Do you agree with Miller that the warfare view of science and religion is utterly false?
Minor correction: Miller is Catholic, not Evangelical.
Ken Miller, the biologist at Brown University who testified at the Kitzmiller trial, is a Catholic.
Keith Miller is a geologist at Kansas State, and the treasurer of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists. He's an evangelical Christian.
Alan, when I met KEITH Miller (member of KCFS, and professor at a university in KS), he was an Evangelical Christian, and he was still an Evangelical Christian years later (I don't recall his specific sect, but I was of the impression he was a Protestant Evangelical Christian, instead of a Catholic Evangelical Christian; but his sect was not important to me, I was more interested in his passionate discussion of benthic fossils).
KENNETH Miller (Brown University Professor, author, and another vocal Christian defender of evolution), on the other hand, is Catholic.
Perhaps we should invite Keith to comment here and tell his Miller's Tale, for clarification.
Smith's musings in the Manhattan Mercury inspired me to write this letter to the editor of that fine newspaper. Hopefully it will appear in those pages soon. If not, at least you can say you read it here!
---
To the editor
In a recent column, Richard Smith claims that since science is silent on the existence of God, science must be an “atheistic worldview”. and scientists are engaged in “practical atheism.” He finishes his column with the rhetorical question: “Don’t they teach logic anymore?” Let’s follow his logical thread to its conclusions, and see where it might lead.
In the first place, merely not mentioning a deity in a science class is assumed to be, by Smith’s arguments, proof that science is atheistic, and scientists, by extension, must be atheists. That is illogical, as a simple analogy will prove. Deities are usually not mentioned in shop classes, nor in auto mechanics classes, or in Latin classes. Does that mean that shop teachers, or auto mechanics teachers, or Latin teachers are all atheistic? Probably not. Just as is the case for science classes, the invocation of a deity is not required to study shop, or auto mechanics, or Latin. While there may be a deity in charge, and while those teachers may indeed be believers in some deity or other, their beliefs are simply not relevant in the context of their classes. Science, just like shop, auto mechanics, or Latin, is nontheistic.
In another rhetorical flourish, Smith compares two statements. A scientist saying that “the study of creation cannot tell us of the creator” is deemed wrong, because that would be like saying “that a building says nothing about its architect”. Actually, most buildings don’t tell us much about their architect. Very few Manhattan residents could drive by my house and tell me the race, creed, color, or even the sex of its architect. I myself am clueless about any of that. Smith’s logical fallacy comes from his presupposition that he knows who the creator might be. And he may be right. But lots of other folks have lots of other ideas about that creator. Creators, just like architects, come in lots of different sizes and flavors.
And that brings me to the final logical conclusion of Smith’s arguments. Suppose we accept his claim that science classes should teach about the designer. Which designer? Even among Christians, those science teachers might include Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Pentecostals, and perhaps even Moonies and Branch Davidians. Get a bit further afield and you’d have to worry about Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, and perhaps Astrologists, Satanists and Wiccans. And don’t forget the Unitarians and atheists! Do you really want lots of different people teaching your children about God? Or would you rather keep religious instruction in the religion classes, where it belongs? What could be more logical than that?
Dave,
I'm going to steal that! Thanks!
There appear to be certain sects of christians who claim the right to decide who is an authentic christian. Anyone who doesn't believe exactly like they believe, can't claim to be a christian. But when it suits their purpose, they will also point out that "this is a christian nation" and that 96% of Americans are christian."
BTW, I figured out where they get that 96% figure: it apparently accounts for everyone who isn't born into a specific religion. When I was in high school a friend once explained to me that everyone is born christian unless they are born Jewish or Buddhist or whatever. So I was a christian whether I admitted it or not.
Certain types of Christians EAT their own.
And Gerry, certain scientists take it upon themselves to say who is and is not a real scientist.
Oh, and Kynos, can you spell BIGOT? Look in the mirror.
Merely observation, Mr. Tim-mentator.
We all know your own hate and bigotry exists in a sanctified state of pre-eminent grace, and as such, above criticism.
Therefore, any imputation of sin against you is itself sinful.
Life is SOOO easy when you're insane.
Dear Commentator,
(Or: a "Tim" by any other name is just as full of...)
Please look up this word in any standard English dictionary: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
That's you there, in the illustration.
For a profile shot, look up this one: I-D-I-O-T.
"Certain types of Christians EAT their own."
What are you talking about?
They accuse each other of atheism, and sentence each other to Hell.
Oh.
I say, judgment will be fair.
Theist can have what they believe in.
Atheists get what they believe in.
Now, thats fair, isn't it.
Commenting by HaloScan
