« Top 5 Problems With Taking the Bible Literally on Scientific Matters (#2) | Main | Top 5 Problems With Taking the Bible Literally on Scientific Matters (#4) »

March 01, 2005

Comments

Steve

No one else is commenting, so I might as well.=) I'm not so sure that you should give the scientific community such benefit of the doubt when it comes to seeking the truth. It seems like they are willing to employ rigorous scientific processes in all kinds of things except for the examination of the theory of evolution. I generally do not peruse scientific jourals (okay, never), but what I do read on the theory of evolution leaves me wondering whether the conclusion was reached before the evidence examined. Recently, an ID scientist named Stephen Breyer actually published a peer-reviewed journal artical questioning evolution and positing Intelligent Design. The article was the first of its kind to appear in a peer-reviewed journal, and, from what I know, peer-review is the gold stamp of approval in the scientific community. The response? Complete outrage in the scientific community. As for the editor who approved the publishing of the article, I've read that he is being black-balled by his colleagues at the Smithsonian--and I'm not sure that he is even a professing Christian. My only point in mentioning this is to question whether the scientific community is truly objective when it comes to theories of origin. If it is, why is there such a vitriolic reaction to such an article as Stephen Breyer's? Why such a refusal to take it seriously even for a moment? I would say it because this is a "faith-based" issue for scientists. The theory of evolution is an unassailable presupposition for most scientists, but I'm not sure this is due to air-tight scientific evidence that points to evolution.

Bill

Then, on the other hand, you have scientists with faith in Christ, who treasure the Bible and think that evolution is the best explanation.

I'm not saying intelligent design doesn't have its potential place. And I'm not condoning those scientists who refuse to be objective. I'm saying we have to be careful about who we vilify, particularly if they are Christians.

Steve

Point taken. Christians should always be charitable, even toward those whom they oppose.
However, I think it is also important to note where Darwinian evolution came from (i.e. Darwin himself). Granted, there have been a number of revisions of his theories since 1859, but the record is pretty clear that Charles Darwin was not ambivalent about Christian doctrine. Culturally, he was a "Christian" because, in that era, his career would have been finished had he publically repudiated Christianity. But I think he had a personal stake in establing a theory that ran contrary to concept of a God-created universe (yes, I realize that some Christians propose that God employed the process of evolution to create the earth).

The comments to this entry are closed.