Skip to main content

One more on evolution

Here's one more post on evolution - an editorial from The Detroit News that struck me as extremely sensible:
I am an Orthodox Jew, but I wasn't always religious. I grew up secular, though Jewish, where no theory was absolute and no one cared much for questions of creation. As I grew older, I wasn't satisfied with that perspective -- I wanted to live a more meaningful life. There had to be right and wrong, I reasoned, and so I stumbled into synagogue. What has bothered me most since coming to this side is the way that my "open-minded" liberal peers write off anything that religion has to say. To be open-minded in America means open in one direction. ... The point of public school, in fact, is learning to see different perspectives. We ended racial segregation in this country decades ago, but it looks like we are holding fast to intellectual segregation under the guise of "open-mindedness." Would it be so bad if kids learned that evolution wasn't the only possibility for how this wonderful, complex world was created? Religious parents who send their kids to public schools already tolerate the teaching of evolution. Can't secular parents tolerate the reverse? As a religious Jew, I believe that there is a God. Indeed, the Laws He proscribed in the Torah, or Five Books of Moses, guide my daily life, and it is from the Torah that I learned that He created the world. Everything in this world -- including science -- comes from God. The greatest rabbis in history were skilled mathematicians, doctors, scientists and they did not view their secular studies to be incompatible with the Torah. Rather, they saw everything in existence as having its roots in religious text. Intelligent design and evolution may not be incompatible, or they may be. But teaching both perspectives doesn't shake my world foundation, nor do I believe it would shake the foundation of high school biology students who learn that maybe, just maybe, there is more than one way to look at things.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi