Must Science Declare a Holy War on Religion?

Los Angeles Times ^ | August 11, 2009 | Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

[nickcarraway]

The so-called New Atheists are attacking the mantra of science and faith being compatible. Others in the science community question the value of confrontation.

This fall, evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins -- most recently famous for his public exhortation to atheism, "The God Delusion" -- returns to writing about science. Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," will inform and regale us with the stunning "evidence for evolution," as the subtitle says. It will surely be an impressive display, as Dawkins excels at making the case for evolution. But it's also fair to ask: Who in the United States will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?

Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists. These religious adherents often view science itself as an assault on their faith and doggedly refuse to accept evolution because they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness. An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they'll heed.

Dawkins will, however, be championed by many scientists, especially the most secular -- those who were galvanized by "The God Delusion" and inspired by it to take a newly confrontational approach toward America's religious majority. They will help ensure Dawkins another literary success. It's certainly valuable to have the case for evolution articulated prominently and often, but what this unending polarization around evolution and religion does for the standing of science in the U.S. is a very different matter.

[airborne]

If science does declare war on religion, they will give Islam a pass.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

There is no evolutionary viability for homosexuals.

[The_Repugnant_Conservative]

Dawkins will only be championed by the militant atheists.

Everyone else thinks he’s just making an ass of himself.

[Nikas777]

I find that in the West many Christians in the last century or so try to use science to prove the existence of God or a miracle, etc.

This seems like a Western Christian way of viewing the world and what I mean by that is that to Eastern Christians, God and his works are a mystery so to use science or worldly knowledge to uncover proof of God’s hand is a waste of time such as searching for Noah’s flood, or the real Garden of Eden, etc.

An Eastern Christian would for example have the view that physics is a measure of the world and God is knowable so how can he be quantified?

Science is a measure of the natural world. God dwells (according to Christian theology) in the ‘supernatural’ world. Hence science is not designed to measure the supernatural world so why use it to do so?

Of course this leads to the conclusion that there is no supernatural world because science can not detect it but science can’t detect alternate realities either and evidence exists via a theoretical model for those but that gets into philosophy and philosophy is not empirical science.

[allmendream]

The Pope is referring to biological evolution, of which there is, as he says, much scientific proof in favor of, and which enriches our understanding of life and being.

[Nikas777]

I screwed a line up - should read: An Eastern Christian would for example have the view that physics is a measure of the world and God is knowable Unknowable so how can he be quantified?

[allmendream]

Please familiarize yourself with parthenogenesis and asexual reproduction. Your statement as presented is false, although your bizarre and off topic point is valid.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Please familiarize yourself with parthenogenesis and asexual reproduction.

Please familiarize yourself with mammalian biology from a 5th grade text book.

Insects also evolve through heterosexual relationships.

By the theory's definition, heterosexual reproduction represents the higher state of evolution as it is the most advanced state of reproduction.

[TomOnTheRun]

No less than 6 times in the article do the authors qualify the conflict between the evolutionists and the biblical literalists as being in the US, or American, or in the country.

Through-out the rest of the world, it is an entirely different story.

It is. At least from my experience. Much of the rest of the Christian world is either Catholic or Orthodox and has no explicit problem with the theories of evolution. Popes and Patriarchs have even made pronouncements in favor of it. The protestants that do have a problem with it pass those lessons on to their children and trust their children to resolve whatever conflicts might arise in their studies of evolutionary biology.

It IS an increasing point of tension in the moslem world but there isn't much that doesn't wind them up these days. I think it gets lost on the cloud of other things that make them drool with hatred. I don't think anybody bothers with what the Buddhists think about it until they start arming themselves.

[allmendream]

Claiming that evolution doesn't happen to asexual or parthenogenic populations is wrong. Evolution is studied extensively in asexual reproducing populations. Sexual reproduction is certainly advantageous to reproduction as it increases genetic diversity, but it is not essential to evolution.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

So then, according to this, it cannot be a theory of human origins, because a human being is both body and soul.

Evolution is a theory of human origins; it does not address the soul. It's not a problem for evolution if you can't see how both those statements can be true.

[Jaime2099]

The Pope is referring to biological evolution

Each scenario I presented in my previous post would fall under different types of biological Evolution. The question is, which one is he referring to.

[allmendream]

What kind of evolution is the Pope referring to?

To the kind of evolution that produced human beings from “pre-existing and living matter” to use Pope Pius's words from 1950.

[Jaime2099]

I find that in the West many Christians in the last century or so try to use science to prove the existence of God or a miracle, etc.

It is a completely legitimate thing to do. Biology studies the origin of species and creation by an intelligent designer is a legitimate scientific theory. Evolution is not the only scientific theory which looks at the origin of species. Evolution has not shown using science that a species can mutate into a completely new species, all it has shown is that there are vast variations inside of each species. These results do not eliminate creation, nor do they make the idea of Creation unscientific. It has been only recently, through the invasion of science by the God haters, where scientists so mockingly look at the combination of God and Science. For most of Civilization as we know it, the two were perfectly compatible and no scientific revelation have been found to change that, only the religion of Darwinism whose leaders despise God. And they have spread their hatred all throughout the schools and Universities in our country and now even Christians are confused about God and Science.

Conduct studies on particle collision and create intelligent systems by the collisions. Evolve current species into new species. That is how you can clearly see just how real and scientific God is. Then tell me God isn't scientific after you have collided one trillion particles and have nothing to show for it. And tried to evolve any existing animal into a new species and have nothing to show for it. These results will be feeble and pathetic and then all will know using science that God is real and almighty! Creation is scientific! To say otherwise is a philosophical statement and not a scientific one.

[Old Landmarks]

I find that in the West many Christians in the last century or so try to use science to prove the existence of God or a miracle, etc.

The Christian world view has responded to aggression by a few who try to pass their humanistic philosophy off as empirical science.

The humanist, even the ones who claim to be Christian, reject the few details of the creation as written in the Bible and instead they pretend that if you do not take on their philosophical explantion of the creation, you are rejecting science. That is the liar's strawman.

For the Christian to be silent in the face of aggression by this competing philosophy, (which only recently has completely come out of the closet and has become increasingly propped up by state force), is foolishness.

God's creation, (the now fallen creation) and what we call the natural world, is part of the creation of God. That is what is being studied by science, God's creation.

If you think a good deal of the scientific community that pontificates does their pontifications without a strong philosophical bias, you misjudge them and have not watched them over the years. They behave as if they have, not science, but their humanistic philosphy at stake, and they are correct.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Claiming that evolution doesn't happen to asexual or parthenogenic populations is wrong.

I never claimed that. We are talking about humans and higher forms of life.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Evolution is a theory of human origins; it does not address the soul.

Therefore it is not a theory of human origins, because a human is both body and soul.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Did you ever watch James Burke’s Connections series? He would explore some of the twists and turns of technological development. I remember in one show, he talked about how the invention of a more efficient loom led to the production of more and cheaper clothes, which led to the accumulation of lots of linen rags, which became the raw material for the production of lots of paper, which was used in lots of books, which spurred the growth of literacy in medieval Europe.

It’s like you’re saying “That’s not an explanation for the growth of literacy because he didn’t mention ink!”

Okay, fine. By ECO’s standards, the theory of evolution is not a “theory of human origins” because it doesn’t explain everything about being human.

[GraceG]

A True Atheist just ignores religion in their own life and lives and let live, instead of attacking it like some sort of rabid dog at every opportunity.

People like Dawkins are what I call Fundamentalist Atheists.

[Nikas777]

Again, it is a Western way of thinking about God - a thinking which itself only a few centuries old.

To the Christians of the east, trying to prove the existence of God with devices borders on sacrilege.

To an eastern Christian you can’t quantify God who is himself according to the Christian view of it, unquantifiable. Since God is not quantifiable he is not measurable. if you can’t measure God or observe him then science can not quantify nor classify God.