Blog powered by Typepad

« Church Photo | Main | A Radio Ad for An Episcopal Church »

Feb 13, 2006


Reverend Ref

I didn't know it was Evolution Sunday until too late, otherwise I might have had something to say about the topic. As it is, I just preached on sin.

Phil Snyder

Not a bad exposition on the role of science and religion (or as I would put it, science and faith).

The two ask different questions. Science asks "How" and "When." Faith asks "Who" and "Why."

I liked your analysis of the Scopes trial and social darwinism was rampant in the cities and was the cause for much injustice to the poor because they "were simply not a competitive."

As Indian Jones put it: "Archeology (science) is the search for fact. If its truth your're looking for, Dr. Smith's philosophy class is down the hall" (the philosophy professor's name is probably wrong).

Science seeks facts and religion seeks truth. We get into trouble when we try to answer "How" with "Why" and "Who" with "When."

Having said that, we must be true to science enough to say that evolution is a theory and we don't know for sure what happened or when it happened or how it happened. There are many issues with the theory of evolution, but no other scientific theory has come so close to answering "how" and "when." ID proports to answer "how," but really answers "who" and is not really scientific.

Neither theory can be tested. We can't run the clock back 4 billion years to see if our theory is correct. All we can do is allow free research of the question of origins and remember to keep the right questions in the right spheres of study.

Phil Snyder


A pretty good post.

To me, the largely false conflict between the concept of God's creation of the universe and the scientific theory of evolution is still highly damaging. It still so readily becomes a lame excuse, "No, I don't believe in God - I believe in evolution."

I agree with Phil that there are indeed many "issues" with the theory of evolution, though we are still determining how fundamental to the theory are the recent wobbly areas. ID proponents have at least popularised some of these legitimate concerns and criticisms of the modern Darwinian Synthesis.

The sometimes vicious lashbacks from some parts of the scientific community are also revealing. How true are these scientists being to the philosophy of the scientific method? Did the same thing happen in the mathematics and physics field when Newtonian physics began to receive challenges?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends and Family