Posts
A blog that I frequent often is Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist. The author, James Kidder, does an excellent job of providing updates on anything in the news related to evolution, intelligent design, and the ongoing debates. Recently, he has posted several short articles about Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her opinions about creationism, intelligent design, and the teaching of such subjects in schools.
I do not think that Intelligent Design is legitimate science, something that I will expound upon in the future; therefore, I do not think that we should be teaching Intelligent Design in our schools. Unfortunately, it seems that matters of both science and religion often are used and abused by politicians to develop a good public image and gain more support. One day a politician may support the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools; the next day the same person may caution against such action. Perhaps they are being manipulative... or perhaps, like many people, they are not sure what they believe about evolution?
I will probably never vote for a "Christian" candidate because I think that my political ideology should direct my support of candidates and policies. My religious perspective certainly directs my political ideology to a degree, but my religious preference should not direct my support of candidates and policies. I will certainly not support a candidate simply because he shares my religious preference.
I think this same reasoning can be applied to the natural sciences. I do not want a "Christian" science because I think that science should be directed by methodological naturalism. I suppose you could argue for a different scientific ideology, but science has always been directed by methodological naturalism... that is the whole point of science, to find naturalistic explanations for observable phenomenon. To explain observable phenomenon with a non-naturalistic explanation such as the presence of an intelligent designer is simply non-scientific... according to my scientific ideology. Intelligent Design is developed from a scientific ideology that is directed by a religious perspective, usually Christianity. Seriously, if the creation stories of Genesis were not in the Bible, would the theory of Intelligent Design even exist?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Politics and Perspectives
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 hatched thoughts:
I don't think I.D. would exist if the creation story wasn't in the Bible. But then again, I don't think the church would exist if the Gospels weren't in the Bible.
The vast majority of Christians I've met hold those stories to be equally as important and equally as true, both literally and theologically.
This topic is frustrating. A sports message board I frequent has a thread about the presidential election, which evolved into a "Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in public schools" thread, which then evolved into a "Christians are stupid because they believe in creationism which is a bunch of b.s. just like the rest of the Bible" thread.
Clearly there's something wrong with this picture. I just don't know what the solution is.
It seems common experience that if I tell someone that I think the creation stories in Genesis are Israelite myths, then I am immediately questioned on whether or not I think that the resurrection really happened... usually somewhat sarcastically. At first this seems like a valid question, but I think it comes from a general ignorance of the literature of the Bible.
Many Christians would not differentiate between Genesis, Psalms, Matthew, or Romans: they are all the Word of God and true. I would agree with them on this point. The problem is that is where most people stop, but it is necessary that we go a step further. Genesis is full of mythology-type writing, Psalms is Hebrew poetry, Matthew is a Greco-Roman biography about Jesus, and Romans is a letter from Paul to believers in Roma. Since these are vastly different forms of literature, we must strive to understand what "truth" means in the context of each book. Matthew and Romans gives it to us straight, because that is the nature of their style. But Psalms is poetry, so we have to be careful what we take as literal (and most people understand this). Genesis is closer in style to something in Greek Mythology than it is to the book of Matthew, and thus we need to look at it in that light (I am not saying that Greek Mythology is of the same value of Genesis by any means, and it would be more accurate to say that Genesis is similar to Egyptian or Canaanite mythology).
Post a Comment