You write:
The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. Textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. my book What's So Great About Christianity provides several examples of this.
I'm inclined to wonder which is cart and which is horse in this matter. To be sure, some spokesmen for science go beyond the science and declare an absence of evidence equal to evidence of absence. (I'll have to look up the examples you cite to see for myself what they say.) How much of that, though, can be attributed to a reaction to pressure to intrude an intelligent designer into processes where no need for one has been shown.
You cite a case where some group denies Einstein's e=mc2. Let's instead imagine a group that denies that Newton's laws of motion are sufficient to explain planetary motion. Doesn't it seem an incredible coincidence that the earth is moving just fast enough so its centrifugal force balances the gravitational pull from the sun? Surely blind natural law can't be maintaining this delicate balance. So this group wants physics courses to include material on an Intelligent Pilot.
For centuries, first-year physics courses have been taught without reference to God. No one has ever taught that F=ma by the grace of God, or that kinetic energy is conserved by the grace of God. The equations work the same whether God exists or not.
The difference seems to be that people are now comfortable with the idea that the heavens move in response to blind, unthinking laws of motion, but balk at the idea that we came to be here in response to the blind, unthinking laws of chemistry and biology. They want to intercalate an intelligent Designer, and will label any failure to do so "atheist".
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment