evolve and they will rationalize and accept evolution."

LOL.

[BenLurkin]

Look.

I know that I should read all of that if I am going to reply to it. But I simply don't have enough time.

Frankly I'm not sure why you pinged me with the post, though for the work it took I can't blame you that you wanted as many people as possible to see it. It appears to be a thorough presentation on evolution theory.

Let's do this though. How about you excerpt some of that into a more digestible morsel. For instance, something that demonstrates unequivocally that similarities between species are more than just -- well similarities.

(I understand that God created birds and dinosaurs to have some features in common and that the theory of evolution is largely built around such similarities in the fossil record.)

[Zeroisanumber]

I love it when you bring out that post. I love it even more when the Crevos try to ignore it, or just slink off muttering about "no proof, no proof at all!"

I never remembered to say thank you for it before. Thanks, thanks a million.

[Junior]

So I take it you don't wish to discuss the points of the post, or even the article. Consider yourself on Virtual Ignore from here on out.

[highball]

The Evolution THEORY is just that, stop teaching it as rote fact and I do not have near the problem with it.

If that's the level of your understanding of the scientific meaning of the word "theory," then I can certainly understand your confusion.

You're confusing common useage with the different meaning when used in a scientific context. Don't feel bad, this is a very common error.

[Rockingham]

Krauthammer has misunderstood the evolution issue and Catholic faith and teaching. Evolution, whether in Darwinian or other terms, is not the problem. Rather, the issue is the assertion that evolution in any sense proves scientific materialism and disproves the existence of God or of Christianity as a faith.

When pressed, mainstream scientists necessarily concede that evolution makes no such claims, but atheists commonly do, especially atheists who are scientists. Why should it surprise or alarm anyone that a Catholic prelate should object to the teaching of evolution as scientific proof of materialism and atheism? And especially so when evolution is is taught to Catholic schoolchildren in that fashion?

As a Catholic with great respect for Judaism and Jews, I nevertheless have come to suspect that Krauthammer and many Jews have a profound difficulty in recognizing the full dimensions of evolution as an issue for Christians and the dangers of letting evolution be taught in public schools as if it supports materialism and atheism. When Jews become materialists and atheists, they still remain Jews and tend to remain within the embrace of Judaism's mostly wise and humane culture.

When Christians become atheists, they tend to turn to alternative outlets for the innate human religious impulse: radical leftism; New Age Mysticism; extreme nationalism; and notoriously toxic ideologies, such as Nazism and communism. As the old warning goes: deserted altars do not long remain vacant -- they become occupied by demons.

The sincerity and fervor of Christian fundamentalists can be offputting, their view of evolution is often ill-informed, and their attacks on it tend to be misdirected. But they are utterly correct in the larger strategic sense: evolution as actually taught by an aggressively secular and faith-hostile public school system is a profound danger not just to faith but to our very survival. Genuine science is to the good and poses no conflict with faith, but science perverted through bad teaching into an attack on faith is bad science and offers horrors in its wake.

If one finds fault with or does not follow the above argument, consider the choice in practical terms: even if you agree with evolution in every sense and agree with Krauthammer, if you were in a desperate way and going door to door among strangers for help, would you rather try it among Christian fundamentalists in evolution hostile rural America, or would you prefer to seek help in a tony, faith hostile, evolution friendly urban neighborhood in Blue state America? Ideas have consequences.

[JeffAtlanta]

Well, I guess if volume proved anything, this copious dump of yours would be quite decisive.

What did you think about the first section that was pretty brief but informative on DNA "fossils"? That is VERY strong evidence.

That section has been posted several times over the time that I've visited these threads and I've never seen anyone even try to refute or discredit it. The only thing I've seen written (unless I've missed it) was "nice data dump".

I usually don't like huge posts either, but many people make the same claim over and over that "Evolution has absolutely no evidence supporting it". It was even posted earlier in this thread that common descent of men and apes is based only on some similarities. There is also a group of posters that come into this threads and post very ignorant statements regarding evolution, ignore any posts trying to correct the misconceptions and then just wait for the next thread so that they can post the same ignorant statements again.

I hope my original question isn't lost in all of the commentary. What do you think about the first segment regarding DNA fossils?

[trisham]

I guess your creationist sources sort of "forgot" to inform you about the vast amounts of scientific evidence for evolution when they fed you that line about it being "just" a rationalization, eh?

**************

Are you a scientist, by any chance? You certainly seem well versed on the subject of evolution. I come to these threads from a different direction, but I appreciate your posts.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Consider yourself on Virtual Ignore from here on out."

Whatever, Junior. I still look forward to many more sparkling gems of deductive reasoning from you in the near future.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Never mind all the times scientists remark that such and such an animal "seems to have evolved" with such and such a mechanism "in mind!"

[Zeroisanumber]

So, how long was a "day" for God?

[Tribune7]

And where does he mention the teaching of evolution as justification for religious people to feel threatened?

He doesn't. He just mentions that religious people had a justification to feel threatened.

[JeffAtlanta]

Let's do this though. How about you excerpt some of that into a more digestible morsel. For instance, something that demonstrates unequivocally that similarities between species are more than just -- well similarities.

The very first section on retroviruses and DNA fossils does just that. It is very short (about 5 concise paragraphs) and is VERY strong evidence. It also has nothing at all to do with any physical similarities.

(I understand that God created birds and dinosaurs to have some features in common and that the theory of evolution is largely built around such similarities in the fossil record.)

If you spend about 5 minutes reading the first section on retro viruses that I mentioned above, you will see how your above statement is very inaccurate.

[Zeroisanumber]

Thank you for the information. I didn't know that. And your point is?

Doctors are all biologists of no small talent.

The foundation of all modern biology is the TOE.

Therefore: Krauthammer is not out of his element.

[Tribune7]

Or that the pinnacle of "science" that resulted from a particular sect of ancient goatherders

Francis Bacon -- noted quasi-literate ancient goatherder-- Of Atheism :-)

[b_sharp]

"*reinforcements arrive from the west*"

I left my lariat at home, anyone have a spare one I can borrow? Pretty tough to wrangle these stampeding creationist memes without a proper noose.

[trisham]

Thanks, Dude. I don't necessarily agree, but I loved the movie.

[Zeroisanumber]

When Christians become atheists, they tend to turn to alternative outlets for the innate human religious impulse: radical leftism; New Age Mysticism; extreme nationalism; and notoriously toxic ideologies, such as Nazism and communism. As the old warning goes: deserted altars do not long remain vacant -- they become occupied by demons.

Right, so we stop teaching science because kids might become Nazis if they learn too much and question their religious faith.

[wallcrawlr]

"Consider yourself on Virtual Ignore from here on out."

Reg,
I wish I could get on that list of his.
I'm jealous of you.