Religion vs. Science?
Howard Hughes Medical Institute hosts an annual Holiday Lecture Series on Science. The topic for 2005 focused on evolution, and several Washington, D.C.-area high school students gathered after the lectures for a panel discussion with the speakers.

"I am a believing Christian who totally accepts evolutionary theory," Father James A. Wiseman, the Benedictine monk and theology professor at the Catholic University of America told the group.

Sounds like an interesting field trip. The "absolutely overwhelming" evidence in favor of evolution is so strong that we must take our high school students to listen to some speakers tell us that "it is possible to be an evolutionist and a Christian." There is no real conflict, is there?

That isn't enough, however. When an idea is failing on its own merits, we must do more than try to assimilate with the opposition. We must campaign for it, appealing to the opposition wherever possible. From the BBC article Spunky commented on a few days ago:

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns to keep the teaching of evolution in public schools, said those in mainstream religious communities needed to "step up to the plate" in order to prevent the issue being viewed as a battle between science and religion.

Hmm...pitting science against religion came up in the article from HHMI, as well. Methinks that is called a false dichotomy. While Christianity and evolution may stand at odds with one another, religion and science do not. And are we talking about good science here? Science is essentially a method of reasoning. The scientific method is a very valid means of testing the physical world. It is not a valid means of deciphering the beginnings of life on earth.

But to point out the flaws of evolution would be heresy to the religion of science in some circles. So much so that it must be outlawed. Declared unconstitutional, even. What is it about this sticker, placed in textbooks in science textbooks in a suburb of Atlanta, that deserved to be ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge?

"Critical Analysis" of evolution is being removed from Ohio's curriculum, out of fear of a lawsuit.

The "critical analysis" of evolution was part of the curriculum for 10th-grade biology classes that the board adopted when it set new academic standards in 2002, making Ohio the first state to officially adopt such language. But according to the New York Times, the board's vote to remove the language came in part out of fear of a lawsuit in light of a December ruling by a Pennsylvania judge that teaching intelligent design in public schools was unconstitutional.

Rodney LeVake dared point out some flaws in textbooks concerning evolution. He did not even mention creationism, ID or anything else. Only that there were flaws and that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Even evolution-believing scientists will tell you our textbooks are flawed...but in Minnesota you get reassigned for such things.

Is this in keeping with scientific inquiry? Or does it look more like dogmatism and indoctrination?

Why is this debate even important? American Association for the Advancement of Science president, Gilbert Omenn warns:

"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and taxpayer dollars debating the facts of evolution."

Yes, without a firm foundation in evolution, we lose our footing in the international realm, ultimately hurting our own economy. There is quite a leap in logic there somewhere I cannot quite take. There is one HERE, too. It is the leap that got me thinking about this more today.

And if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)

, , ,