| The futile, but never-ending debate over which account | | | | (though much of that came later). Are we really to |
| of human origins may or may not be taught in public | | | | believe the implicate of the claim above, namely, that |
| schools, drones on yet again. Most American Christians | | | | no real science occured until after 1830 because most |
| continue to fight the less-than-good fight, oblivious to | | | | of the guys doing "science" at the time were really just |
| the fairly obvious point that the Bible commands God's | | | | doing "religion disguised as science?" Isaac Newton |
| people, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers." | | | | even wrote a book on Bible prophecy. Does that |
| This clearly requires Christians to avoid having their | | | | make him a "non-scientific quack?" Of course |
| children taught by pagans -- meaning that God requires | | | | not.Fourth, if such persons as the claimant who says, |
| them to avoid sending their children to public schools. | | | | "Intelligent design is religion," fail to offer a cogent |
| This is a sinful, but common, practice among baptized | | | | defintion of what religion is, then his claim falters as an |
| households.So then, having said our mind on the | | | | entirely arbitrary indictment. On the other hand, if any of |
| subject, we move onto the questions of logic as they | | | | these yokels ever actually get around to offering a |
| pop up in the debate. Several of the proponents of Mr. | | | | definition of "religion," it will inherently entangle them in |
| Darwin's views have recently alleged that the doctrine | | | | real problems, since many features of "religion" also |
| of intelligent design ought not be taught in public schools | | | | show up in evolutionary views.For instance,1. |
| because it presents an inherently "religious" view. | | | | Evolutionary biology depends on the grand miracles of |
| Several ways to nullify the intended effectiveness of | | | | the "Big Bang" and "abiogenesis," and other miraculous |
| this claim come to mind.First, we should like to note that | | | | leaps from one kind of thing to another -- which have |
| no consensus exists among philosophers as to how | | | | not been observed.2. Evolutionary cosmology (as |
| one might distinguish a religion from a philosophy. Some | | | | taught in astronomy courses everywhere) forms an |
| would accept the claim that religions come with rituals | | | | entire worldview, a required way of looking at the |
| or ceremonies, while philosophies do not. But variants | | | | world through the lenses of naturalistic, subtle change |
| of ancient Orphism, Pythagoreanism and | | | | as the ultimate cause of everything.3. Evolutionary |
| Neo-Platonism come with mystical symbols and | | | | biology has major tenets -- adaptation, natural selection, |
| opaque rituals -- some of which symbols were taken | | | | micromutation, survival of the fittest, etc.4. Evolutionary |
| up by later forms of Kabbala -- and these ancient | | | | biology requires beliefs in what cannot and have not |
| views are usually construed as philosophies, not | | | | been observed - the unseen. This is why evolutionary |
| religions. And, quite curiously, one of the more | | | | literature contains the ubiquitous refrain -- "we cannot |
| interesting philosophies of the ancient world, taught by | | | | observe evolution happening today because it occurs |
| one "Anaximander" (ca. 550 B.C.), contained most of | | | | so slowly."5. Those communities which regard it as |
| the central postulates native to the views of a certain | | | | true employ a unique vocabulary to express those |
| -- you guessed it -- "Charlie Darwin."Second, "religions" | | | | beliefs.6. Evolutionary biology and cosmology imply |
| are person-relative. This means that no particular view | | | | certain answers -- and logically forbid others -- to the |
| (by itself) may properly count as "religion," since what | | | | grand questions of life, "What kind of world is this?" |
| one does or does not DO WITH THE BELIEFS in | | | | (metaphysics), "How do we know what we know?" |
| question has an important bearing on the point at hand. | | | | (epistemology), "What is the nature of humanity?" |
| If no ceremony or ritual of any kind attends the view in | | | | (philosophical or religious anthropology), "What is proper |
| question, this makes it hard to justify the "religion" claim. | | | | human behavior?" (ethics), etc., etc. Thus, by any |
| For [counter-] instance, Aristotle believed in "intelligent | | | | defintion of religion I can imagine, if "intelligent design" |
| design," but very few would call his worldview | | | | counts as religion, how much more will evolutionary |
| "religious," though his ideas do tend to show up in | | | | views be painted with the same brush?So it seems |
| university philosophy courses quite a bit. Also, many of | | | | appropriate here to finish our answer to the original |
| the French "Enlightment" Deists were quite arguably | | | | question with a phrase from a game traditionally |
| nonreligious -- if not irreligious -- persons, even though | | | | beloved by mathematicians:"Check mate."Carson Day |
| they affirmed "intelligent design."Third -- and we need | | | | has written some 1.3 gazillion articles and essays on all |
| to keep beating this drum -- almost every scientist prior | | | | manner of topics. These aim to glorify God and offer |
| to 1830 believed in intelligent design. And the majority | | | | people real help to live wisely and well. You can visit |
| of scientists kept believing in it until around 1870 or so. | | | | Carson's websites at (The Omniblog, where Carson |
| When Darwin published his "Origin of Species" (1859), | | | | blogs everything) or (Carson's Day Trading Outpost). |
| he met with his hottest disputes from other scientists | | | | Thanks for stopping by. |
| like Robert Owen, not from ecclesiastical authorities | | | | |