The big bang you're hearing is the noise of science and religion colliding, in the UK. The resignation, today, of a respected scientist, who also happens to be a Christian, from an important scientific post, because he suggested that creationism too could be taught in schools, alongside the theory of evolution, is a shame. Dogmatic anything is bad news: whether that be theism, atheism, or Darwinism. Clearly, evolution, a highly-robust theory, is assumed to be true, though unverified - but does not rule out the value of appreciation of alternate views on how the universe and sentient life in it came into being. There are versions of creationism (intelligent design, for instance) that are complex enough to dovetail with science, and surely some aspects of creationism are symbolically, if not philosophically, intriguing - for instance, the idea that nothing comes from nothing, or that, at the start, some being or great force conceived of existence itself. Science should not rule out the possibility of a God - God (separate from how religions may define her) - could co-exist within the natural laws as we so far know them to be. Religion and science work better in tandem, not in glorious isolation, where fanaticism breeds contempt.
The big bang you're hearing is the noise of science and religion colliding, in the UK. The resignation, today, of a respected scientist, who also happens to be a Christian, from an important scientific post, because he suggested that creationism too could be taught in schools, alongside the theory of evolution, is a shame. Dogmatic anything is bad news: whether that be theism, atheism, or Darwinism. Clearly, evolution, a highly-robust theory, is assumed to be true, though unverified - but does not rule out the value of appreciation of alternate views on how the universe and sentient life in it came into being. There are versions of creationism (intelligent design, for instance) that are complex enough to dovetail with science, and surely some aspects of creationism are symbolically, if not philosophically, intriguing - for instance, the idea that nothing comes from nothing, or that, at the start, some being or great force conceived of existence itself. Science should not rule out the possibility of a God - God (separate from how religions may define her) - could co-exist within the natural laws as we so far know them to be. Religion and science work better in tandem, not in glorious isolation, where fanaticism breeds contempt.
Comments
DW
Tod, I am surprised that you'd make such a claim, effectively dovetailing religion with science. Any coolly 'intelligent' religious person would immediately reject this notion, since the strength of a person's belief depends on something completely different from the basis of any real science: verifiable tests, experiments etc. Creationism is horribly pathetic, an insult to everything beautiful in religion, the great art, the sense of almighty doubt that must shadow anyone's relationship with God if that relationship is to be worth anything (see the poetry of Herbert or R.S. Thomas). That pipsqueak 'ism' is worse than lipstick. It is inexcusable kitsch, a travesty.
With respect Tod, that's exactly what you do when you suggest that "there are versions of creationism (intelligent design, for instance) that are complex enough to dovetail with science". What does "dovetail" suggest if not that very kind of conflation? Moreover, you go on to place the "robust theory" of Darwinism on the same footing with "alternate views on how the universe and sentient life in it came into being" which, coming hard on the heels of your mentioning creationism, would suggest that evolution and creationism are merely opposing theories (ergo, once more, that conflation you mention).
As to your concern "that a good man, advocating a balanced approach, was compelled to resign", I share it; we have no argument there.
BUT
That is not how you put it initially. You said: "...he suggested that creationism too could be taught in schools, alongside the theory of evolution." According to your own linked article, this is, in fact, a misrepresentation. What the minister actually suggested was that "creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue." If you had made this clear at the start you probably wouldn't have had any argument. I am rather surprised that you don't seem to realise this.
I see that I have misspelt your name at least TWICE. Apologies. That wasn't deliberate (though it may have been Freudian). I have also said too many times that you "surprise me", which begins to seem patronising or disingenuous (or both). Again, this was not deliberate.
Mark