I bumped into this while tracking coverage of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Seems traditional churches are getting more than a little tired of fundamentalist cookbooks. This may be the biggest covered up story in history! Ask yourself why?
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
“Evolution Sunday” was celebrated on the 197th anniversary of Darwin’s birthday. The call was to a dialogue on compatibility between religion and science — not the false dichotomy called for by those who are pushing “intelligent Design”.
I’m certain you read about it in your local newspaper, right? Yeah, right.
Actually Mr. Fusion,
The absolutist position regarding the bible regardless of direction (it’s all wrong or it’s all right) is a poor way to approach the Bible. Life, like science, is not made of black and white but rather many shades of grey. So, it is possible for say 10% of the information in the bible to be a reflection of an actual event or person and the other 90% to be allegorical embellishment. For example, we do have evidence of a Babylonian empire that did have a king named Nebuchadnezzar as stated in the Bible.
RE: Starting a blog just on evolution
I’m constantly amazed at the number of people and their level of ignorance with regards to science. You would think on a technology-ish blog that almost all contributors would be in tune with the scientific method and its advances but alas this seems not to be the case. The most frightening aspect is the people that think they know how science works and then turn around and suggest that metaphysics should be taught along side science. It just goes to show you that it’s not what you know that gets you in trouble; it’s what you think you know.
DAVE >>Lots? Who? I’ve never met a scientist who believed in ID. Especially a couple geneticists I know who, of all people, would be the FIRST to see the glory of god in a petri dish.
You’re not seeing them the way that people in expensive hotels never “see” the staff.
I’ve met ’em myself: there are lots of religious scientists and their spirituality shapes how they bring meanig to their observations. This is what I’ve called ID long before this debate..
If you look around without prejudice, you’ll meet them too. Try googling NPR who have done a nice series on these people. If I remember correctly, they even found couple of Nobel prize winners who would admit to believing in ID. Most rank-and-file scientist are too afraid of getting mockedfor admiting it.. the intolerant secularists are willing to kill careers over this.
But, I must be clear, the ones I’ve met don’t say that ID is science… for them ID, is in the realm of giving meaning to world they observe.
I’ve never met anyone who came to faith through science, although anything is possible. Typically, we come to science with a brain that percieved spiritual reality and the two realities intermix.
Why is it so hard to believe that lots of great scientists can also beleive in ID? Do you think their spiritual perception turns off as soon as they enter the lab?
Greg — what you “hear” is what happens in most common parlance. Conventional wisdom expressed in conventional words. Buttonhole most scientists, draw out the core of what they have learned from a career based on reality — and you just about never end up with an individual who will have “faith” in something coming from nothing.
Now, that varies with the discipline. Probably 50% of astrophysicists and astronomers are outright atheists — with the balance being agnostic. What Blaise Pascal called “shamefaced materialists”.
Most atheists who’ve taken the time and effort to ground their knowledge in philosophy as well as science, quite frankly, take the easy road to prevent the frustration their friends will experience with having to confront that they’re pivoting the conscious part of their belief systems on something roughly equivalent to stone age shamanism.
Wander through the philosophical side of discussions over at http://www.edge.org sometime. There are a couple of philisophical idealists there, like yourself. Out of hundreds who aren’t. While 99% are atheists [or agnostic], they join together from a common interest in utilizing science for human tasks — not the promotion of materialism. It just sort of happens naturally.