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 ... 1,341-1,3601,361-1,3801,381-1,400 ... 1,781-1,792 next last
To: b_sharp
Up to the age of 13 or so, my intended vocation was to become a Lutheran Pastor.

I had a similar background. And up to about age 20 intended to become a Southern Baptist missionary. I even attended Oklahoma Baptist University for a bit.

1,361 posted on 08/03/2005 1:14:40 PM PDT by narby (There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1351 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"So, what is the probability of the Carribbean Cruise Line having a hurricane blow a Cruise Liner 400 miles up the Mississippi?

Zero, the energy barrier is too high and so are the spacial constraints.

1,362 posted on 08/03/2005 1:14:46 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1355 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Yup.

I'm working on a paper that says just that, including some basic calculations. Do you know how difficult it is to calculate repeated Bernoulli trials with extremely large numbers?

1,363 posted on 08/03/2005 1:16:46 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1348 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

Ohh, surely there are over 4 billion non christians of planet earth, who have been affected by slavery, inquisitions, crusades and other extremely immoral actions caused by your "impeccable Christianity based ethical system" who might have a problem with religion interfering with ethics in the first place.


1,364 posted on 08/03/2005 1:17:36 PM PDT by Analog Artist (My thoughts are like silvery liquid metal floating through infinite white space in zero gravity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1358 | View Replies]

To: Analog Artist

You may be an "engineer" of sorts but your knowledge of history is way off.


1,365 posted on 08/03/2005 1:21:02 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1364 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Can I ask you a personal question?

What training or experience do you have in probability theory? I ask because what you think and what I think about the application of probability is so different.


1,366 posted on 08/03/2005 1:22:38 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1355 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Do you know how difficult it is to calculate repeated Bernoulli trials with extremely large numbers?

No. And please spare me the details; I'm not qualified to handle it. But I wish you well with your work!

1,367 posted on 08/03/2005 1:23:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1363 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Darwin did enough damage without he himself getting into the social sciences

Is this your way of retreating from your clearly debunked claim that Darwin advanced abhorrent social sciences?

however, his work definitely belongs in that realm rather than science.

And your credentials on the matter are? And your rebuttal to the mountains of evidence that have been presented for evolution are?

Or are you just going to sit and shout "MARX" and "HITLER", as if that means anything.

What most creationists wish for is that darwinism and Evolution be taught as theory not as fact.

It is taught as theory. You want to distort the meaning of "theory" with respect to scientific context and insist that evolution be taught as wild-ass speculation, when it most certainly is more than that.

Why don't you want gravity taught as "theory" instead of fact, or electromagnetism or atomics? Those are all theories, taught with the same level of certainty as evolution even though some are actually less certain in their respective scientific fields, but there's no major outcry.

You want the significance of evolution to be reduced not because there's anything wrong with the theory or how it is taught, but because it offends your religious sensibilities. When facts and reality contradict your religious beliefs, you can't readjust your beliefs, so you simply try to stamp out teaching about reality.

Finally as there is no evidence for Darwin's evolution,

You either haven't been paying attention, or you are a liar. I'm leaning toward the latter.
1,368 posted on 08/03/2005 1:24:05 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1349 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

All I want is this: I dont come to your chapel and tell you how to pray and what to pray about.. You dont come to my science class and tell me what to learn/teach.


1,369 posted on 08/03/2005 1:30:09 PM PDT by Analog Artist (My thoughts are like silvery liquid metal floating through infinite white space in zero gravity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1365 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"You need to stop kowtowing to establishment institutions and start rebelling a little."

I reject most of the Council of Orange, starting with Canon 1. ie. there's no such thing as original sin. The proof is God's own words in John 9 and Ezek 18.

"Your list can just as well have come from the moon. They are orgs and institutions that support abortion, killing embryos for research, add nauseum.

The list contains sound science. Mr. Henry doesn't post bogus matl's. What any particular scientists do outside their work is irrelevant to the work. The work stands on it's own. Mr. Henry will remove anything that contains errors.

"Without a Christian based ethically supportive science, only dangers lie ahead."

The laws of nature are what they are and are sufficient to describe all that you see. You were told that in Matt 38-39.

1,370 posted on 08/03/2005 1:31:30 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1358 | View Replies]

To: narby
"I had a similar background. And up to about age 20 intended to become a Southern Baptist missionary. I even attended Oklahoma Baptist University for a bit."

When I was 10 or 11 I guess, I was such an incredible geek that instead of going out and playing sports with my friends I spent most of my time reading. (Except golf and baseball) At the time I was living with my grandparents who resided in a small town that did not receive TV broadcasts.

That time pretty much hooked me on science, mostly astronomy. Back in 1969 I did my main grade 8 literary assignment on quasars. The choices I gave myself were either that or Mars.

1,371 posted on 08/03/2005 1:31:43 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1361 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I am making up the fact that Dawkins rejects the possibility of miracle?

Your error is not in the individual example, but the expanding of that individual example into the grossly false generalization.
1,372 posted on 08/03/2005 1:34:23 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1336 | View Replies]

To: xzins
As one approaches zero it is in fact zero.

Where did your math education stop?

Therefore, the odds of YOU winning the lottery is zero.

Since I didn't buy a ticket, this statement is correct. However, were I to purchase a lottery ticket, the odds of me winning the lottery would become nonzero. And we're not talking about just the odds of me winning, we're talking about the odds of anyone winning. As more people purchase tickets with unique number sets, the odds of anyone winning approach one. And even if there is no winner, there will be another drawing with similar odds within a few days.

That is a more honest analogy.
1,373 posted on 08/03/2005 1:37:17 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1339 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
No. And please spare me the details; I'm not qualified to handle it. But I wish you well with your work!

So, you really want to know? Good, then I'll tell you. The numbers got so large I had to stop calculating and start approximating. Eventually I just gave up and went to a bunch of monkeys typing a Shakespeare poem. The numbers are much easier to handle.

Ever wondered why the original statement used monkeys?

1,374 posted on 08/03/2005 1:38:08 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1367 | View Replies]

To: Analog Artist

You dont come to my science class and tell me what to learn/teach.




The little dicator speaks (probably on the public dime)!

Chew on this:

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to contradict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week Address.


1,375 posted on 08/03/2005 1:40:06 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1369 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Ever wondered why the original statement used monkeys?

Because the analogy is so old it started back when we were all monkeys?

1,376 posted on 08/03/2005 1:40:59 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1374 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

My credentials? No I am not a biological scientist but I don't let Darwin or Marx or anyone else tell me how and what to think. The classoroom should allow the students that same freedom from conformity.

Chew on this:


"'...It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.'

Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p.89 in 'Darwin's Enigma' by Luther D. Sunderland."


1,377 posted on 08/03/2005 1:43:49 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1368 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Because, of all the species capable of typing, only monkeys are stupid enough to sit there for 4 billion years.


1,378 posted on 08/03/2005 1:46:06 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1376 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Gumlegs
It's turning into a bogus quote-dump from one of those incredibly trashy creationist websites. I'm gonna sit this one out. We've exploded too many of these fabrications already, and I'm not in the mood to waste the effort on doing it yet again.

But if gumlegs wants to repost his excellent rebuttal to the Patterson quote, that's fine.

1,379 posted on 08/03/2005 1:47:46 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1377 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; eleni121
"Chew on this: " "'...It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.'

"Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p.89 in 'Darwin's Enigma' by Luther D. Sunderland."

Should we tell him?

1,380 posted on 08/03/2005 1:50:53 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1377 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,341-1,3601,361-1,3801,381-1,400 ... 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