--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another meaty interview in Salon with a theologian > on the relationship of science and religion. > > John Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian and a > student of evolutionary biology who has proposed > a "theology of evolution." He has a book coming > out called "God and the New Atheism" in which he > takes the current crop of atheist authors to task > for their lack of understanding of both religion > and science. > > Excerpt: > > We have to distinguish between science as a method and what science > produces in the way of discovery. As a method, science does not ask > questions of purpose. But it's something different to look at the > cumulative results of scientific thought and technology. From a > theological point of view, that's a part of the world that we have to > integrate into our religious visions. That set of discoveries is not > at all suggestive of a purposeless universe. Just the opposite. And > what is the purpose? The purpose seems to be, from the very > beginning, the intensification of consciousness.
This is such crap, consciousness could have evolved any time in the last 500 million years, instead it waited for a chance event with a monkey which wouldn't have happened if a meteorite hadn't slammed into the earth wiping out the dominant reptiles. Oh yeah maybe that was an act of god. This is a case of a true believer not seeing the facts because of deeply held prejudice, it's the opposite of science. If you understand > purpose as actualizing something that's unquestionably good, then > consciousness certainly fits. It's cynical of scientists to say, off- > handedly, there's obviously no purpose in the universe. If purpose > means realizing a value, consciousness is a value that none of us can > deny. > > http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/index.html > http://tinyurl.com/3y6uar > Here's another excerpt: "Evolution remains the thorniest issue in the ongoing debate over science and religion. But for all the yelling between creationists and scientists, there's one perspective that's largely absent from public discussions about evolution. We rarely hear from religious believers who accept the standard Darwinian account of evolution. It's a shame because there's an important question at stake: How can a person of faith reconcile the apparently random, meaningless process of evolution with belief in God?" There is no ongoing debate between science and religion, but people like the "intelligent design" crowd like you to think there is. It's stark staringly obvious why you never hear from believers who understand Darwin, there aren't any. One doesn't believe in evolution one understands it, big difference. This is the problem with this entire debate, you have a bunch of people who don't actually understand something trying to shoe-horn their beliefs into somewhere that doesn't need them. Dawkins has a poor understanding of religious beliefs for sure, but in a way his knowledge is perfect because he understands that religion is the software running on the hardware that natural selection created. All you have to do is prove him wrong and you've expanded human knowledge. It's perfectly possible, Dawkins himself is fascinated by concepts of ultimate creators/consciousnes he's not as narrow minded as people like to paint him. None of these articles will prove him wrong however, they are just searching for wiggle room, it's called the "god of the gaps" wherever someone thinks science can't provide an explanation they try to use that as proof there is more in the sense of a controlling force. None of the arguments has stood up so far, and in the ever expanding sphere of knowledge the space for god gets smaller all the time.
