Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Seasons Greetings, Mr. Scopes

Generally I agree with more conservative Christians that we have gone too far in scrubbing reference to God and religion from schools and public life. Surely we can talk about religion, Christianity, and God without proselytizing, can't we?

However, boycotting stores that say "Seasons Greetings" is just about the stupidest idea I've ever heard. How is a store putting up a "Merry Christmas" banner putting Christ back in Christmas? Because Jesus told us to love God and our neighbor as much as ourselves and shop till we drop? You've got to be kidding me.

Even worse because it's more serious is this whole intelligent design nonsense. Why do Christians feel the need to blend science and religion, thereby watering down both? Let the schools teach the best science available at the time. Let the church teach who made it that way. The Bible is a book of theology, not science. Evolution is a theory of science, not theology. Let's not confuse the two, please.


At 3:34 PM, Blogger BobW said...

Addressing your concerns about intelligent design, as a Christian my own concerns are two. First, too many proponents of evolution specifically treat it as scientifically proven fact; not, as you correctly say, theory. Second, they insist that both evolution and the creation of the universe are random and show no underlying purpose or, as our theological/philosophical friends would say, teleology.
In short, in their view, there is nothing for theology to teach as there is not now and never has been a "theos" for it to study.
I am one of many Christians who has no problem with the idea that God used and uses evolutionary processes in Creation. I tend to accept the Genesis accounts as poetically true, thus equally though differently "true" as scientific truth. I respect that others differ with me; but hold that in insisting that their view and only their view be taught they are in fact putting themselves on the same level as those who once insisted that only the Seven-Day Creation be taught.
Should you like to investigate this further, I suggest getting 'hold of Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator," fairly recently published. Whether you end up agreeing or disagreeing with his and his contributors' conclusions, I think you'll see that the case for random, causeless evolution is not as conclusive as its proponents would have us believe; and that there is no lack of evidence to support, though perhaps not prove, that the universe was begun by, and has evolved in all ways, from the guiding mind of God.

"The best science available" is not taught when one side of an area of scientific inquiry arrogates to itself the role of sole possessor of truth, allows no other side to be heard, and raises theory to the level of fact so conclusively proven that no contradictory voice may be allowed to be heard. If indeed the believers in random, causeless evolution are as confident in their theory as they profess themselves to be, let them do what you and I are doing here:- presenting our own views, reponding to and rebutting those of others


Post a Comment

<< Home