Blog the Controversy

There may not be a genuine scientific dispute over evolution as such, but there certainly is dispute from those outside of the relevant natural science about whether there is a dispute. Here are just a few recent posts related to evolution on blogs I read:

Jason Rosenhouse continues his coverage of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism.
Mike the Mad Biologist asks if molecular evolution is a good way to teach this subject to high school students.
Mystical Seeker shares a personal experience of faith and science.
An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution has a review by an Evangelical paleontology student of Lamoureux’s Evolutionary Creation.
Doug Chaplin, Drew, Wade G., Nick Norelli and Jim West continue our multi-blog conversation on this subject.
Science and Religion Today has several relevant posts, including one on Judaism, Torah and science.

"Are you ready to admit that the answer to the question you posed in your ..."

Earl Doherty as Christian Reformer
"Can it be that after all these years, Vinny might be ready to finally notice ..."

Earl Doherty as Christian Reformer
"You have presumably either misunderstood what Philo is saying in his allegorical treatment of another ..."

Richard Carrier as False Prophet
"A little vetting from a non-Evangelical, but a guy who grew up watching “Leave it ..."

Atheist Reindeer Conspiracy

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Angie Van De Merwe

    I’m beginning to think that the separation between Church and State should also reside in the realm of science and religion. While this separation might be ideal in some respects, can we really separate what we believe from reality…how we live? Our convictions play out in our lives, so our education about religion via scientific investigation results in religion being grounded in real history, politics, culture, etc….The disciplines are the truth of life and are our way of assessing what the State should be about. The Church guides the hearts into how the State should implement the State’s purpose…unless one believes that the State Should implement what it deems to be “the right heart”…then there is no room for any other view, without persecution…We have the “State Church” of China, Russia, etc.

  • Scott F

    I wonder if Secher Nbiw’s posting on Philosophy and Fact fits in here.

  • Scott F

    Angie: This reminds me of the Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) proposed by Stephen J Gould. “If only science would stick to the Empirical questions and religion to the Meaning questions.” Unfortunately science will occasionally make a foray in Meaning and religion, as historically and currently practiced, will make truth claims about the universe that cannot simply be ignored.Also, implying that empiricism is responsible for oppressive regimes is pushing it pretty far. Tyranny predates empiricism pretty handily after all. Human Nature will have to take the fall for that one.

  • Looney

    James, this little bit caught my attention:"but there certainly is dispute from those outside of the relevant natural science …"It is always good to refer to an expert, but what if I referred to a 19th century expert on the Ugaritic language? Given that the modern discovery of Ugarit was in 1928, the hypothetical 19th century Ugaritic scholar could not possibly have existed.So what expertise is needed to discuss ID? Perhaps having done some ID successfully? And what of the expertise in the creation of life from simple molecules? Shouldn't someone have actually built life from simple chemicals – and not done a cut&paste; job on what God has left us like a lazy student does on a term paper?The expert from the 'relevant natural science' is actually a myth, just like my 19th century Ugaritic scholar. It is pretty tough to go up against the credentials of a mythical scholar who never existed. Likewise, the 'scientific theory of evolution' doesn't have an equation like Newton's theory of gravity because it doesn't exist either, hence, it will never be disproved.

  • Cobalt

    @ Scott: Thanks for thinking of me! I’d actually considered discussing creationism vs. science in the entry. It has a similar tone, since as we learned from Expelled! it’s far more important for some people to accept or reject what a theory MEANS than evaluate at the facts behind it. It’s the “evolution isn’t true because Hitler did bad things with the theory” argument, which has nothing to do with fact and everything to do with values, with which philosophies we’re willing to associate ourselves with.The reason I didn’t include it in the end is that evolution isn’t a means to solve a problem. To pare down the entry a bit (with dubious success) I stuck to things like sex ed, where people must often choose between heeding unambiguous research and obeying uncompromising values.

  • Angie Van De Merwe

    Science itself is a model of reality. And every sceintific understanding (in physics) is a “model of reality”. Contradictory models exists and are useful for sceintific ends at different times. It is not that science is “put together” as if there is a unified “whole” picture of reality (physical)….that is the same thing when one approaches any of the subjects within the disciplines…there are various theories…differences of opinion backed by data, information..that is what the academic experienc is about and education of one another…No one has the “whole picture” of reality…but we all must seek to learn and formulate a “world-view” for ourselves that is open-ended to grow….Most sceintists are not as open-ended for scientists believe that their discipline is certain, because of mathmatical formula…Theoretical mathmatics is not a “whole”, either.

  • drew

    Looney,You are not making sense here and the analogy to Newton’s mathematical equations to gravity, while they still work on one level, do not work to where Newton thought they were quite universal. General relativity corrected that and quantum mechanics corrected that.It is simply not clear what this “thing that does not exits” called evolution looks like with what you are saying. It just does not sound like you have addressed the problem correctly or have devised a problem that, in fact, does not exist.And I know that you are probably sitting there saying “They just don’t get it”. I am trying to get it, but it honestly continues to looks like a jumble to me without enough coherence TO get it.