Comments on: Drs Myers and Decker: Advice on Teaching Evolution

By: Laury

Laury — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:17:26 +0000

I’m not exactly sure how that is a reasonable perspective even outside the classroom. How can the two approaches to knowledge be compatible when they come up with vastly differing answers to the same question? Only one is the correct answer, or at least coming closer to the truth then the other.

Put it this way, the phrase ‘reasonable perspective’ has that all inclusive word ‘reason’. Yet any ‘spiritual’ knowledge cannot by definition be based on reason. If it could be, then it can also be approached scientifically. I’m really not trying to split hairs or play a definition game here, but how on earth can there be that claim?

There are a couple options: A)Spiritual ‘knowledge’ un-reasoned (god created everything How? Dunno Why? Dunno)
B)Spiritual ‘knowledge’ attempted to be reasoned (god created everything How? by X and Y and allowing Z Why? To test us to see if we’re worthy of heaven I guess)
C) Scientific knowledge (Big Bang model How? Observation, testing, etc. Why? There is no why)

Option A is completely useless. It observes nothing, explains nothing, affects NOTHING. Anyone attempting to claim A as fact or ‘knowledge’ has no right to claim reason played any part in it.
Option B is testable, explainable, and falsifiable. It lives in the very heart of science. It observes, attempts to explain and uses that explanation as justification for something else. Science can, and has often, played in this field of ‘spiritual’ claim for a long time. Option B’s claim to reason are so often shown to be un-reasonable or just plain wrong that its almost as bad a A, but at least the attempt is made. (Dr. Hugh Ross, I’m looking squarely at your pack of lies as a prime example of Option B)
Option C is science.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:44:40 +0000

Chris is correct in his analysis of a reasonable Christian perspective on science, but I don’t like the approach for the classroom. A science class is no place for a theological argument on anything, and a science teacher is taking a chance citing scripture. Most arguments that start off this way and develop (many just stop in their tracks though not necessarily because of the argument, but because the student realizes they are in deep shit simply because the teacher glares at them, says something … anything …. then glares at them again) lead to bad places. The student may well come back with a counter argument from scripture (and there are myriad).

Better to just say that this discussion has no place in science class, we’re quite busy, get with the program.

By: Laury Plant

Laury Plant — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:33:31 +0000

Chris:

While that sentiment is often put forth, its quickly approaching the ‘not even wrong’ stage of incorrect. Religion most certainly attempts to contradict science in many ways (and vice versa). There is no ‘spiritual’ creation of the universe. No ‘spiritual’ version of evolution. No ‘spiritual’ way of truth. There was no ‘spiritual’ Adam and Eve. There either WAS or there WASN’T, and science has answered these many questions time and time again, and not in favor of religion.

A ‘good’ christian then, by your attempted definition, must not look too closely at science or else that ‘good’ christian cannot fail to notice that science most certainly conflicts with these so-called ‘spiritual approach to truth’.

Sorry Chris, but that’s a load of hogwash.

By: Chris Crawford

Chris Crawford — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:29:47 +0000

I have faced this problem in classes, and I have my own response. I ask the creationist student how Jesus responded to the man who asked whether Jews should pay Roman taxes. The answer is his famous admonishment, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” This is widely interpreted as a clear command to separate the secular from the spiritual. Science is the secular approach to truth, while religion is the spiritual approach to truth. A good Christian keeps the secular separate from the spiritual, and so that Christian does not attempt to reconcile religion with science; they are completely separate, Religion cannot contradict science and science cannot contradict religion because they are two completely different ways of knowing. Treat each one separately and render unto science the things that are science’s.