Wednesday, July 13, 2011
What If They Held a War . . .
I've beem remiss in blogging of late for various reasons, so I thought I'd revive some older posts for those who don't obsessively comb through my previous efforts. Feel free to ignore this.January 08, 2006:
There is a nice confluence in the news today. First there is an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post by Alan Cutler, a geologist and author of The Seashell on the Mountaintop about Nicolaus Steno, a scientific giant who is too little known today. As Cutler explains in the article:
Steno was primarily an anatomist, but he is best remembered for his pioneering studies in geology. In 1669 he published in Florence -- Galileo's old stomping grounds -- a startling proposal: that the fossils and rock layers of the earth, if studied scientifically, gave a chronicle of the earth's history at least as valid as the accepted version in the verses of Genesis.
If some accounts of the relationship between science and religion are credited, this should have sparked cries of "heretic" and caused the oiling of the instruments of torture and the kindling of fires. Instead,
There wasn't a peep of official complaint. Steno wasn't criticized, much less condemned. In fact, he was put on a fast track to priesthood and then a bishopric. To top it off, in 1988 he was beatified by Pope John Paul II.
The reason for this seeming disconnect is that the supposed 'war between science and religion' is largely a myth propagated by John William Draper, in his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1875) and Andrew Dickson White, in his A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896), for reasons of their own.*
Meanwhile, we also have the story of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the oldest Evangelical Lutheran Church seminary in the U.S., offering a course on the legal case over the Dover Area School District's attempt to inject intelligent design into its curriculum.
The seminary has been especially interested in the Dover story because the Rev. Warren Eshbach, a founder of Dover CARES and one of the most prominent critics of Dover's revoked intelligent design policy, is also an adjunct faculty member.
The seminary touts Eshbach's involvement in the Dover case as one of its most important issues of 2005.
Both Eshbach and Eric H. Crump, an associate professor of systematic theology, have also signed the Clergy Letter Project, in which more than 10,000 clergy signed a petition in support of the teaching of evolution.
Here is an excerpt from the Clergy Letter:
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.
None of this is to deny that practitioners of both science and religion have engaged in profound and bitter disputes. But Cutler sums it up well:
The historical relationship between science and religion has been as complex as any human relationship. There is no reason to think that this will change. The warfare thesis suits the polemical purposes of partisans in certain social and political debates. But it harms religion by portraying it as overly dogmatic and reactionary. It also harms science by portraying it as hostile or at least indifferent to the average person's spiritual needs.
Now if we can all just find a better place to be next time . . .
_____
* Draper's book was a diatribe against the Roman Catholic Church's then recent claim of infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra and its attempt to exert authority over public institutions' instruction in science and literature. White wrote in response to criticisms of his charter for Cornell University as a nonsectarian institution, a controversial idea at the time.
Comments:
<< Home
You'll have to ask them. It is what they believe to be timeless truths. If you are mainly interested in defending science education, you will see that as a very important statement. However, if you are more interested in picking a fight with religious believers, you will focus more on attacking their beliefs and ignore the big picture.
If you think attacking religious beliefs is part of defending science education, then congradulations, you have adopted the gnu position.
If you think attacking religious beliefs is part of defending science education, then congradulations, you have adopted the gnu position.
# posted by 
: 12:42 PM
: 12:42 PM
Dr Eshbach & the seminary are still active in challenging ID as well as theologies that set themselves in opposition to evolution. Some of the theologians on faculty work and teach with scientists as well.
-- pew sitter
-- pew sitter
# posted by : 12:43 PM
: 12:43 PM
@anonymous
you cannot expect me to support a statement that I believe has some falsehood(in my opinion) in it , now would you?
you cannot expect me to support statements that are deliberately vague - what does timeless mean anyway?
you cannot expect me to support misleading statements such as "believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist" - when they don't comfortably coexist. if they did comfortably coexist , you wouldn't have the issue we have and you wouldn't need to make the statement.
you cant expect me to support a sectarian statement(why only the bible?), would you ?
and you cant expect me to support pseudo Intelligent Design statements like Gods gift are human minds. What does "gifts" mean when it comes to evolution?
and better yet the clergy statement could have simply read
"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
Then its something we could have signed up for along with the clergy , no?
if they had this version of the statement then yes I could say that the clergy is *mainly* interested in defending science education.
If you think attacking religious beliefs is part of defending science education,
I gave you the version of the statement that is acceptable to me. if you think that is attacking religious belief then so be it.
you cannot expect me to support a statement that I believe has some falsehood(in my opinion) in it , now would you?
you cannot expect me to support statements that are deliberately vague - what does timeless mean anyway?
you cannot expect me to support misleading statements such as "believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist" - when they don't comfortably coexist. if they did comfortably coexist , you wouldn't have the issue we have and you wouldn't need to make the statement.
you cant expect me to support a sectarian statement(why only the bible?), would you ?
and you cant expect me to support pseudo Intelligent Design statements like Gods gift are human minds. What does "gifts" mean when it comes to evolution?
and better yet the clergy statement could have simply read
"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
Then its something we could have signed up for along with the clergy , no?
if they had this version of the statement then yes I could say that the clergy is *mainly* interested in defending science education.
If you think attacking religious beliefs is part of defending science education,
I gave you the version of the statement that is acceptable to me. if you think that is attacking religious belief then so be it.
Ah, but if the statement only read that then it would be ignoring the reason for the statement in the first place - the creationists and ID advocates who try to spread the idea that evolution is inherently anti-Christian. And that is the same reason why they mention "only the bible." If people claiming to represent any other religion were trying to put their religious views into science classes and get rid of evolution, it would be up to their clergy to make their own statement. Since it seems to be mostly certain Christians who are making the most noise about evolution, it is naturally appropriate that Christian clergy take up the burden of countering that message within the context of their belief system.
# posted by : 6:34 PM
: 6:34 PM
@anonymous
It is a very curious comfortable coexistence that gets shattered when a bunch of religious nuts use a bunch of poor creationist and ID arguments.
It is a very curious comfortable coexistence that gets shattered when a bunch of religious nuts use a bunch of poor creationist and ID arguments.
@Deepak
Exactly, and the Clergy Letter Project, etc. intend to re-assert that comfortable coexistence.
Exactly, and the Clergy Letter Project, etc. intend to re-assert that comfortable coexistence.
# posted by : 11:01 PM
: 11:01 PM
@Anonymous.
So one branch of religious authority asserts no comfortable coexistence and another branch asserts that it does - very effective, right?
So one branch of religious authority asserts no comfortable coexistence and another branch asserts that it does - very effective, right?
Indeed. And since we are talking about statements within the context of a particular belief system, just what is it that you are objecting to?
# posted by : 2:36 PM
: 2:36 PM
@Anonymous
Objections were made clear in my second comment.
Right now I only amuse myself with the irony inherent in tackling the logical fallacy of argument by authority with (drum roll) argument by authority.
Objections were made clear in my second comment.
Right now I only amuse myself with the irony inherent in tackling the logical fallacy of argument by authority with (drum roll) argument by authority.
Actually, its more than argument from authority. Modern scholarship has shed a lot of light on origins and interpretations of scripture, and generally does not support the literal interpretation that Young Earth Creationists hold.
# posted by : 7:13 PM
: 7:13 PM
@Anonymous
Modern scholarship has shed a lot of light on origins and interpretations of scripture
Ha ha - so silly of that so many religious people down the centuries believed and interpreted the bible literally. They must be feeling pretty embarrassed in heaven/hell unless that non literal too.
And when two of the main gospels trace the path from the non literal Adam to the literal Jesus, I wonder how this transition is made? maybe you with your knowledge of Modern scholarship can enlighten us.
Modern scholarship has shed a lot of light on origins and interpretations of scripture
Ha ha - so silly of that so many religious people down the centuries believed and interpreted the bible literally. They must be feeling pretty embarrassed in heaven/hell unless that non literal too.
And when two of the main gospels trace the path from the non literal Adam to the literal Jesus, I wonder how this transition is made? maybe you with your knowledge of Modern scholarship can enlighten us.
Now you're changing the subject. Maybe you should read some of that theology that you said you don't need to read before making fun of something that you don't understand.
# posted by : 7:23 AM
: 7:23 AM
@Anonymous
Now you're changing the subject.
Because I've already said whatever I need to say on my objections to the clergy letter.
I believed based on your last comment we had moved onto the non literal interpretation of scripture. I just want to know when the non literal become literal because you know two gospel writers do trace from Adam to Jesus , and I thought you with your grasp of modern scholarship would happen to know.
Now you're changing the subject.
Because I've already said whatever I need to say on my objections to the clergy letter.
I believed based on your last comment we had moved onto the non literal interpretation of scripture. I just want to know when the non literal become literal because you know two gospel writers do trace from Adam to Jesus , and I thought you with your grasp of modern scholarship would happen to know.
Well on that particular question, first, only Luke traces Jesus back to Adam. Second, the main purpose of the genealogy was to connect Jesus to the whole of the Old Testament and to the whole of Mankind. In the ancient world, using genealogies to connect real people to a more cosmic reality was a common literary device. And Luke and Matthew were building on a literary tradition that had already existed in the Ancient Near East. So there is no reason to get hung up on the accuracy or otherwise of an ancient genealogy when the ancients wouldn't have anyway.
But either way the main point still stands: Those who support the Clergy Letter project and interpret genesis non-literally have a solid intellectual foundation for doing so, which is not the case for the young-earth creationists.
Post a Comment
But either way the main point still stands: Those who support the Clergy Letter project and interpret genesis non-literally have a solid intellectual foundation for doing so, which is not the case for the young-earth creationists.
# posted by : 6:45 PM
: 6:45 PM << Home
