Of Colossal Wastes of Time
Jon Blumenfeld thinks that reconciling religion and science is a colossal waste of time. He says:
Time for battle stations in the comments section, because I am going to say something that is sure to ruffle some feathers: The attempt to reconcile religion and science in general, and the bible and evolution in particular, is a colossal waste of time.
He’s apparently particularly concerned that the most recent Reports of the National Center for Science Education contains many articles on the topic.
I have a suggestion: If you believe reconciling religion and science is a colossal waste of tim, just don’t do it. Hmm. Come to think of it, I don’t think he does. Problem solved. Well, not quite, because apparently he doesn’t like anyone else to take their time doing it. Now I’m not going to bother to defend theism. I rarely do. I’m not even going to suggest that any particular group of people need to read material on religion and science.
But the NCSE is interested in sound science education in the United States, and particularly in the teaching of evolution (see their about page), and in the United States there are a variety of groups that support that goal. I, for example, am a Christian Bible teacher who supports the teaching of evolution (and the absence of creationism of any variety including ID) in public schools.
As an advocacy organization, NCSE is simply intelligent to serve all of the constituent groups who are likely to support the cause they advocate–sound science education, and particularly the inclusion of evolution. I know atheists are making a few gains as a percentage of the population right now, but sound science standards for public schools are going to need the support of some religious people.
I don’t mean to sound cynical, but this is simple, basic politics. The NCSE staff seems to understand it quite well, which is one reason they are very effective. We can go ahead some day and have an argument over religion vs. atheism. But let’s not mix up the battle for sound science education get confused with that issue.
(HT: The Panda’s Thumb)
Hi Henry,
Agreed. Good Post.
As I commented on another post:
“IMHO, it is fair to say that most theistic evolutionists are willing to make common cause with others who oppose antievolutionism, even if our partners do not share our religious beliefs. However, it is very difficult for us to work as partners in promoting evolution with those that are simultaneously attacking our religious beliefs. Those who do this are actually making it less likely for evolution to gain widespread support since most of the opposition to it is theologically based & not scientific. (Ok, there are lots of pseudo-scientific arguments against evolution, but Im not counting these). Dawkins has been called Gods greatest gift to creationism I wouldnt articulate it like this but the point is valid.”
It’s not a colossal waste of time to try to reconcile science and Christianity, because the Bible, and what we can learn about nature (mostly through science) are different parts of God’s revelation of Himself to us. God’s different modes of revelation, properly perceived and understood, should not contradict each other.
Nice to know that somebody is actually reading and responding to The Rogues Gallery. Allow me to clarify. I love the NCSE, and I have no qualms about them serving all parts of their constituency. I am also not suggesting that anyone must abandon either religion or science in favor of the other. My point, when boiled down, was this: Science works without God. It also works with God. Faith in God is not really subject to rational inquiry, so for those with a scientific outolook, belief in God is a choice, like the one Martin Gardner made. That’s it. Why waste time, ink, and paper going any further than that?
In my opinion, any attempt to ‘prove’ the supernatural using the tools of science and reason is doomed to failure (though I know others disagree). Those who have made the choice in favor of religion don’t need to write a book about it – they can explain their positions in a single sentence: “I have faith, and it’s not in conflict with science. ” Saves a lot of time.
To those who feel that this is an attack on their religious beliefs, I can only say that I think you misuderstand my argument. I may not share your beliefs, but I am not attempting to make any value judgements on them.
One last thing – my point on the NCSE was that they could better use their time advocating good science education than indulging in yet more navel gazing about the reconciliation of religion and science.
I understand the frustration, but at the same time my point would be that if you’re trying to gather constituencies behind a cause, each constituency needs to see their issues addressed. I would imagine that is what NCSE is doing.