Posted on 01/02/2007 8:27:12 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
The late Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard used to describe religion and science as occupying “non-overlapping magisterial authority,” or what he called NOMA. That is, science and religion occupied different “domains,” or areas of life, in which each held “the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.”
There were many problems with Gould’s approach, but at least a lack of respect for religion and religious people wasn’t one of them. Not so with some of today’s scientists.
The New York Times reported on a conference recently held in Costa Mesa, California, that turned into the secular materialist equivalent of a revival meeting.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
Another Nobel laureate, chemist Sir Harold Kroto, suggested that the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion be given to Richard Dawkins for his new book The God Delusion.
Continuing the theme, Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute called for teaching “our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty.”
In case you were in doubt about which worldview would inform this “catechesis,” she then added: “It is already so much more glorious and awesome—and even comforting—than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”
Attempts at a Gould-like détente between religion and science didn’t sit well with this crowd. A presentation by Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden on how to make evolution more acceptable to Christians was disrupted by Dawkins himself who called it “bad poetry.”
After a while, the rancor and stridency got to be too much for some of the attendees. One scientist called it a “den of vipers” where the only debate is “should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”
Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”
Fat chance. What’s behind all of this animosity? It is a worldview known as “scientism,” the belief that there is no supernatural, only a material world. And it will not countenance any rivals. It is a “jealous god.”
As Weinberg’s comments illustrate, it regards any other belief system other than scientism as irrational and the enemy of progress. Given the chance, as in the former Soviet Union, it wants to eliminate its rivals. It is no respecter of pluralism.
But this really exposes the difference between the worldviews of these scientists and Christians. We welcome science; it’s the healthy exploration of God’s world. The greatest scientists in history have been Christians who believe science was possible only in a world that was orderly and created by God. We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon.
The naturalists, on the other hand, rule out even science that tends to show intelligence, because that might lead to a God. Now, who is narrow-minded?
Read the text a little closer.....
NIV Genesis 2:15-25
15. The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
16. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18. The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19. Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called `woman, ' for she was taken out of man."
24. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
NIV Genesis 3:1-12
1. Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, `You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2. The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3. but God did say, `You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
4. "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
5. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
7. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10. He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11. And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12. The man said, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
Want to make faith IMPOSSIBLE, then insist to an unbeliever that Someone rose from the dead. THAT'LL really convince them!
Says WHO?
Just WHY should ANYONE believe such a ridiculous story?
Read it without a Rosetta Stone of authority, though, and its a welter of contradictions and even anachronisms and error.
Authority? Whose 'authority'???
Why hasn't the Authority thrown out this stupid book of error and contradiction by now and written something that is BELIEVEABLE???
NIV Luke 1:1-4
1. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
NIV Acts 1:1-2
1. In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
2. until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
I Cor 15: 21&22 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
The responsibility for sin entering the world is attributed to man. For one thing, Adam was with Eve when she ate, and HE WATCHED HER DO IT. He could have stopped her after he heard what the serpent said and he didn't. It was after he ate that THEN their eyes were opened, not after she ate.
I Cor 15:21 & 22 state that it was through *a* man that death came. *Man* as used here is not in the general sense of meaning *mankind* because it specifically says *a* man. Also the verse says "For as in *Adam* all die..." It doesn't say through Eve. It kind of removes all doubt about where the responsibility for sin entering the world comes from.
There's also the factor that Jesus had God as His father, thereby avoiding the sin nature that afflicts us and enabling Him to be able to be sinless and therefore be an appropriate sinless sacrifice for our sins. If the sin nature came through the mother, that couldn't happen.
Why don't you try reading the word yourself, rather than leaning on fables?
There are already many examples where legislation or administration (e.g., school boards) have attempted to get biblical creation taught in science classes.
"Creation science" was booted by the US Supreme Court in the late 1980s. This led to the famous Wedge Strategy by the Discovery Institute.
Since then we have had several cases decided by the courts, each affirming that creationism or ID are not science and should not be taught in science classes (Dover and the recent "sticker" decision come to mind).
These cases came to the courts because fundamentalists attempted to use the power of government to spread their religious beliefs.
Do I believe that fundamentalists have attempt to use the power of government to spread their religious beliefs. Yes, this is clear from the court records.
I also believe that if fundamentalists of a like belief were more numerous in government, or more powerful politically, that they would be trying even harder, and perhaps would be more successful in promoting their religious belief through the power of the state.
You seem to doubt this, but its there for all to see in Dover and a lot of other communities.
And its here on FR as well. How many times have those who support science been condemned to hell? How many times have scientists been told that we are no better than communists or Nazis?
No, I would not like to live under a theocracy run by such folks, nor would I like to try to do any of the sciences I mentioned upthread at the whim of such folks.
You are banging your head against the wall arguing with the theocons.
Thankfully, reason and logic is still winning in the case of the creationists, and what you see here is not a representational sample.
Of course, the average American knows jack squat about any real science, but that is OK, India and China still teach their kids.
Yes, I do doubt it. Equating a sticker in a textbook or notifying students that some scientists disagree with Darwin's theory with a theocracy is nutty (although the ACLU would agree with you). Secondly, Darwinists regularly use the power of government to veto duly elected representatives of the people. Unless, of course, you don't think the courts are part of government.
I also believe that if fundamentalists of a like belief were more numerous in government, or more powerful politically, that they would be trying even harder, and perhaps would be more successful in promoting their religious belief through the power of the state.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Would you support private school voucher or tax credits? Would you support getting government out of the business of trampling freedom of conscience in its government schools?
I believe that man should join the 9-11 conspiracy crowd; he would blend right in!
Interesting take on Matthew 19:7-8...
And I agree that the letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
Cheers1
Interesting grey area there.
No, seriously, hear me out.
It is not from the "top down" at the national level; school boards represent local authority, and can often be chosen or influenced at the grass roots level.
The societal questions which come up are--(in no particular order)--
1) Do people have the right to enact annoying statutes?
2) At what point does our government as a "representative republic come in and overrule the statutes, in the name of common sense, accuracy, pluralism, or not-establishment of a religion?
3) How far down the totem pole should the central government's reach be? And when does it cross the line to conflict with the "free exercise" clause? Does it extend to removing the Ten Commandments from monuments or classrooms? Does it extend to forbidding voluntary prayer groups to meet on their own time, using as much of the school's resources as a chess club?
Another question that comes up is how much would today be called a "theocracy" which was just common consent xyz number of years ago, because common Christianity was pretty much taken for granted (or at least external lip service to it). With the multicultural and Marxist infiltration since the 60's, the consensus has been lost.
Cheers!
I'm too busy plotting with the Pope to take over the world to worry about it anyway.
I have read the word myself. That's one of the major reasons why I'm not a creationist.
It just seems that you are putting ALL 'fundamentalists' into the same category.
Remember, there are...
Creation,
Evolution,
Fundamentals...
And there are...
CreationISM,
EvolutionISM,
FundamentalISM..
vastly different things.
Amen!
Or much of anything else after coming outta Gov't schools!
Let's worry about Pelosi and HER group...
THEY are the REAL enemy!
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.