Cosmology and other stuff
Just this morning a friend of mine from work was talking about creationism and discussing its illegal place within schools (since 1987). What are the arguments and are they sound?
First, there is the claim that creationism has more to do with religion than it does with science, with objectivity and so there is no place for evangelism within an objective education. However, Darwinism is just as much a religion as a Christianity, so is achieving objectivity in schools a realistic endeavor? The theory of evolution is not Darwinism however, it is not the scientism expressed by Darwin in The Origin of Species. Micro-evolution is an observed phenomenon noting the changes in species over short periods of time, while no sure evidence exists for macro-evolution. This is not a 'ha-ha' moment for creationists however, because evolution is more than just a scientific theory. It marks the start of a new paradigm that becomes more and more likely each day, with no sign of replacement according to Stephen J. Gould.
Creationism should not be taught in science classes, because the theory is based upon a particular religion's beliefs and as such is an imposition of that religion on others. If schools were to offer religion classes, philosophy classes, ethics classes, or cosmology classes then perhaps various religious beliefs can be properly expressed in a country where the make-up is a plurality of religions, peoples and cultures.
On the other hand, as a holist, science and religion should always be in dialogue because both have an impact on the other at times. The realm of facts and the realm of values cannot be categorized completely into two separate categories. Christian fundamentalism and the stress on creationism rose with the introduction of Darwin's Origin, as a response to the supposed attack on human dignity and humanity's status as specialized creatures. Scipture cannot be interpreted literally and imposed on the scientific community because situations such as that with Galileo are sure to repeat. Christians are so pre-occupied with interpreting scripture a certain way that they fail to realize its dynamic orientation as a living book. Thus our understanding of 'how' the universe was created is lessened, our knowledge concerning how God creates, is lessened. Scripture is very helpful when seeking answers (or rather further questions in my experience) to the 'why' questions of the world. But the 'how' and the 'why' should not be incompatible with each other as is argued by those who support a conflict model posing science and religion against each other. It makes no logical sense. Nor are the two completely separate from each other.
Further, what about the Big Bang theory? Is it so unbelievable? The rate of the expansion of the universe can give a person a ball-park figure on how long ago a Big Bang would have happened. But what happened in the first 10 seconds or perhaps the first split second that caused energy and mass contained in a space smaller than that of one atom to 'bang?' Is this so incompatible with Christian belief? 'God created the heavens and the earth...' why not this way?
Before I forget there is another item I wanted to write about that I heard discussed in a sermon. What is doubt and does it have a positive or negative connotation within Christianity? Can I 'will myself not to doubt?' According to some pastors I can. But in my opinion, doubting is essential to growth and to exploration. A Christian minister, in his learning, should doubt his faith more than anyone else. Doubting does not lead to an abandonment of faith. Doubt is not the 'Devil's instrument' to get Christians off track. Christians are to freely love God and love others. To doubt is to be an autonomous human being. Because my doubts are many has nothing to do with my commitment to serve a God I cannot directly experience using my physical senses. I must always concede that I could be wrong and that my beliefs may be in vain. Thus, for me, doubt is essential in my epistemology -- it is a sign of becoming knowledgable and a reassurance of my ability as a human being to freely make choices. Why would God create us if we had no choice of truly loving him?
I'll stop rambling
First, there is the claim that creationism has more to do with religion than it does with science, with objectivity and so there is no place for evangelism within an objective education. However, Darwinism is just as much a religion as a Christianity, so is achieving objectivity in schools a realistic endeavor? The theory of evolution is not Darwinism however, it is not the scientism expressed by Darwin in The Origin of Species. Micro-evolution is an observed phenomenon noting the changes in species over short periods of time, while no sure evidence exists for macro-evolution. This is not a 'ha-ha' moment for creationists however, because evolution is more than just a scientific theory. It marks the start of a new paradigm that becomes more and more likely each day, with no sign of replacement according to Stephen J. Gould.
Creationism should not be taught in science classes, because the theory is based upon a particular religion's beliefs and as such is an imposition of that religion on others. If schools were to offer religion classes, philosophy classes, ethics classes, or cosmology classes then perhaps various religious beliefs can be properly expressed in a country where the make-up is a plurality of religions, peoples and cultures.
On the other hand, as a holist, science and religion should always be in dialogue because both have an impact on the other at times. The realm of facts and the realm of values cannot be categorized completely into two separate categories. Christian fundamentalism and the stress on creationism rose with the introduction of Darwin's Origin, as a response to the supposed attack on human dignity and humanity's status as specialized creatures. Scipture cannot be interpreted literally and imposed on the scientific community because situations such as that with Galileo are sure to repeat. Christians are so pre-occupied with interpreting scripture a certain way that they fail to realize its dynamic orientation as a living book. Thus our understanding of 'how' the universe was created is lessened, our knowledge concerning how God creates, is lessened. Scripture is very helpful when seeking answers (or rather further questions in my experience) to the 'why' questions of the world. But the 'how' and the 'why' should not be incompatible with each other as is argued by those who support a conflict model posing science and religion against each other. It makes no logical sense. Nor are the two completely separate from each other.
Further, what about the Big Bang theory? Is it so unbelievable? The rate of the expansion of the universe can give a person a ball-park figure on how long ago a Big Bang would have happened. But what happened in the first 10 seconds or perhaps the first split second that caused energy and mass contained in a space smaller than that of one atom to 'bang?' Is this so incompatible with Christian belief? 'God created the heavens and the earth...' why not this way?
Before I forget there is another item I wanted to write about that I heard discussed in a sermon. What is doubt and does it have a positive or negative connotation within Christianity? Can I 'will myself not to doubt?' According to some pastors I can. But in my opinion, doubting is essential to growth and to exploration. A Christian minister, in his learning, should doubt his faith more than anyone else. Doubting does not lead to an abandonment of faith. Doubt is not the 'Devil's instrument' to get Christians off track. Christians are to freely love God and love others. To doubt is to be an autonomous human being. Because my doubts are many has nothing to do with my commitment to serve a God I cannot directly experience using my physical senses. I must always concede that I could be wrong and that my beliefs may be in vain. Thus, for me, doubt is essential in my epistemology -- it is a sign of becoming knowledgable and a reassurance of my ability as a human being to freely make choices. Why would God create us if we had no choice of truly loving him?
I'll stop rambling
posted by Timcom at 9:26 AM
2 Comments:
It is my belief that the public school system constitutes an
establishment of religion no matter what is actually taught. I do
recognize the distinction you have made between creationism and
micro-evolution. However, in my understanding, no one is proposing to
teach creationism in Public Schools.
There is a movement--called "Intelligent Design"-- spearheaded by
men like William Dembski, that has raised questions about the
evolution model. Gould and others would certainly like to think that
the evidence for micro, as well as macro, evolution is growing, but
there are members of the scientific community that question its
continuing viability in the face of critical analysis of the physical
universe.
Legally, NO point of view should exist in the public schools of the
United States. Science is not unanimous concerning the origins of the
universe. Even if it was, it would certainly not be the first time
the bulk of the scientific community was wrong. I can give you
contemporary examples if you wish. What you call "micro-evolution" I
would call "adaptability." That is not to say that I have the ability
to effectively present a case for Intelligent Design. After all, I am
not a scientist.
Ben
There are many minor court cases and a few fairly major court cases that have been decided in favor of keeping creationism out of schools. And actually, in Texas ( in the South for that matter), the debate is very common, and opinions very split.
Public School has always sought to refrain from a religious bias, though we all know that to be impossible. It most often promotes a scientism point of view (minus the fine arts classes and some electives). The stress of the public schools is science and math. No contestation there. Both are foundational to success within culture. This is why the art departments suffer so much.
Intelligent Design is a very fascinating theory, though I find it hard to use it as a Christian apologetic. Has science progressed so that human experimental methods can decipher an intelligent cause of the artifacts of nature? Humanity is looking for a scientific answer and therein lies its limits. Is the Christian God necessarily scientific?
Of course I purport the idea of an Intelligent Designer as a Christian; though, just as the search for aliens, the Intelligent Design will always have credibility. It may be more a response to Charles Darwin, than a credible scientific exploration.
I have read many books on intelligent design and my favorite analogy is the one of the monkey at his typewriter. If Darwin was correct, then the monkey should eventually be able to compose the Declaration of Independence word for word, given an infinite amount of time. What are the odds. Though Intelligent Design is a growing field I question its motives and wonder if the archer is painting bulls-eyes around his arrows or painting them before he shoots his arrows.
I find it very hard to follow Dembski's anology of Mount Rushmore. If humanity is wiped out and other beings find it, will they contend that it is intelligently designed. Perhaps my concern is not necessarily the anology, but it seems that those proponents of intelligent design are searching for origins, and searching for purpose. But science has never been able to answer why questions...
Evolution is not necessarily a happening of chance as is credited to Darwin. Evolution is a way of looking at our dynamic world and the fluidity of life. Explanation may lie in our isolated system.
The universe is an open system. All entropy is ever on the rise and it is expanding at an accelerating rate. What does this say about an isolated system, ultimately expending energy and increasing entropy with the mindset of progress.
Gould's book, Rock of Ages helps to outline history in terms of paradigms, which I find greatly helfpul. Evolutionary thoery is the current paradigm. Intelligent Design is something to test the water, though I haven't seen any very convincing evidence of a changing paradigm as of yet. Though it may be slowly happening. We all adapt and change.
Growing up I completely denied evolution as a credible theory finding it everything that is anti-God. But even if evolution is more than a paradigm it does not necessarily contradict the tenets of Christianity as many think. Darwinian evolution perhaps does, but Darwin was a very religious man, who perhaps found some truth and put his scientific twist on it.
For a long time I wanted to be an archaeologist or a geologist, because members of my mom's side of the family are. In my studies of bones, the evidence of plate tectonics, migration, plant remains, fossils, there is much more evidence more of a pattern to support an evolutionary theory, scientifically, than an intelligent design theory. Though I believe in an intelligent design whole-heartedly.
Post a Comment
<< Home