He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.This is possibly one of the most convolutedly retarded statements I have ever read.Brother Consolmagno argued that the Christian God was a supernatural one, a belief that had led the clergy in the past to become involved in science to seek natural reasons for phenomena such as thunder and lightning, which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods.
[snip]
"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god..."
This is possibly one of the most convolutedly retarded statements I have ever read.
You must be new here. :-)
"In the beginning, God created..." is NOT a tenet of paganism (but it IS the central theme of creationism).
You don't seem to be getting the underlying theme the Brother is talking about. The literalization of the Genesis Scripture account, even in the face of conflicting scientific evidence, leads to the "de-sciencing" of our understanding of revelation.
If science lies to us, and is not to be believed, we must believe that events that happen happen only because the whims of the gods, or of God in our monotheistic era. It is this attribution of every event in the world to a divine will rather than the systematic interaction of natural forces that leads to all kinds of pagan-like interpretation of events.
Muslims see in Katrina the revenge of Allah on we infidels. Environmentalists see their god getting revenge on the evil Bush regime. Pat Robertsen sees earthquakes in San Fransico as God's smiting of sinners.
These are all pagan attitudes and they all come about when we have no scientific understanding of the natural world.
And thunder and lightning? Chickenfeed compared to the flood, and falling frogs and swarming locusts. (Tho', occasionally when I've said something particularly unChristian-like, I have looked upwards in fear of a recompensatory bolt.)
You jest, but this is exactly the point. What is more awe inspiring, that God suddenly causes a new star to rise in Bethleham? Or that God created a universe where a particular comet's path, from the moment of creation leads it to appear during the Nativity?
Being able to understand how God uses science is not evidence of a lack of faith. On the contrary, having a fear that our study of the natural world will contradict God's written revelation shows a lack of faith that God designed the world to reveal truth to us.
SD