Andrew Greeley rocks!
I was going to blog some more thoughts on teaching evolution in the schools with some pithy quotes from Andrew Greeley, but I couldn't narrow it down. His entire column says exactly what I wanted to say. If I had to pull out one quote, it would be:
The evangelicals are entitled to their beliefs, but they have no right to try to impose their view of creation on the rest of us and to deprive the children of other people an accurate picture of how science models the emergence and development of life - or an alternative view of the literary nature of the book of Genesis.
posted by Bad Methodist @ 8:24 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I'm incredibly new to this debate, so bear with me. My understanding of Intelligent Design Theory, which is different from Creationism, isn't arguing against evolution necessarily as it is arguing for some sort of intelligent mind behind life. I think that's a reasonable argument to make. The ID scientists apply scientific critera (in spite of what others say), and draws its conclusion. It is evolutionism, in its purest form, that specifically denies God's exsistence by stating that all of life is randomly selected. Darwin's theory doesn't even go into the WHY of evolution, just the how. It's a reasonable question to examine the why.
Are evangelicals for Intelligent Design - sure. But I've heard of numerous people of different faiths and not of any faith support at least the hypothesis of intelligent design. I don't understand why evolutionists are so dead set against even entertaining the notion of an intelligent design behind life.
I don't understand why evolutionists are so dead set against even entertaining the notion of an intelligent design behind life.I don't think that's the problem, although admittedly there are those in the Richard Dawkins vein that believe evolution proves atheism. I'd call him a "fundamentalist atheist," though, and there are also Darwinists like Michael Ruse who argue that God in general and Christianity in particular are not inconsistant with Darwinism. (Can you tell one of my best friends is an anthropologist??) :)
The problem as I see it is that science can neither prove nor disprove God and to make it try to do either isn't a good application of it. Science classes should teach what the best scientific evidence tells us about HOW the world and life came to be. Why and whether or not there was intelligence behind that is not a question that should or can be addressed in science class. As Mosaic Sue wrote, it should be addressed in theology classes and places of worship. Intelligent design, as I understand it, does little more than attach theology onto evolutionary theory.
The idea behind Darwinism is that life was created entirely randomly, which is in direct conflict with the notion of a God creating life. If there was a God creating life, then that is purposeful, not random. However, I think the current theory of evolution is somewhat different from Darwin's original theory and allows for a God, but I could be wrong about that (again, I'm a newbie to this topic).
I would argue that ID DOES have to do with how the world and life came to be. It does not seek to answer a "why". Individual religions can answer a "why", but ID seeks to determine "how". Was life randomly assembled or is there scientific evidence that something more than randomness created the universe. The methods used to answer those questions are perfectly valid scientific methods.
I don't understand why evolutionists go ballistic when ID is even mentioned (not necessarily the people posting here). Let's at least have the debate about the theory. Isn't that what the scientific method is about - investigating new theories? It actually concerns me greatly those who believe evolution so strongly that they are not even willing to contemplate another theory, particularly one that doesn't necessarily compete with their own theory. And let's remember, It's called evolution "theory", not evolution "fact".
I believe the "entirely random" stuff came after Darwin, with Dawkins being its chief proponent. There are Darwinists like Ruse who do not see a conflict. I highly recommend the book Can a Darwinian be a Christian by Michael Ruse. It is very difficult reading if evolutionary theory is not your area of expertise, but I think he makes some really good points about how the two are compatible without going so far as trying to prove design.
I agree that "entirely random" can't really be proven. The problem I have with ID is that it seems to me they're starting from a position of faith and trying to make the data fit that. The Bible is not a book of science and science shouldn't be made to conform to it.
Evolution is a "theory," but the scientific use of that word is much stronger than we laymen tend to think. Gravity is a theory, too. From what I've read (much of it admittedly over my head because it is academia in a field I didn't study extensively), evolutionary theory is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that there is little likelihood it isn't correct.
I agree that there is intelligence behind the design, but I really worry about any "science" that starts from a position of faith because of the bias. I am equally leery of Dawkins' version of Darwinism because he is starting from the exact opposite bias. I want my kids to learn SCIENCE in science class, not theology (or atheism).
If you look at BobW's last post, not any of the 3 things he listed start from a position of faith. In fact, in my mind, they don't even END with a position of faith. Faith is different from scientific evidence. You could have evidence that intelligence designed the universe, but not have FAITH in that intelligence. Your right, faith should not be taught in a science class, but ID has NOTHING to do with faith - just with the evidence of creation pointing to an intelligent design rather than randomness.
I still don't get what is wrong with trying to prove design. It seems to me just as scientific a question as the mechanisms of life.
I think that in terms of fostering more awareness of evolution in a wider segment of the population that the strategy for education advanced by John Angus Campbell is most wise. He believes that science classes should teach the argument of Darwin, with an acknowledgement that his opponents espoused a form of intelligent design.
Even if the students choose the "wrong" final belief, it is of value for them to learn about the art of argument as exemplified by Darwin.
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b080.htm
Hope y'all can come by and visit me some time at the Anti-Manicheist.
dlw
Post a Comment
<< Home