Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Religeon vs. Science?

May I suggest a little humility from both sides. Claims of knowledge on the part of science - especially as to what is known about the origin of the universe - are being made which way over reach what is actually known and are belied by the frequent changes in the theories.

As for religeon, I think that we ought to take the Bible literally unless there is significant scientific evidence to the contrary. It seems pretty clear to me that the Bible was not intended to have the scientific exactitude for dating that us moderns are used to. Mankind's very concept of time has evolved since ancient days.

To be fair here, today's aggressors do seem to come from not from science itself but from left-wingers who use science to advance an anti-Christian agenda. Creationism controversies in the news have wanted to include "intelligent design" as well as evolution in the schools. The other side has wanted only their own views taught. Even despite their lack of tolerance for the other side's point of view, the evolutionists would still have my sympathy if only they weren't so militant about it.

Here is an interesting article about the latest developments in this area from science's point of view.


Blue Devil Knight said...

As a biologist, I know that if a fellow scientist tried to get his theories accepted via school boards and legal maneuvers, I would laugh at him. He would immediately be dismissed as a crackpot by the scientific community if he went to congress: "Look there is this theory of gravity that contradicts Einstein and (boo hoo) the scientists are all ignoring me. You need to make it a law that this be included in High School science classes along with general relativity." How do you think physicists would react to such a person? That is exactly how we biologists respond to the Creationists.

The way to gain credibility is by doing good science, which is something we never see from the Creationists. They are not acting like scientists act (i.e., experiments, peer review, etc), but like politicians. Until that stops, they have no chance of being taken seriously outside of a political context.

As for the claim that the ID proponents are more "open minded" because they want both views taught while the other side only wants one side taught, that really doesn't tell us much. Should we give 9/11 conspiracy theorists (or Holocaust deniers) equal time in history classes? No, because no historian takes them seriously, there is no real controversy, and there are other perfectly real controversies to teach in history (and biology).

Perhaps it should be taught in a religion class, or a social studies class. But presented as serious biology? When the Creationists act as serious biologists act, then the debate might be worth having.

Temposchlucker said...

Science is a form of superstition that sometimes can yield amazing good results.