Seeing Through a Glass Darkly: Evolution's Faulty Spectacles
I was accused by a visitor to this blog of "looking at science through evangelical spectacles." OK, fair enough...maybe I am. As a matter of fact, I know I am. That's because I see all of life through a biblical worldview. I readily admit that. That's really not the issue, though, is it? The question is whether or not that worldview (or those spectacles, to use my guests analogy) is adequate and true.
My question to him is, "what spectacles are you looking at science through?" The popular answer is, "None. I look at science objectively." In a word--bull. I have already dealt with this issue in an earlier post once, pointing out that everyone starts with some sort of philosophical framework, including "objective scientists"--especially those that espouse Darwinian naturalism (see here). So I won't take too much time to further debunk this statement. Frankly, evolution is so flimsy, it doesn't need much more attacking. As it has been pointed out in many other places, Darwinism is fading fast in the public square and Darwinists are becoming increasingly aware of this as all can see through the increase in vitriol spewing forth from many of those that espouse this deficient worldview.
However, related to my guest's implication that I am looking at science through the eyes of religion, the popular argument against teaching Intelligent Design in schools is that "religion doesn't belong in schools." As a matter of fact, a CBS news article just yesterday highlighted that very argument within the context of the Kansas school board debate over teaching Intelligent Design in their schools. Here's a sampling:
My question to him is, "what spectacles are you looking at science through?" The popular answer is, "None. I look at science objectively." In a word--bull. I have already dealt with this issue in an earlier post once, pointing out that everyone starts with some sort of philosophical framework, including "objective scientists"--especially those that espouse Darwinian naturalism (see here). So I won't take too much time to further debunk this statement. Frankly, evolution is so flimsy, it doesn't need much more attacking. As it has been pointed out in many other places, Darwinism is fading fast in the public square and Darwinists are becoming increasingly aware of this as all can see through the increase in vitriol spewing forth from many of those that espouse this deficient worldview.
However, related to my guest's implication that I am looking at science through the eyes of religion, the popular argument against teaching Intelligent Design in schools is that "religion doesn't belong in schools." As a matter of fact, a CBS news article just yesterday highlighted that very argument within the context of the Kansas school board debate over teaching Intelligent Design in their schools. Here's a sampling:
The belief, which many say is deeply tied to religious belief, holds that some features of the natural world are best explained by an unspecified intelligent cause. Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years through natural selection.You caught that last sentence, right? "Religion has no place in the classroom." The fact is, ever since Darwinism has been taught in science class, religion has been in the classroom. Nancy Pearcey, in Total Truth (p. 172-173), points out this fact by highlighting an exchange during a conversation between evolutionist Michael Ruse and creationist Duane Gish:
However, the latest version of the science standards says the board isn't advocating intelligent design  which says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they're well-ordered and complex  as an alternative to the theory of evolution. But the language favored by the board comes from intelligent design advocates who challenge the theory of evolution.
Tuesday's debate exemplified the divisiveness of the issue, with moderates saying religion has no place in the science classroom.
"The trouble with you evolutionists is that you just don't play fair," Gish told him. You accuse us of teaching a religious view, he said, but "you evolutionists are just as religious in your way. Christianity tells us where we came from, where we're going, and what we should do on the way. I defy you to show any difference with evolution. It tells you where you came from, where you are going, and what you should do on the way." In short, evolution itself functions as a religion."Eventually, Ruse not only admitted this truth, but embraced it, claiming, "If this is not a rival to traditional Judaeo-Christian teaching, I do not know what is." Pearcey concludes by rightly pointing out the religious nature of evolution which is already in the classroom:
Critics typically accuse Intelligent Design supporters of trying to inject religion into the classroom. For example, during the Ohio controversy an editorial in a Columbus newspaper said, 'The problem is that intelligent-design proponents want to bring religion into science classes, where it doesn't belong.'Sadly, evolutionists are so committed to looking at the world through faulty spectacles, they are actually blind to the truth, unable to see the divine hand in front of their face.
The correct response is that religion is already in the classroom--because naturalistic evolution is itself a religion or worldview....The battle over evolution is merely one incident 'in the dispute between the believers in consciousness and the believers in mechanical action; the believers in purpose and the believers in pure chance.' To promote one faith in the public school system at public expense, while banning the other, is an example of viewpoint discrimination, which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional in a wide variety of cases.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 8/12/2005 02:45:00 PM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home