Friday, January 06, 2006
Science As Religion
Evangelical Outpost is looking at the rise of a new religion he has termed "neism." Joe explores this at great length quoting extensively from responses to the 2006 Edge question.
This is great stuff by Joe, but there is one small nit-pick I want to make. Joe says
Just before Christimas, I made the point that evolution is not Godless, save for an a priori decision to make it so. Evolution did not seek to discard religion, it is simply necessary to ignore the supernatural when forming natural theories of science.
If I may so bold, I think that much of the desire to create something like "neism" is born of the knee-jerk religious reactionism to evolution since its inception. Something remarkably ill-informed since Newtonian Mechanics also makes such supernatural exclusions. Deific religions positioned themselves, instantly upon the appearance of Origin of the Speicies, as opponents to it instead of as explorers and shapers and thinkers about it. They left proponents of evolutionary theory without religious recourse, thus practically inviting them to invent their own. That's an invitation that, given our sinful state, we are going to hop on pretty quickly.
Somehow, I find the word "grace" stuck in my mind. I also worry that proponents of Intelligent Design are making the same strategic mistake of opposition, although at this point, the cat may be so far out of the bag that it doesn't make any difference.
Somehow I cannot help but believe that we are better served by bringing Christ to the scientific discussion table than declaring ourselves in opposition to it.
This is great stuff by Joe, but there is one small nit-pick I want to make. Joe says
Not only is there no conflict, evolutionary biology has even birthed a new religion, a blend of naturalism and deism that I refer to as "neism."I differ from Joe's analysis only in that I don't think evolutionary biology has birthed this new religion, its roots are in something much simpler - simple human desire to discard God - sin.
Just before Christimas, I made the point that evolution is not Godless, save for an a priori decision to make it so. Evolution did not seek to discard religion, it is simply necessary to ignore the supernatural when forming natural theories of science.
If I may so bold, I think that much of the desire to create something like "neism" is born of the knee-jerk religious reactionism to evolution since its inception. Something remarkably ill-informed since Newtonian Mechanics also makes such supernatural exclusions. Deific religions positioned themselves, instantly upon the appearance of Origin of the Speicies, as opponents to it instead of as explorers and shapers and thinkers about it. They left proponents of evolutionary theory without religious recourse, thus practically inviting them to invent their own. That's an invitation that, given our sinful state, we are going to hop on pretty quickly.
Somehow, I find the word "grace" stuck in my mind. I also worry that proponents of Intelligent Design are making the same strategic mistake of opposition, although at this point, the cat may be so far out of the bag that it doesn't make any difference.
Somehow I cannot help but believe that we are better served by bringing Christ to the scientific discussion table than declaring ourselves in opposition to it.
