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 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 1,781-1,792 next last
To: Selkie; Dimensio
Where did you learn about logic? You need to demand a refund.

"Personal attacks."

"How original."

D's use of ad hom was because of frustration with your inability to differentiate between anti-God and anti-creationist assertions. If you would parse the posts you linked to a little more closely without letting your prejudice influence your view of them, you would see them for what they are.

901 posted on 08/02/2005 11:05:46 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Monotheism (whether directed at a god or the state) is the single most destructive meme to have ever developed.

About that CHAT you have daily:

Who you talkin' to???

902 posted on 08/02/2005 11:06:32 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 844 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
If I've missed it, please point it out.

The 800# gorilla is not invisible: just ignored.

903 posted on 08/02/2005 11:07:41 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
There's also lots of 'sheep' references in the Bible.
 
 
Yup - sure are.
 
John 10
 
 1.  "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
 2.  The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep.
 3.  The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
 4.  When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.
 5.  But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
 6.  Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
 
And not much has changed.

904 posted on 08/02/2005 11:13:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I never said I didn't accept monotheism. I just said the concept was deadly. Methinks you read far too much into what I write than is actually there.


905 posted on 08/02/2005 11:15:55 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
"A lot of science teachers think that Dawkins is speaking science when he is actually speaking scientism."

This is simply incorrect. Dawkins is speaking science, there is no such thing as scientism. If you want to deride his journalism, do so based on his atheism. He is an atheist that approaches science on that basis. However it does not cause him to misrepresent the science he is communicating.

"The problem is that they accept they idea that the only "science" that is knowable is that contained in the categories explored by the scientific method. That is a dubious proposition.

Science is the scientific method, anything else is something other than science. If you believe otherwise, give an example.

"Huge chunks of human experience cannot be dealt with by the scientific method."

Of course. Science does not pretend to deal with many human experiences.

906 posted on 08/02/2005 11:18:28 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

huh?


907 posted on 08/02/2005 11:19:25 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith; Selkie

I agree.


908 posted on 08/02/2005 11:19:45 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Again could you point to some material evidence? If you can't provide any then please retract the claim.


909 posted on 08/02/2005 11:20:08 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 903 | View Replies]

To: narby
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.

Nice turn of phrase:



NIV Daniel 5:4-9
 4.  As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.
 5.  Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote.
 6.  His face turned pale and he was so frightened that his knees knocked together and his legs gave way.
 7.  The king called out for the enchanters, astrologers  and diviners to be brought and said to these wise men of Babylon, "Whoever reads this writing and tells me what it means will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around his neck, and he will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom."
 8.  Then all the king's wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king what it meant.
 9.  So King Belshazzar became even more terrified and his face grew more pale. His nobles were baffled.

910 posted on 08/02/2005 11:23:48 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I just said the concept was deadly.

YOU tell Jehovah that, then!

911 posted on 08/02/2005 11:26:10 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

You've no doubt come across the verses in Romans before, so I won't repeat them here.

You'd probably STILL say, "WHAT evidence?"


912 posted on 08/02/2005 11:28:24 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
"Can't absolve Darwin from the impulse that gave rise to eugenics. Just look at some of the language of the Descent of Man, not to speak of the personal relationship with the founder of the eugenics movement."

Guilt by association? Darwin did not endorse eugenics; neither is he responsible for what others do with his words. Do you blame the inventors of guns for the use terrorists put them to? Or explosives?

I would be interested in any quotes you may have from Darwin that shows he was promoting eugenics.

913 posted on 08/02/2005 11:29:34 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Oh, I'm sure He knows.

I should have said "abuse of the concept is deadly." Think for a minute -- oxygen can be dangerous, too. Monotheism reinforces a streak of xenophobia not found in polytheistic religions.

Also, it is apparent from the early books of the OT that the Hebrews considered there might actually be other gods, but that none of them measured up to their particular diety. It is quite possible this is the case even today.

914 posted on 08/02/2005 11:29:56 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 911 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
There are two problems with your analogy. One, there is no conflict between your note and the mess in the bedroom. Only if you utterly ignore the existence of the note will the evidence be subject to misinterpretation. These threads alone demonstrate that the dilemma presented by "Genesis vs. the physical evidence" involves an express acknowledgment of both by a great many folks, and that it is the apparent conflict between the "note" and the evidence that is the source of contention.

The second problem is that the evidence presented in your analogy is, by your own pretext, subject to a perfectly reasonable alternative interpretation, to wit, you are in the process of cleaning (as you said, "[f]irst stage in cleaning often is total demolition.") To interpret the evidence otherwise is to deliberately misconstrue your motivations and wrongly assume the worst of you without justification (assuming that you are not, in fact, in the habit of making a mess without reason).

This second problem with your analogy demonstrates as well (1) the dangers of preconceptions when construing physical evidence, (2) the need to construe physical evidence in a manner consonant with known facts that are external to the evidentiary site itself, and (3) the need to weigh reasonable alternatives when they are presented by the evidence.

And therein lies the rub. What preconceptions are we bringing to the evidence of evolution; are we construing that evidence in a vacuum or with due consideration of other known facts; and what are the reasonable alternative interpretations of the evidence?

915 posted on 08/02/2005 11:39:34 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 883 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Also, it is apparent from the early books of the OT that the Hebrews considered there might actually be other gods, but that none of them measured up to their particular diety. It is quite possible this is the case even today.


Winner takes all!

916 posted on 08/02/2005 11:40:53 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; friendly; Michael_Michaelangelo; Dimensio; PatrickHenry; Ichneumon
"...there are MANY conservative, educated, SCIENTISTS who believe in the creation concept. ..

Like this guy:

Dr.Francis S. Collins, physician, geneticist, and Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at NIH (National Institutes of Health)

The problem is, Dr Collins has no problem with evolution. He believes that evolution and faith can be reconciled.

The summary from an interview with NPR says: A quick glance at Francis Collins' reading list reveals that the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute is fascinated by the points at which science intersects religion -- specifically, Christianity. One book examines similarities between Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis. Another tries to reconcile belief in God with belief in evolution.

Can a person believe equally in both? "I firmly believe you can," says this man of deep faith who also has a reputation as one of the world's top scientific minds.

Do a find on "evolution" in here and you'll find Dr. Collins referencing how "junk" DNA was treated by evolution. The inference there is that evolution is a given, and not in question.

Dr. Collins was *NOT* one of the signators to the Discovery Institute's infamous "Scientific Dissent from Darwininsm"

I would expect that any further references to Dr. Collins list him as being a firm believer in both God and Evolution. But I won't count on it.

917 posted on 08/02/2005 11:41:05 AM PDT by narby (There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Surtur
" In that mega-dump posting earlier in this thread, all of that information was impressive, but not even the author can state that his assertions are true based on observable evidence while his supposition was occurring."

What makes you believe that theories are only valid in the presence of, or that the scientific method exclusively relies on, observed phenomena? Science is based on our human ability to see patterns and extrapolate data as well as other deductive and inductive reasoning.

"A theory is taught as one of many interpretations. If there are no alternatives supplied within a source material, then one must conclude that the only material supplied is factual, not theoretical.

Only if considered without critical thinking skills. Further, if you make that kind of inference, it is evidence of poor understanding of science and its methodology.

918 posted on 08/02/2005 11:43:15 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: Selkie

You are trying to be fair. But if your opinion is based on incorrect data, your premises and conclusions may not be worth arguing with.


919 posted on 08/02/2005 11:46:04 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: narby

Excellent rebuttal. But it will have no effect on the 'noids. Nothing ever does.


920 posted on 08/02/2005 11:46:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 1,781-1,792 next 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