| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Replying to several posts:
> Evolution, in fact _all_ of science, currently tells us nothing about
> intelligent designers, nor the role of special creation in the origin of
> life. Evolution is _agnostic_ on this argument, and rightfully so, since it
> is a testable (and verifiable) scientific theory. This might be of great
> comfort to atheists, but atheism is a decision to not hold a religious faith.
> Likewise, there is no comfort to be had for religious views, since
> reconciliation of evolution with any of those views is a personal religious
> choice (regardless of the philosophical or theological underpinnings), and
> not a scientific one.
Thanks, Peter. That’s much clearer than what I wrote. In particular, I should have pointed out that, by “intelligent designer”, I meant “something/one intelligent that designs”, not “something/one that intervenes in evolution the way that “Intelligent Design” advocates want it to.” The overwhelming evidence of evolution tells us at the physical level how organisms have come into existence. Whether something is also going on at a spiritual level is something we decide on philosophical grounds. Evolution itself is indeed agnostic.
>>Thus, it's particularly important for us to point out that evolution is good science and compatible with many religious and philosophical views. <<
>I'm sorry, but I disagree with the second half of that entirely. I don't think palaeontologists, as palaeontologists, should get involved with showing how evolution is compatible (or not, as the case may be) with religion.<
It’s important when dealing with the public to note _that_ evolution is compatible with many religious and philosophical views. As you point out, determining _how_ it may be compatible is a job for adherents of each particular view, not for paleontology.
>If people understood the fields of Astronomy or Quantum Physics better, they would try to disallow the teaching of that in our schools as well; since those fields, more than any other contradicts what is in the Old Testament of the Bible.<
Although there are people who attack astronomy and/or quantum physics because they think these topics contradict the Bible, I have not found anything in the Bible about quantum phenomena, and minimal information on astronomy (or evolution, for that matter). It's no so much a problem of not understanding evolutionary biology or astronomy or physics as it is a problem of understanding the nature of science and of the Bible. They're trying to make the science into a philosophy and the Bible into a science textbook.
>Creationism-ID is a specific religious belief (i.e., Genesis is literally true)<
“Literal interpretation” is a bit problematic. For example, the Bible clearly has plenty of metaphors that even extreme fundamentalists recognize as not to be taken literally. On the other hand, “not taking it literally” is often a euphemism for not taking it seriously. It’s perhaps more accurate, and certainly better for efforts to reach people who believe the Bible, to identify antievolutionism as being based on particular interpretations of various religious texts. Many variants of antievolutionism are based on other religious texts besides the Bible. Emphasizing the religious diversity among antievolutionists may raise a bit of suspicion among adherents of each group that antievolutionism is no guarantee of religious correctness.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Partial index: