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.
"Interesting. I didn't realize that Christians were so Islamic in their outlook regarding religion in every facet of life. How do you integrate the "Render unto Caesar..." part"
You posted this, right? So saying I'm Islamic in my outlook isn't insulting me?
Reason is to the good, but it can be misapplied, especially when allied with grave personal, cultural, or moral and philosophical faults. The great question of human life is what happens when we die? In the end, that is answerable in life only through faith and reason, but not the pure reason of science.
Using vulgarity and insults to defend your insult of Christians being Islamic--how original.
The old Chinese proverb "that all trouble comes from the mouth" merits a modern corollary, that for the Internet, "all trouble comes from the keyboard."
From this, and from your other definitions, it would seem to follow that the notion of biological history entailing amoeba to man evolution does not qualify as a theory. Evolutionism in general is too willing to entertain as fact what are only educated guesses.
Take a look at "War Against the Weak." It offers a far more sound and grounded explanation of Nazi ideology and practice than reading Martin Luther at his worst, written centuries before.
Even the rocks cry out? That is a passage in the bible - that is not material evidence. I am not saying that lack of material evidence invalidates the existence of God. I am saying that it is a matter of faith and therefore is not science.
Jesus also took Genesis as literal as evidenced in the New Testament.
If you are not aware, Christian denominations accept that there is a "universal church", existing of true believers, outside the "walls" of their particular denomination. It was this universal "church" that I was referring to.
But, whether you are speaking of denominations or the universal church, the truth applies...both groups held to a literal Genesis interpretation hundreds of years prior to the rise of fundamentalism in the 20's and the 70's creationism (as you speak of it).
You have been speaking an inaccuracy...whether you admit it or not.
As for my church...It is non-denominational and open to your presence at any time.
And the "church" has been forced to take a more vocal stance on the issue, since the 20's when evolutionists, athiests, naturalists and etc. attacked Scripture through their interpretation of the scientific evidence. This is a natural reaction as Christians are commanded to contend for the Faith and pastors are required to protect and feed the flock.
So what if some churches have, in the past, attempted to "reconcile with science" by accepting evolution. Some churches have also attempted to reconcile with homosexuality, and some with radical feminism and some with these and other unbiblical stances...The standard is Scripture; Not what other churches do.
As demonstrated by previous posts (especially the post in which you stated that the "unforgiveable sin" involved not keeping people uneducated), you are ignorant of church history,of Biblical doctrines and of Scripture...yet you still speak of them as you have some knowledge beyond "a church pamphlet that was given to you at a Southern Baptist camp in the 70's".
If you were a creationist on this site and communicated your positions in such manner, history proves that you would have been dealt with in a much less graceless manner.
You are either deceived, a deceiver, and/or both.
My restraint to your attacks on Scripture and Christianity demonstrates grace, not a lack of it.
""Of course they are - vehemently."
"Read the thread. Anyone who dares to question the theory of evolution is showered with shrill vitriol rather than being treated with respect while the questions are answered."
You seem to be bypassing all the posts on these threads that provide information and debunking without any requirement that the questions not be asked.
As I scroll through the posts, what I find are two groups of anti-evolutionist questions, one group containing questions that are open and rational and are willingly answered by the Evos, generally with evidence to back their answer.
The other group consists of questions that have been answered and debunked many many times before. There are some, myself included, that get frustrated at having to answer the same questions put forward by the same posters time after time and do get a little testy with the answers.
Additionally, there is another category of anti-evolution posts that can not, and should not, be considered questions at all, but are simply assertions that evolution is 'wrong' or 'anti-christian' or a pile of lies. These posts are responded to in kind.
Since your post claims that anti-evolutionist questions were not only not being answered but actually being repressed, this is the assertion I addressed. There is also an implication in your post that the reasons questions are being repressed is some dishonesty on the part of either FR Evos or the scientific community. Since I can find no evidence of that in this thread, and remember other threads as similar in nature to this one, I can only conclude you are wrong.
Now to deal with the equivocation you used in this last thread. You are now talking about questioning evolution rather than asking questions about evolution.
Now there are a few ways we can interpret the word 'question'. One way would be view it as asking questions about. This has been dealt with above.
A second way of viewing the word is as a synonym for 'doubt'. This is probably what you meant in this last post. If I am wrong I'm sure you will correct me.
If an anti-evolutionist sincerely expresses doubt in the ToE, the only thing I have witnessed is those posts being answered with evidence and (generally)patience. There is no repression of anyone asking for clarification or expressing doubt. If however, the poster expresses his/her doubt with sarcasm or anger, most Evos will again, respond in kind. This response is not a repression of the doubt, but a reaction to the manner the doubt was expressed.
There is even a third way we can interpret the word 'question'. It can be seen as a poster questioning (usually unfounded) the intentions and ethics of science, FR posters or even of evolution itself. If any repression of anti-evolutionists is done, it is done when posters use 'question' in this manner. There is no other way to deal with posts containing attacks against the morals of those that consider themselves proponents of evolution.
Unless you are claiming that this reaction is the same as repression of either questions about evolution, or the other interpretations of 'questioning' evolution, you are again wrong. If you areclaiming equivalence between them then you are being less than honest with yourself.
It sounds like your beef is with atheists rather than science or how it is taught. For the record, as an atheist, I do not agree with using evolution to browbeat religious people.
If I did, my wife would kill me.;)
I noticed that. I thought it was meant to be.
Yes. And each denomination thinks THEY are the universal church, and everyone else isn't. The Southern Baptists Preachers when I was a kid claimed to have lineages going back to St. Peter, but thought that the Catholics didn't have any such claim. And vice versa.
But, whether you are speaking of denominations or the universal church, the truth applies...both groups held to a literal Genesis interpretation hundreds of years prior to the rise of fundamentalism in the 20's and the 70's creationism (as you speak of it).
"Both" groups? Not with those hundreds of denominations you can't claim just two groups. The effort with printed religious tracts to convince Christian churches to reconcile their belief with science began in the 20's. How many churches did so I have no idea, but the Southern Baptists (the largest denomination in America) that I was a member of had.
During the Scopes trial, there were anti-evolution groups. But the Southern Baptist Church I grew up in the 60's/70's was reconciled with science (or at least didn't argue against it). As was my sainted Grandmother, who was not scientifically literate, yet spoke no ill toward science as today's Christians are doing. She reserved her antagonism for Catholics.
The fact is that there was an affirmative campaign to rediscover literal Genesis in the 70's with the "Creation Scientists". And now with the IDers.
Deny what I witnessed if you want. It will only harden my opinion that every religious person believes *they* are correct, and everyone else is wrong.
My Grandmother was against Catholics. Today's Christians are against science. The bottom line is they're *right* and everyone else is wrong.
I will wager you $100, and give you 10:1 odds, that you can't find a single public high school text in current use in the US that treats Piltdown or Nebraska man as 100% true examples of evolution.
So we've got a bet, right? I'd hate to think you were the kind of guy who wouldn't put his money where his mouth is.
Mengele was a human.
So are you.
There's no such thing as "evolutionism". Evoluiton is a grand theory, composed of a mutitude of well supported theories. The "educated guesses" are hypothesis regarding particular details. The standing of the theory of evolution itself, does not depend on any of those particular details. That holds regardless of whether, or not, there's a hypothesis connected to the particular element.
IOWs the theory applies to the set. What's known about any of the details within the set is irrelevant as far as the set's concerned, because the set is open.
You do know that Krauthammer is an MD don't you?
I think he's right in his element. A well spoken conservative that knows his science.
Your argument is with the dictionary. Look it up. It exists.
Evolution is a grand theory, composed of a mutitude of well supported theories.
It does not even merit "well-supported theories." Well supported theories are based upon more than educated guesses about history.
The "educated guesses" are hypothesis regarding particular details.
Fine. They should be presented as such, and taught as such in schools.
The standing of the theory of evolution itself, does not depend on any of those particular details.
If evolutionism wants to present itself as "science" in public schools, then it ought have more than a collection of educated guesses in its favor. It does not. The word "theory" is abused when placed along side the word "evolution" when used to support the notion that man is a derivative of an undesigned, unguided combination of matter beginning with the simplest of life forms and progressing to a more elaborate state.
"Both groups"= All denominations lumped together as one group and the universal church as another.
Your former preacher, your sainted grandmother, your former Southern Baptist church, 70's creation movement and etc...Nice anecdotal evidence. You seem to have a lot of that (and that only)!
The Christians I know do not "speak with ill" toward science. They just "speak ill" of poor evolutionary assumptions made in the name of science and also of persons, like yourself, who use those assumptions to attack Christianity.
In light of your sweeping generalizations, I would like to clarify...The Bible is right and anyone who stands in opposition to It is wrong.
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.