Hope for the future

| 12 Comments

The next episode of NOW on PBS will report on a trip by scientists and evangelical Christians to Alaska “with open minds to learn about the effects of global warming.”. Earlier this year, the ScienceDaily blog reported on this unique trip.

The Scientists-Evangelical Alaska Expedition grew out of a collaboration that began at a two-day private retreat in December 2006 attended by 30 leaders from the scientific and evangelical communities. The retreat led to close relationships of mutual trust and understanding among the participants and to the release in January 2007 of an “Urgent Call to Action,” a pledge that these leaders would speak with one voice in their shared commitment to protect life on Earth.

There is hope after all that science and Christians can work together to uncover the facts about nature. Remember that science educating evangelicals is considered to be a big threat to ID’s Wedge Mission

Bruce Chapman Wrote:

If you want to know why appalling views like Dr. Watson’s enjoy such covert scientific support, read West. Race theory and eugenics are not accidents, but the logical product of Darwinian thought—going back to Darwin’s work itself. Perhaps your local church pastor might like to read about it before he declares St. Darwin’s birthday a holiday in February, as has been happening at some of the more gullible and latitudinarian chapels of the land. Watson’s candor actually helps illuminate the radical ideological content of Darwinism when unadorned by political fig leaves.

A well informed Christian is a big threat to Intelligent Design’s Wedge Mission. As I explained in the comment section of a previous posting, I will explore these claims and show that the ID creationists are (once again) self contradictory. While arguing on the one hand that Darwinism cannot provide a foundation for morality, they also conclude that Darwinism leads to eugenics. However, for eugenics to work, there must be a foundation for what is better/desirable. But Darwinism cannot provide such guidance per ID logic. In fact, as I will show it is religion which provided much of the necessary foundation and in fact in the early 1900’s religion was a major popularizer of the concept of eugenics.

12 Comments

There is hope after all that science and Christians can work together to uncover the facts about nature. Remember that science educating evangelicals is considered to be a big threat to ID’s Wedge Mission

That was a curve ball. Science can uncover facts, while religions can stop interfering with the process.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath. I would describe the above relationship as my enemy’s enemy is my friend. And hopefully the war isn’t eternal.

If evangelicals are willing to join the fight against global warming - that is great!

But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

What, you don’t want to turn blue? Huh.

Henry

But I wouldn’t hold my breath. I would describe the above relationship as my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

Not really, I would describe it as Christians and science can get along. While science can outline the problems, fixing the problems and educating the masses has to rely on many resources.

Oh, “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” is to get along too - under the gun.

We could discuss at length the beneficial and adverse effects of religions on many social issues, and in how large degree they are cleaning up messes they earlier helped create. We could also do the same for science, which isn’t lily white socially or morally either. But it isn’t productive here.

What I objected to is the description’s implication that religion is directly involved in uncovering facts about nature. Science works with that, and religion could as you describe contribute in the social sphere. I’m satisfied with that description.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

“We could also do the same for science, which isn’t lily white socially or morally either.”

I would say that science can’t be described that way. Science is a tool for understanding our surroundings. Your comment is equivalent to saying that a hammer isn’t lily white socially or morally - it doesn’t make sense. Certainly a hammer can be used or misused for socially or morally dubious purposes, just as science can. Scientists, engineers, the military, politicians, or others who make decisions about the use of science, can be moral or ethical (or not), but science itself cannot be. To suggest otherwise is to fall in the trap of some creationists who argue that science (or more specifically, evolution) is evil.

That is one of many differences between science and religion (of course, other obvious differences have been discussed in these pages many times). Religions generally claim to be guides to moral or ethical or social behavior (usually as handed down by one or more gods) while science is amoral. (That is not an indictment of science any more than it is an indictment of hammers to say that they are amoral, by the way.)

The ethical framework of many religions can be a guide to the use of science. However, it can also be strongly argued that science can be ethically used without a religious framework, and of course religion has been used many times to justify hideous uses of science.

GvlGeologist,

I was indeed thinking of the social use of science by scientists and others, inside and outside the project of science, not the process as such.

Torbjörn,

I agree with you. It’s just that that particular comment was similar to some that I’ve seen creationists or IDists (pretty much the same thing) use against science, so I wanted to point out the misuse of it.

Something must be done about the abortionists, pornographers and evolutionists who have brought God’s wrath down on mankind in the form of global warming. As he judged the Voodists in Louisiana by hurricane and the Sodomites in Southern California by fire so global warming will be mankind’s ultimate reckoning for tolerating the most sinful lowland nation of the Netherlands. The stench in our Heavenly father’s nostrils has become so great that he will allow the water levels to rise until the entire nation is submerged–and this time there will be no little Dutch boys to stick their fingers in the dyke-holes, for they will be too preoccupied Sodomizing each other to care!

Pole Greaser: to write an effective parody you should be more moderate in tone so that people think you are being serious, at least for the first sentence or two.

You don’t have to make a personal trip to Alaska to know that glaciers started melting about 15,000 years ago. It’s called a sun cycle and has been heating and cooling the earth for as long as the earth has existed. If you think warming is bad, wait until you see the next glaciation cycle.

Richard Simons:

Pole Greaser: to write an effective parody you should be more moderate in tone so that people think you are being serious, at least for the first sentence or two.

I sometimes get overboard when talking about the love Jesus has for us!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on October 24, 2007 12:09 AM.

Ben Stein expelled by ID? was the previous entry in this blog.

Bill O’Reilly joins the liberal Darwinist media is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter