Blogotional
When anyone claims that the theory of evolution says there is no God, they are making a claim that is as much based on their personal religious and philosphical convictions as is a Christian's statement of faith.I don't dispute this. However, it's generally those who oppose the teaching of evolution that make this claim, not evolution's proponents (Dawkins exempted). I'm not aware of any science curriculum at the high school or college level that teaches any such thing.
One thought: The Bible claims that God objectively exists, and that Jesus Christ was a real historical person (and God incarnate) who died on the cross. These are statements of fact -- so when you try to separate "belief" from "science", I think it's important to recognize this. Either Jesus Christ was who he said he was, or he wasn't. It's not just a matter of belief, it's also a matter of fact.
I know you're primarily dealing here with evolution. It just makes me nervous when you separate statements of faith or belief ouot this way.
Also, just out of curiousity, what's your definition of science? You say that God is outside the realm of science by definition. The definition of science I usually use is something like "a method by which we find out about how things work by creating and testing hypotheses" which says nothing about God. But some people seem to have a definition which involves "a method by which we come up with naturalistic explanations for observed phen
omena" or something, which does say something about God (he can't be part of the hypothesis).
What if I come up with the hypothesis that people who interact with certain people who claim to have a gift of healing, given them by God, really can be healed? Is that a statement that is scientifically testable? The idea is that God might heal people -- is it science if I do a study to find out if this is true?
I agree with your point but the difficulty comes with fundamentalism and reading the bible literally. The evidence for evolution is simply incompatible with that world view, forcing students to decide between science and religion. I see this as decreasing the legitimacy of empirical evidence and an impairing the ability to make informed decisions.
Of course, that problem aside, your proposal seems to be the most logical compromise.
You are right. I am an atheist/agnostic, I am a scientist and I am apalled that people with no training in science want to dictate science curriculum based on their religous beliefs. It just doesn't make sense to me. Evolution, nor any aspect of science, does not say nor can it ever say anything about God. Like you say, God is outside the system. As I just wrote on my own blog this week: "Scientists don't have theories that include supernatural all-powerful beings."
The fact that you and I agree on this gives me hope. Please help us put some rational back in this discussion. Forgive me, but it is the religious folk creating this firestorm. Science is just doing what science always does.
David asks:"What if I come up with the hypothesis that people who interact with certain people who claim to have a gift of healing, given them by God, really can be healed? Is that a statement that is scientifically testable?"
The healings are scientifically testable. But the claims of a gift are not - you cannot quantify God in this way. You can collate data on a number of people who are healed (assuming they are), but how do you physically identify and quantify the cause? John is right - God is outsode that. In the same way we can say God heals through medicine - as a statement made from faith. We can quantify the medicine - we can't quantify God.
Let me reiterate Leanleft's comment (#1). There is no textbook ever published which says "science has determined there is no God." No textbook ever calls God's existence into question.
There is no science paper which makes that claim, either.
The controversy, then, is a false one, generated by people who start out with an erroneous assumption about what science says, or with dishonest intent to make science one more of many beasts necessary to justify faith.
Weak faith, I would say.
The advocates of intelligent design have been engaged in an effort to discredit evolution for 15 years, so that they, in their claims, can get God into the science classroom in public schools.
That's against the spirit and letter of our laws, of course.
So the question is, should we participate in a wrong-headed attempt to gut our Constitutional protections, or should we teach science as science?
Commenting by HaloScan
