A post by Maynard

I don’t know whether I’m going to like “Expelled”, which opens in theaters this Friday. But Hollywood and the mainstream media have been doing their darndest to immerse us in a cauldron of political correctness. Being a disagreeable creature, I thirst for anything that promises to be contrary.

What is “Expelled” about? The press clips indicate it focuses on the conflict between evolutionists and creationists in the academy. I hope there’s more to it than that, because that is a battle I would rather not linger on. We’re here by the will of God, but is it unthinkable that He might have used an evolutionary process to do the job? Why must the pursuit of this question become prickly? In a nutshell, science tells us how and religion tells us why. These two outlooks should work together (like body and soul) to seek a uniform vision.

The clash of evolution versus intelligent design has become a proxy war as our culture wrestles with issues of atheism versus theism. Radical secularists attempt to misrepresent the Establishment Clause as a call for state-mandated atheism; an aggressively wrong-headed agenda that I vigorously oppose. I’m on board for the war, but the enemy is the repressive political ideology. Is it really necessary that we scrap with the evolutionists?

I view intelligent design (“ID”) as a discipline that is more philosophical than scientific. And it’s certainly appropriate that the hard sciences be cross-pollinated with philosophical questions; that’s what we’re doing when, for example, we expect a medical doctor to also learn medical ethics. ID, like ethics, raises hard questions and important challenges. But I can’t see it as a science in the sense that biology is. (I know some people put forth a rigorous technical argument in favor of ID, and I’m not dismissing that position; however that’s a long discussion in itself, which I’ll skip for the sake of brevity.)

Of course, it must be remembered that evolution is also something of a theory. That’s why they call is the theory of evolution. Duh!

Back in the bad old days, Galileo offended the dogma of the Church when he advanced his theory of heliocentrism. He was forced to recant this heresy, and spent his latter years under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition. We tell ourselves we’ve passed beyond the era of dogma into an enlightened age. But these days, the guardians of the One True Church of Political Correctness are equally aggressive in defending their canon. Recently Nobel laureate James Watson was forced into retirement when his observations gave offence to the Anointed Ones.

(As the song goes: “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.” But let’s move along.)

Anyway, with respect to the academic community, I lament to note that mine is apparently a minority opinion. This study indicates that only 7% of scientists believe in a personal God, as opposed to 72% that disbelieve — in sharp contrast to the general public, where a large majority accept God. Other studies suggest that the more educated an individual is, the more likely that person is to be an atheist.

For the record, I (Maynard) have a degree from Starfleet Academy, and in fact my faith was nurtured as it became clear that our most essential questions could not be answered by materialistic inquiry. I love science and I am grateful to the students of the material arts, to whom we all owe a great deal. But it’s Man’s vanity, rather than objective facts, that tempts us to think we can get by without God.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. pat_s says:

    He who wants to become God will never find Him. — Ashtavakra Gita 18.36-37

  2. bbrink says:

    You commented that the Intelligent Design theory is basically philosophical. I agree, but then, so is the theory Evolution. By the very nature of the theory it tries to explain things that are in the past which, because it is in the past cannot by tested or observed in the present.

  3. ladykrystyna says:

    Maynard, excellent post! You hit the nail on the head – science and religion is like apples and oranges. Listening to people try to turn religion into science and science into religion is such a joke, especially when we have more pressing problems right now.

    And Evolution is not really a “theory” – much of it can be tested in the present day by finding things from the past that either confirm or deny the “theory”. Yes, the “theory” can change from time to time, but much of it has been “proven”, whereas nothing in the first chapter of Genesis has been proven (for example, it took 6 “days” to create the world when the Earth is actually 4 billion years old and we’ve only been around for less than 100,000 of that.).

    I really think that the way Maynard put it was best – science is the how and religion is the why. Let’s stop this nonsense. Teach ID in a philosophy class and leave it at that until they can come up with some “science” to back it up.

    Besides, is this really that important – whether your kid thinks we are closely related to chimps or not? Evolution and God can go hand in hand. How do I know this? Because I went to Catholic school through 12th grade and was taught both religion and evolution and I don’t seem to be falling apart.

    Let’s move on people!

  4. appletown says:

    Most educated people understand that there is plenty of empirical evidence for micro-evolution (mutations within a species), but virtually none for macro-evolution (mutations which change one species to another) which is the theory on which the controversy centers. We ought to see rampant evidence of the “interim” creatures (liberals notwithstanding) everywhere in the fossil record, but it just isn’t there. The latest kooky idea I heard was that, since there is no similarity in the mitochondrial DNA between humans and apes, that “simian AIDS” caused the genetic gap. I think if the idea of God creating the world was pulled out of someone’s derriere, then the idea that an immune deficiency disease (that didn’t kill the genetically inferior monkey but does kill the genetically superior human) is the cause our latest evolutionary leap, was also pulled out of someone’s knickers.

  5. Sparky says:

    This movie will make Michael Moore’s misleading documentaries look like utter genius. Do an internet search and read the information for yourself (Google/Yahoo/Ask “Expelled”).

    It is crap like this that makes me rethink being a republican. Why do WE have the apparent monopoly on the gay-bashing-evolution-denying-teach-Intellegent-Design-in-publik-skool-at-any-cost-and-ignore-the-first-ammendment hayseeds? Where is a STRONG Libertarian party for all us secularist republicans and conservative/moderate democrats to unify under!??!

    It is clearly time for a new national party for those of us that don’t want to teach religion in public school and who don’t want their candidates to be rubbing elbows with terrorist orgs.

  6. Troy Camplin says:

    The Democrats have them too, only the people in charge at the DNC keep them quiet.

    It seems that both sides have a need to ignore facts, I’m afraid. They just typically choose different facts to ignore.

    I have personally observed that it is Christian opposition to evolutionary theory that drives people who learn about evolution in college away from Christianity. The facts just become too overwhelming.

You must be logged in to post a comment.