Wednesday, May 21, 2008
"Debunking" Faith Disguised As Science
Why do scientists study certain things? Have you ever wondered about that? For example, if you are going to study why certain phobias are very common why would you choose one phobia over another? I certainly wondered about that specifically when I read this MSNBC piece about the "evolution" of snake phobias!
What's worse, the study only looks at the commonality and apparently genetic nature of the phobia, but there is no data whatsoever that it "evolved" - only that we seem to be born with it.
I hope you are tracking with me here. Remember the important role of the serpent in the whole creation story? - Providing a "natural" account of the development of the natural human snake fear would, like the very idea of evolution, help to "demythologize" that account and put another nail in the coffin of religion.
There are a couple of points I want to make out of all of this. The first is how difficult it is to separate the science and the reporting in the story. There is definitely an anti-religious agenda at play in here somewhere, but I cannot decide if it resides with the scientists or the reporter. In the quotations the scientists seem to make evolutionary assertions, but such is the prevailing theory so I would expect them to discuss things in those terms - they do not seem to be proselytizing, just reporting. But the way the story is told, by the reporter, sensationalizes the findings in such a way that one just knows the average reader is going to jump all over this with a "See - I told you so" kind of anti-religious response.
But this brings me to my second point - literal creationists, young-earth, precise Bible-narrative types are a pretty rare breed amongst Christians these days. Most Christians are in the Genesis as metaphor mode, or a mode that suggests the science has not finished its work yet, so let's just see where all this comes out - the Intelligent Design crowd. But what happens is we allow the fringes to define the rest of us, and others are more than willing to go along because they are such easy targets.
Christians need to begin to take a little better control of their own press. I am not expert enough at managing the media to even know where to begin on this, but it is something we have got to do. Too many people come to the church now with preconceptions that are so far from reality.
I know one thing that we all must do. We have to do a better job of standing up and being noticed. When the unpleasant conversational assault happens, we cannot slink away quietly. We do not have to be "in your face" but we can debunk the myths about us.
Bold, but not pushy. I like that
Technorati Tags:faith, science, press, definition, image, boldness
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
What's worse, the study only looks at the commonality and apparently genetic nature of the phobia, but there is no data whatsoever that it "evolved" - only that we seem to be born with it.
I hope you are tracking with me here. Remember the important role of the serpent in the whole creation story? - Providing a "natural" account of the development of the natural human snake fear would, like the very idea of evolution, help to "demythologize" that account and put another nail in the coffin of religion.
There are a couple of points I want to make out of all of this. The first is how difficult it is to separate the science and the reporting in the story. There is definitely an anti-religious agenda at play in here somewhere, but I cannot decide if it resides with the scientists or the reporter. In the quotations the scientists seem to make evolutionary assertions, but such is the prevailing theory so I would expect them to discuss things in those terms - they do not seem to be proselytizing, just reporting. But the way the story is told, by the reporter, sensationalizes the findings in such a way that one just knows the average reader is going to jump all over this with a "See - I told you so" kind of anti-religious response.
But this brings me to my second point - literal creationists, young-earth, precise Bible-narrative types are a pretty rare breed amongst Christians these days. Most Christians are in the Genesis as metaphor mode, or a mode that suggests the science has not finished its work yet, so let's just see where all this comes out - the Intelligent Design crowd. But what happens is we allow the fringes to define the rest of us, and others are more than willing to go along because they are such easy targets.
Christians need to begin to take a little better control of their own press. I am not expert enough at managing the media to even know where to begin on this, but it is something we have got to do. Too many people come to the church now with preconceptions that are so far from reality.
I know one thing that we all must do. We have to do a better job of standing up and being noticed. When the unpleasant conversational assault happens, we cannot slink away quietly. We do not have to be "in your face" but we can debunk the myths about us.
Bold, but not pushy. I like that
Technorati Tags:faith, science, press, definition, image, boldness
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
