I read a lot of geeky science stuff. For years I've had a subscription to Scientific American. Recently however I've become weary with their constant religion-bashing. The creation vs. evolution debate is one that will not go away for a long time, and both sides have a lot to apologize for, but Scientific American has gotten to be almost childish in their constant low-blows and insults of anyone with a less than atheistic worldview.
I won't get into my personal opinions of the creation vs. evolution issue - that would definitely be a blog post of its own. I'm still constantly amazed by how disparate the views of the scientific community and the views of the religious community are. I'm tired of the "us against them" mentality. I have a very science-based education and outlook of the world (T might call that "modernist"), but I don't have any problem reconciling that with my God-centric perspective either. Haven't we moved past the era of Galileo Galilei, when scientists would be brought before the pope and accused of heresy? Why do we still have events like education boards voting against teaching evolution in schools?
The fact of the matter is, scientists and theologians are all after the same thing: truth. Or call it Truth, if you like. There's no such thing as opinion when it comes to Truth: either something's right or it's wrong. Science and religion have very different ways of figuring out what Truth is, but it's still the same Truth.
One of my favorite movies is Contact (I also love the book by Carl Sagan that it was based on). At the end of the movie a minister named Palmer Joss, played by Matthew McConaughey, is defending the scientist Eleanor Arroway, played by Jodie Foster. He says. "As a person of faith, I am bound by a different covenant than Dr. Arroway - but I believe our goal is one and the same: the pursuit of the truth."
So I would propose a new paradigm (although I'm sure I'm not the first to propose it). Instead of continuing this pointless argument over which is the "right" truth, science or religion, let's just agree that we're all after the same thing, the single universal Truth that exists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ah, but your belief that "truth" can come from multiple sources and might coexist with seemingly disparate ideas borders on the postmodern! You may not be as modern as you think--There's hope for you yet! : )
Call me a stick in the mud, but I am still against the teaching of evolution in schools, unless they are also willing to teach creationism.
I also think the truth is out there, but sometimes it seems as though scientist are hit over the head with it and just don't get it. Here's my big bang theory - God said it and Bang it happened! :)
Have you read Lee Strobel's the case for a creator? It's dry but interesting.
I'm with the Monk on this one. Truth is not something we get to vote on. It either is, or is not. Truth does not depend on my opinion. Here's a post from a while back on Open Source Truth (shameless self promotion).
The rub comes in us figuring out what is actually true. With some things (e.g., gravity) our opinions on the truth are obviously irrelevant. With others (e.g., evolution) it's harder to say what the truth might be. However, in either case, our opinion does not influence truth, and something is true, even if we can't tell what it is for sure.
To respond to Donna's comment: I'm not saying I disagree with creationism (although I'm not saying I agree with it). What I'm saying is that I strongly disagree with a school board making a religious/political statement by trying to determine what truth is, and then mandating that through a science curriculum. Creationism is NOT good science - although I don't thing evolution is particularly good science either. Both are impossible to test empirically, and both require lots and lots of conjecture based on very little evidence.
So why teach either creationism or evolution if neither is good science? Why is it that schools think that evolution is a better "science" than creationism. I think if you teach either you have to teach both. That is all I am saying.
Of course you know you hit on a hot topic of mine when it comes to education :)
I do agree their is one truth out there, and since I am not a particularly science girl I am happy to just believe Genesis and not ask too many questions on the details. Although when I get to heaven asking about creation is in my top 50 questions, if it even matters then.
i'm a little confused. you don't believe in all aspects of creationism? would that mean you believe in old earth creationism?
I believe that truth is not subjective. Truth is Truth, no matter how we believe it. Where you get into trouble is saying that science is the only way to tell truth, and THAT is a misnomer. Science has been wrong many more times then they have been right, because of experimentation. Science has also been known to change because of finding new knowledge, and found that they were wrong in areas. Some things cannot be proven because we have not advanced enough to do so. Some things cannot be proven at all. How do you know that you know something is what is referred to in philosophy as epistemology.
Our belief on something generally comes from where we give the most credence. Scientists get it from the science books/colleagues and Christians from the Bible/God.
For example, we are told that there is an Atom - I am not disagreeing with this fact - but how many people have actually looked through the microscope to see it. Few at that, and we have to believe them before we know it as truth. The problem is that science says that because we believe in something that cannot be proven, God, (which I disagree with, just look at nature and how everything works together and you can see a creator) so Christians cannot be intelligent enough to be in the scientific community.
Ben Stein produced a movie recently on how "anyone who speaks against Darwinism in the Scientific community are expelled." You can see what it is all about on a Youtube video here, It is called Expelled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxGyMn_-J3c&feature=related
I would be curious what it has to say.
By the way, there is a Debate coming up on March 29th at my school between the Leading Intelligent design theorist and the Leading Intelligent design Critic. I think it starts at 11:00 AM but I am not sure. You would have to call the school to get the information.
Phone : (713) 634-0011
As far as creationism is concerned. You have to be careful about where you go with it. There are five theories on it, and if you take Adam out of the equation then you take out the need for Jesus. It kind of puts a damper on the Christianity thing. If there is no literal Adam then there was no literal sin that we need Christ to save us from.
Post a Comment