A Grain of Salt

Startin’ here this week.

In recent years, some Americans have come to view science and religion as consistent antagonists, butting heads over everything from the origin of the cosmos to when human life begins (abortion) and when it ends (euthanasia).

This article was written by a columnist on the USA Today website. After a brief explanation of the views of “Conservative denominations,” he states the reason for bringing the topic up.

The issue surfaced again over the summer. When President Obama named Francis Collins, an outspoken evangelical as well as former director of the Human Genome Project, to head the National Institutes of Health, some scientists, secularists and at least one prominent atheist criticized the appointment. They were concerned that Collins’ faith might influence his decisions at the NIH. This despite the fact that Collins, author of The Language of God, supports both evolution and embryonic stem cell research

This really shows a lot about… well, everyone. First, the “scientists, secularists, and at least one prominent atheist.” They believe that the new appointee would be influenced negatively by his faith. Maybe they don’t entirely realize the point of this government- to represent the people. When the majority of the nation is against abortion, isn’t it logical to have a leader who reflects those views? And if President Obama felt it appropriate to appoint the man to the position in the first place, then shouldn’t we trust that the decisions made will be good ones that reflect common opinion? I realize that their exists a very simple argument against this one, so I’ll go ahead and address it. “Well when people you disagree with are appointed,” some of you may be thinking, “why do you always go up in protest against them?” Well, first of all, I prefer to wait and see a politicians decisions before I decide anything about them, while trying not to pin the blame on their moral character. And if I do decide to protest, it’s because I disagree with some of the decisions that they have made. Not for the reason of disagreeing with their belief system.

Next is the way the Christian community as a whole is viewed. These people obviously see us as all holding the same opinions- the outcry wasn’t against him, it was against the way they felt he would respond. So these scientists may think that all evangelical Christians hold the same opinion. Sure there are several beliefs that all Christians should share, but some are simply a matter of belief. I think that Christians should embrace and share the differences that we have, explore them, and then maybe come to a reasonable conclusion. That may be too much to ask. But maybe if we can get the world to see us differently, these kind of disgraces wouldn’t happen.

More on the rest of the article next week.

We start here.

The 2005 decision by Judge John E. Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was celebrated by all red-blooded American liberals as a victory over the forces of darkness. The result was probably inevitable…but the conflicts aired in this trial- over the status of evolutionary theory, the arguments for intelligent design, and the nature of science-reveal an intellectually unhealthy situation…Most importantly, the campaign of the scientific community to rule out intelligent design as beyond discussion results in the avoidance of serious questions about the relation between evolutionary theory and religious belief, questions that must be faced in order to theory and evaluate the scientific evidence for it..

This sums up the feelings that Christian scientists  ( not Christian Scientists, the religious sect against medicine, but scientists who are Christian ) having been trying to promote for the 150 or so years since Darwin published his now famous book, On the Origin of Species. When several students complained about the inclusion of intelligent design in a textbook, the school county was sued for it’s removal. The professor argues instead that it should be taught, as it bears just as much weight as the theory it opposes. Sounds remarkably pro-Intelligent design, right? This article was actually written by prominent Atheist, Professor Thomas Nagel. Of course, he is a professor of law, but the true story here is not the scientific side, but the Constitutional side. The article goes on to quote the book that prompted the lawsuit- it basically says that evolution is a theory, gives 3 or 4 sentences on intelligent design, then instructs students to talk to their family if they want to know more.

What Thomas Nagel saw was a Constitutional crisis. For too long, the rights of students to learn was infringed upon because what was being taught wasn’t widely accepted.  ( I have heard the “flying spaghetti monster” argument that has been used by some. And I will allow this theory to be taught when prominent scientists discover that the evidence for the “flying spaghetti monster” outweighs the arguments for evolution. ) The string of court decisions that are decently anti-Christian seem to have no end. But the decisions aren’t the real purpose behind this post either.

Straw men. That’s right.

Many times, Christians assume that all Atheists are bloodsucking baby-killers with no moral compass. Likewise, some people see Christians as Bible thumping do-gooders who have no intelligence and ignore scientific fact to keep their precious ignorance intact. Thomas Nagel defied one of these stereotypes. He showed that even someone who disagrees with the Creationist view has to admit that it is a acceptable theory. And that’s where we  come in. We have to defy stereotypes also.

Earn the respect of your peers by acting in a way that shows that you have evidence of what you believe. If you can refute a point, do it humbly and calmly. If you have feel you have been defeated in a debate, accept defeat with dignity. Please. PLEASE. If the Christian community as whole doesnt rise up to act in a dignified way, soon our faith will be the laughingstock of the world.