Monday, January 7

National Academy of Sciences Rejects Science-Religion Dichotomy

Linked below is a brief book review of Science, Evolution and Creationism, a 70-page volume published by the National Academy of Sciences. Its basic tenet seems to be encapsulated in this quote from the NYT article: “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.”

I couldn't agree more. There needs to be a balance between science and religion; leave science to the scientists and theology to the theologians. If someone from either side wants to make comments on an issue that concerns both camps, it should be done with an attitude of engendering harmony, not dismissing others' findings out-of-hand.

I make no bones about the fact that I am undeniably a Christian, and I believe in the truth of the Bible. However, that doesn't mean that I have to subscribe to knee-jerk Creationists' beliefs that God must have created the Earth in six literal 24-hour periods. I can believe in theistic (God-directed) evolution, with the "days" of Genesis corresponding with "ages" or "eras" of undefined duration, without compromising my belief in Scripture as the inerrant Word of God.

Evolution Book Sees No Science-Religion Gap - New York Times


Lauren said...

Groovy; smashing; yay theistic evolution!

Kevin said...

Hey Brad,
I saw you sharing your favorite Google Reader and thought, "Who is augmentedfourth?". I had to visit your site to remember!

Though I can't say I agree with you about the theistic evolution, I must say that Christianity is not a tool designed to discredit science. Each side must come to the table with presuppositions that the opposing side could never accept without contradicting it's own fundamental beliefs.

Each seeks the truth, and one will be right in the end.

Hope all is well!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available by emailing the author (use the link above).

The Geek Code desperately needs updating, but in any case here's mine (as of 2010-02-28):

Version: 3.12
GIT/MU d+(-) s:+>: a C++> ULXB++++$ L+++ M++ w--() !O !V P+ E---
W+++ N o++ K? PS PE++ Y+ PGP t !5 X- R- tv+@ b++ DI++++ D--- e*++
h--- r+++ y+++ G+

If you really care about knowing what that all means, you either know the code already, or you can get it decoded for you here.