RE: Today's blogs 2

Denyse's post touches on a common misconception, one that does affect the
conversation between IDs and TEs.

She expresses the view that the "separation" or "independence" model of
science and faith is simply a way of conceding that religion is nonsense.
It is true that many atheistic scientists promote such a view, b/c they
believe religion is nonsense and they want to keep religious people from
influencing science education. The letter by Jerry Coyne et al. in Nature,
responding to the editorial on teaching about science and religion, is a
pertinent example.

But why should we accept that view of the separation model as the only one
to consider? Indeed, why should we accept on the face of it *anything* that
Coyne and company have to say about religion--their biases are profound and
well known, I doubt frankly that anything anyone says would alter their view
on iota.

The separation model is not my favorite; it can justly be criticized as a
form of intellectual schizophrenia, if pushed too far. But surely, Galileo
was right: The Bible tells how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Geocentrists we are not; the Bible and science do have very different
purposes, and religious ways of knowing must not be equated with or reduced
to "rational" ways of knowing. Faith has a strong basis in reason, but any
faith based only on reason IMO is not genuine faith. Independence can in
fact shield theology legitimately and fairly from scientific conclusions
that are either not sufficiently warranted or pressed to far in their reach.
 Polkinghorne realizes this, calling himself a "consonantist" rather than an
"assimilationist" for this very reason. And IMO he's right to do so.

Completely to reject Galileo, IMO, can lead easily to a kind of
simple-minded bibliolatry that cannot ever be the basis for an accurate
picture of the created order.

Ted
 
Received on Tue May 24 11:55:06 2005