Francis Beckwith wrote:
Ed: The site does in fact acknowledge that there are two different views. I posted the text in question earlier. They say that of course there are some religious beliefs that are in conflict with science and evolution in particular, like the belief in a young earth. But you have to keep in mind the context. The context is in answering certain misconceptions about evolution, one of which is that it is incompatible with religious belief. Evolution is as compatible with religious belief as any other scientific theory. There may be specific religious beliefs that conflict with evolution, just as there are specific religious beliefs that conflict with the germ theory of disease, heliocentrism or a spherical earth, but it is false to claim that it is incompatible with religious belief in general or even with most religious beliefs. It is that misconception that they are attempting to answer and it is not necessary that they take a position on whether any particular religious belief is true or not. They merely point out three things: A. Most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution. B. Many religious people feel that a deeper understanding of nature enriches their faith. C. There are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and accept evolution. All three of those statements are entirely true and entirely descriptive. The reference to the NCSE list merely provides the evidence for those descriptive statements. The point is not to give a thorough explanation of all the possible religious views or to take a position on which of all of them might be true, but merely to point out that there is no inherent incompatibility between religion and evolution, that many people do reconcile them in various ways.
Only because they have been told that evolution = philosophical materialism. That is not only false, it is absurdly false. No one has yet explained why evolution is "naturalistic" or "materialistic" in any difference sense than the way in which the germ theory of disease or the kinetic theory of gasses are naturalistic or materialistic. They all use the working assumption of methodological naturalism and none of them require philosophical or metaphysical naturalism. They are told, as Lewis believed, that evolution and Christian theism are compatible. Fair enough. But then they see their position “represented” by the NCSE in the published statements of liberal religious groups who are essentially hostile to their theological traditions and have abandoned the notion that traditional theology may be rationally embraced by thoughtful people. You have to keep in mind that the NCSE page that is referenced is not intended to be shown to students. It is merely a reference for teachers to show them that some religious groups do in fact accept evolution and therefore there is no intrinsic incompatibility. Ed Brayton |
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/140 - Release Date: 10/18/05
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
