Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
Not sure what the DI is complaining about.
| Quote |
What does science say about the
nature of religious beliefs?
By definition science cannot address supernatural causes
because its methodology is confined to the natural world.
Therefore science has nothing to say about the nature of
God or about people’s spiritual beliefs. This does not mean
science is anti-religious; rather, it means science simply
cannot engage in this level of explanation.
[...]
Q: Why not teach intelligent design,
or creationism, alongside evolution?
A: The federal courts have ruled that creationism, creation
science, and intelligent design are not science, but instead
endorse a specific religious belief. Therefore, these topics
are not appropriate content for a science classroom. Neither
ID nor any other form of creationism has met any of the
standards of science and cannot be tested by the scientifi c
method. On the other hand, evolution, like all other sciences,
is founded on a growing body of observable and reproducible
evidence in the natural world. The state of knowledge in
evolutionary biology is the product of 150 years of rigorous
challenges using the methods of science, whereas intelligent
design is not supported by scientific evidence. Teaching
evolution alongside these other approaches would imply
that creation science and intelligent design meet these same
high standards of testability, and they do not.
[...]
Q: But some people say evolution is
just another form of religion itself:
Darwinism.
A: The idea of evolution did not begin or end with Charles
Darwin. Many alternate proposals about evolution already
existed when Darwin published On the Origin of Species
in 1859, but his work was quickly recognized as the most
compelling explanation in the field of natural history. Since
then, thousands of scientists have added greatly to our
understanding of evolution, through research in biology,
genetics, paleontology, geology, and more. If modern
studies contradicted Darwin’s work, science would follow
the evidence. Instead, over and over again, research has
confirmed the principles Darwin outlined, while further
fleshing out the picture. Evolutionary biology does not
depend on the personal authority of one person’s writing.
Evidence for evolution comes from many sources, including
the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetics. The
theory of evolution is based on facts. Religion is based on
belief. Evolution is science, not religion.
Q: Can you accept evolution and still
believe in religion?
A: Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently anti-
religious is simply false. All that evolution tells us is that life
on this planet could have arisen by natural processes. For
many people of various faiths, showing that something is
due to a natural process doesn’t take it outside the realm of
the divine. Religious thinkers across the ages have written
that merely showing that something is natural puts it within
the influence of God, the creator of all nature. By definition
science cannot address supernatural causes because its
methodology is confined to the natural world. Therefore
science has nothing to say about the nature of God or about
people’s spiritual beliefs. This does not mean science is anti-
religious; rather, it means science simply cannot engage in
this level of explanation.
|
Ah, there are various statements of support for teaching evolutionary science from Christian denominations. This sort of thing was at issue in a case in California, IIRC.
I know of no better way to demonstrate in the next court dustup that the DI is pushing a narrow religious viewpoint than for them to object to the page of support statements in the educator's guide. They would be promoting their own theology and working to suppress that of others.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
) 
