I don't agree with every single point in the article, but I certainly agree with the overall conclusion that I highlighted...What Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham missed
Once again the perennial talk of a "war" between religion and science is upon us. In an Internet-televised debate, creationist Ken Ham went head-to-head with TV scientist Bill Nye on the question of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era. Unsurprisingly, Ham insisted that it is, while Nye objected. As so often with these debates, religion and science were simplistically pitted against each other, proving once more that what the opponents in - and organizers of - that sort of spectacle are missing is the capacity for critical thinking.
Whether you see religion and science as irreconcilable enemies or not depends first and foremost on the premises with which you engage the question of their relationship. For example, if you agree with Ham that all we have to do to figure out the origins of the various species on Earth is to pick up the Bible and read it literally, you are bound for conflict with evolutionary biology. If your response to Ham is that only scientific evidence leads you to the truth, you are likewise a far cry from common ground. The question is whether these are the only two options when it comes to evaluating the origins of biological diversity.
Not only are there viable alternatives, but these diametrically opposed perspectives are also each fundamentally irrational.
The problem with biblical literalism a la Ham is its dismissal of interpretation as a necessary aspect of every act of reading. Every text, no matter how simple, requires the reader to somehow disclose its meaning through careful negotiation. Words are symbols with multiple meanings, which is why in conversations we more often than not have to ask for clarification.
Try it out: You are at the grocery store and try to buy what is on your shopping list: diapers. Do you buy the overnight or the normal daytime ones? And what size do you get? The problem does not get any easier when you pick up 2,000-year-old Hebrew poetry. Add to that the numerous contradictions, obscure passages, redacted versions, and the translation from the Hebrew into English (every translation is always also an interpretation) and you can easily see why any attempt at reading the Bible according to the mere meaning of the words is futile.
Insisting that "science is the only way to the truth" does not fare any better.
In order for this truth claim to hold, it would have to be scientific in nature, which of course it is not. The statement is a metaphysical one that cannot be tested empirically - a necessity for any scientific claim. Hence, if it were true that science is the only way to the truth, the statement would be meaningless. And if it were indeed meaningful and science were the only valid path, it would undermine itself as a nonscientific claim and be false. I can hardly think of a more irrational and naive presupposition than that.
How, then, can religion and science be related in a productive fashion, aside from the obvious, abandoning biblical literalism and paradoxical metaphysics? Philosopher of science Ernan McMullin proposed to look for consonance between religious and scientific knowledge claims. He argues that as long as theological doctrines and scientific theories do not contradict one another, there is no need for any conflict.
Yet such consonance is only possible if both disciplines hold themselves to the highest scholarly standards and remain academically honest. Any dissonance would require further interpretation of either the scientific data or, more likely, the biblical texts. Thus, if the believer interprets the Genesis account of humanity's origin too literally, dissonance will ensue and a new interpretation is needed. This, by the way, is nothing new. Already in the year 395, St. Augustine had warned against a literal reading of the six "days" of creation.
Which leaves us with the question Nye and Ham discussed, whether creation is still a meaningful concept in today's scientific world. As a theologian and biologist I would have to say, yes! God created the human being and all other species through the free process of biological evolution. Instead of asking for equal teaching time of pseudo-scientific creationism or demanding religion to be banned from the public sphere, let's teach our high school students to engage religion and science philosophically like McMullin, so they can draw their own conclusions in a well-informed way.
Oliver Putz is a lecturer in religion and science at Santa Clara University. To comment, go to http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1.
I've never bought into this idea that there's a natural and irreconcilable chasm between religious belief and science; I see that as a false dichotomy that is reinforced by absolutists on both sides...
In order to be a Christian, it is not required that one believe utter nonsense like the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that humans and dinosaurs lived on the planet together...
And to have a respect for science doesn't mean that you can't also have an understanding of it's limitations, and simultaneously embrace religious faith...
From my perspective, I have never seen the conflict...
ETA:
Okay, I couldn't post this without remarking on the unfortunately named Professor Oliver Putz...
Good Lord, if your last name is "Putz", (Which is more than bad enough; why that wasn't changed several generations ago eludes me...) why on earth would you further tag your son with a wet first name like "Oliver"?
I imagine Junior High gym class was no picnic for Oliver Putz...
