Just so happens I have an op-ed in the Forward this week reflecting on precisely the fight over "accomodationism," pitting Coyne et al. v. Collins et. al. The issue: can science and religion be reconciled, or does it perhaps make a difference what you mean by "science"? Readers of this blog will know that I've shown how Francis Collins makes a mash of the very serious religious belief that human beings are made in the image of God. More on Collins and his insipid theology here.
Today in academia, a believer like...Francis Collins, or like Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller at Brown University, can count on being ridiculed by the anti-accommodationists. In academia, where reputation is everything, you would not want to be an ambitious young scientist in their mold.
This is despite the fact that both men strenuously deny that there can be any empirical evidence of God's creativity in nature. [T]hey affirm that the history of life could have produced intelligent creatures very different from human beings for God to enter into a relationship with. Perhaps "a big-brained dinosaur, or... a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities," as Miller has speculated, surrendering the basic Judeo-Christian belief that the human face and body mysteriously reflect the image of a non-corporeal God.
That may sound as if we've come to a final parting of the ways between science and religion. However, it all depends on what you have in mind when you speak of "science."
Must religion indeed accommodate any scientific idea -- even if the idea is wrong, even if it's bad science, ideologically motivated in its origins, intended to explain nature specifically with the view of keeping God out? If that's what science requires, then of course there can be no reconciliation.
But remember -- alongside the secular Enlightenment view of science, there runs a parallel tradition, seeking to explain nature without preconceptions, secular or otherwise. That way of thinking still exists among individual scientists, though it is in need of a good revival. With that tradition -- older, grander, more open-minded, even more enlightened, you could say -- there is no need for a truce with faith, no need for a separation, no need for a divorce.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
There is some good info on Francis Collins at these links:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-horgan-and-francis-collins.html
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-atheists-on-francis-collins.html
@Bill
I think you'll find that there is significant evidence to support evolution. Perhaps it is you that should look at the bones with your eyes and not a theist christian opinion. I do agree with you on one point though. You are correct in asserting that there is no way to prove that man came from monkey. Why? Because man DID NOT come from monkeys nor has any evolutionist claimed that we did. Man and monkeys have a common ancestor. How many times does this have to be said? I think before you claim that evolution is false, perhaps you should learn something about it. Its obvious that you know nothing about what the theory of evolution states.
Oh no, the mormon mafia is after Gabriel! Her husband finds nothing in conflict with the BOM.Of course not, he is a believing Mormon, how could he. This is the problem with religious fanatics, they twist reality to fit predetermined beliefs.
Elizabeth, you are right to base your belief in the Book of Mormon on faith; evidence, internal or external, will get you nowhere, because there isn't any.
The external evidence shows no reason to suppose that Jews came over at the time of the Baylonian captivity and built huge cities--the Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs, Mayans, and the people who built Teotihuacan seem to have been more than capable of doing so themselves.
The internal evidence suggests the work of a farmer's son, familiar with the Bible, who didn't write very well. Haven't you noticed that nearly all the verses start with "and it came to pass"? Have you ever heard of a real war that ended with only one man left standing, who then writes a book? Haven't you noticed how often he runs out of things to say and then starts quoting Isaiah, word for word from the King James Bible?
Lehi and Nephi seem, on the evidence, to be much less real than King Solomon or King Arthur. They seem more like Plato's Atlantis--not a real legend or history, but something invented by one person and presented as real.
It seems to me that anyone who writes a book titled Why the Jews Rejected Jesus really wouldnt have a clue about anything to do with the process and practice of True Religion.
Such a book implies that he was an on the ground witness in Palestine/Israel 2000 years. And that he has researched and interviewed many many people of the Jewish faith in ALL times and places ever since.
In short he is talking through his hat.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.