Custom Search

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Judaism and Creationism?: Disputes among the Orthodox

An interesting article in Moment Magazine details the tribulations of a Darwinist Orthodox rabbi in a world dominated by creationists. Author Jennie Rothenberg also writes a sidebar on mathematician David Berlinski, a Darwin skeptic:

Unlike the majority of Jewish scientists, David Berlinski, a self-described non-observant Jew, refuses to accept the theory of evolution. Berlinski is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that funds research, sponsors conferences and briefs members of Congress, all in the name of intelligent design, a counter-Darwinian theory positing that living species were intentionally and individually formed.

Two major misstatements here:

1) Berlinski is skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution, as is Stuart Pivar. This does not commit either of them to rejecting any theory of evolution at all. Indeed, Pivar is an advocate of structuralism and I suspect that Berlinski has structuralist leanings too.

2) Discovery Institute does not claim that all living species were "individually formed." Rothenberg writes as if she cannot imagine that anyone could truly doubt Darwin's specific account of the history of life on any grounds, evidence notwithstanding.
If you like this blog, check out my award-winning book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Catholic Church and Darwinism:Church no longer swears by Bible?

A new low was reached with the recent Times story, "The Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible", in which we are
informed that
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect "total accuracy" from the Bible.

"We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision," they say in The Gift of Scripture.

Just about everything in the article is misleading, especially the implication that the Catholic Church has been a champion of the literal reading of Scripture as a matter of principle, and has now abandoned that position - and hence is now slowly backing away from the position that the Bible is even "true."

Nonsense. The traditional Christian interpreted the Bible for centuries on many levels, depending on what levels were thought to shed the most light. A four-level system was very popular: literal, allegorical, anagogical, and tropological.* Other schemes must certainly exist. The Bible was and is considered to be true, which is not the same thing as saying that it is always to be interpreted literally.

As I pointed out in By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg 2004), back in the Renaissance era, the Bible was interpreted literally sometimes merely as a default. Even (probable) atheist Sir Walter Raleigh started his history of the world with the Biblical narrative because, prior to the rise of geology, no other history was even available. (Yes, there was Greece and Rome, but they come later.)

Literal interpretation as the only way of understanding the Bible seems to have arisen from conflicts and problems within American fundamentalism, which was itself an unacknowledged (on both sides) child of modernism. All this relates to the intelligent design controversy only insofar as the people who think that the Catholic Church has dumped the Bible - and will now go on to embrace Darwinism - should check out some of those Nigerian generals' widows with Internet investment schemes, but only if they have no money to lose.

* literal - can you recount the story you just heard? allegorical - where does this story fit in the global scheme? analogical - how will this story help you understand the spiritual life? tropological - how will this story make you a better person today?
If you like this blog, check out my award-winning book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Novelist Michael Crichton: Science has nothing to do with consensus

In a screed against politicized science, best-selling novelist Michael Crichton
trashes SETI, the search for extraterrestrial life, as merely a religion:

... the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

[ ... ]

Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day.

Crichton notes the marked unwillingness of science boffins to criticize SETI:
The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.

But Michael, SETI did not threaten materialism. Indeed, many believed that SETI would uphold it. Anyway, Crichton argues that the gullibility index shot up through nuclear winter, second-hand smoke, and now lands us with global warming. The real problem, he thinks, is consensus:
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Well then, the ID guys are either stars or dogs, depending on whether they are right in saying that information is a real input into nature.

Overall, a most interesting essay. Note his treatment of the much-maligned Bjorn Lomborg, who questioned global warming and became Scientific American's whipping boy:
Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Oh, that's nothing new, Michael. Scientific American is a flagship congregation of the Assembly of the Churches of Darwin, and behaves accordingly. Thus, I am sure the mag slid easily enough into the role of persecutor of Lomborg.

Incidentally, I heard Lomborg speak at the 4th World Science Journalists conference and thought he made some sensible (and important) observations on how we need to make real-world decisions about how to understand and tackle global warming, or we risk further damage Third World countries. The treatment of him as been a disgrace. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as consensus journalism, as well as consensus science. But at least we know what to call them. We call them the rat pack.
If you like this blog, check out my award-winning book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.
Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated before they appear.

Who links to me?