Skip to main content

Science and Religion Collide

The big bang you're hearing is the noise of science and religion colliding, in the UK. The resignation, today, of a respected scientist, who also happens to be a Christian, from an important scientific post, because he suggested that creationism too could be taught in schools, alongside the theory of evolution, is a shame. Dogmatic anything is bad news: whether that be theism, atheism, or Darwinism. Clearly, evolution, a highly-robust theory, is assumed to be true, though unverified - but does not rule out the value of appreciation of alternate views on how the universe and sentient life in it came into being. There are versions of creationism (intelligent design, for instance) that are complex enough to dovetail with science, and surely some aspects of creationism are symbolically, if not philosophically, intriguing - for instance, the idea that nothing comes from nothing, or that, at the start, some being or great force conceived of existence itself. Science should not rule out the possibility of a God - God (separate from how religions may define her) - could co-exist within the natural laws as we so far know them to be. Religion and science work better in tandem, not in glorious isolation, where fanaticism breeds contempt.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Yes, this disturbed me too. I've always wanted to explore that space where theories of creationism dovetail with science. Of course, in India, those who don't believe in God are the ones who have to tiptoe around but the opposite is equally bad.
puthwuth said…
'There are versions of creationism (intelligent design, for instance) that are complex enough to dovetail with science...' Would you like to run that statement past a scientist and post his or her response to it? Intelligent design, which is lipstick on a creationist pig, is unverifiable but unfalsifiable too. If you think evolution is 'unverified' it is, like any scientific theory, very easily falsfied, if false. This is the difference between fairy tales and science. Intelligent design, like the religion for which it acts as a stalking horse, is a FAIRY TALE.

DW
EYEWEAR said…
David, I respect your belief that Christianity is a Fairy Tale. However, it is a giant leap from that position, to a total dismissal of all the arguments for a created universe. Science is unable to verify, or falsify, the existence of God, and should stay away from trying to make claims about religion. Meanwhile, as you know, the Vatican does not view evolution as incompatible with Catholic doctrine, since for Catholic theology, Genesis is not read literally. Darwin was never banned by the Church. The Scopes Moneky Trial showed the danger of ignorance unleashed - surely, demagogic rationalists, scientists, and atheists, are no better than cornpone fundamentalists? Science, in its infinite wisdom, also gave us Hiroshima, and Nagasaki - science says nothing about how to live a good life - and therefore, can never be expected to present a unified field of total knowledge, beyond a limited, empirical realm; a very useful realm, albeit, but not, it must be said, a realm that can ever eclipse music, poetry, or human introspection of the highest order, be that prayer, or philosophical inquiry.
Mark Granier said…
I see David got here before me (overstating it a tad perhaps, though I am certainly of the same persuasion).

Tod, I am surprised that you'd make such a claim, effectively dovetailing religion with science. Any coolly 'intelligent' religious person would immediately reject this notion, since the strength of a person's belief depends on something completely different from the basis of any real science: verifiable tests, experiments etc. Creationism is horribly pathetic, an insult to everything beautiful in religion, the great art, the sense of almighty doubt that must shadow anyone's relationship with God if that relationship is to be worth anything (see the poetry of Herbert or R.S. Thomas). That pipsqueak 'ism' is worse than lipstick. It is inexcusable kitsch, a travesty.
EYEWEAR said…
Mark, I think you'll note that Eyewear features a variety of beliefs - for instance, the recent Stevie Smith focus, which is essentially atheist. Turning to your comments, nowwhere do I try to conflate science and religion - and I agree with you, that, to an extent, they have different spheres of concern; where I disagree is in thinking that "science" trumps other ways of knowing, other epistemologies, or arts. I don't think the ulitmate nature of reality, of existence, is plumbed by scientific theories, as they presently occur. Anyway, my main concern was that a good man, advocating a balanced approach, was compelled to resign.
Mark Granier said…
"nowwhere do I try to conflate science and religion"

With respect Tod, that's exactly what you do when you suggest that "there are versions of creationism (intelligent design, for instance) that are complex enough to dovetail with science". What does "dovetail" suggest if not that very kind of conflation? Moreover, you go on to place the "robust theory" of Darwinism on the same footing with "alternate views on how the universe and sentient life in it came into being" which, coming hard on the heels of your mentioning creationism, would suggest that evolution and creationism are merely opposing theories (ergo, once more, that conflation you mention).

As to your concern "that a good man, advocating a balanced approach, was compelled to resign", I share it; we have no argument there.
BUT
That is not how you put it initially. You said: "...he suggested that creationism too could be taught in schools, alongside the theory of evolution." According to your own linked article, this is, in fact, a misrepresentation. What the minister actually suggested was that "creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue." If you had made this clear at the start you probably wouldn't have had any argument. I am rather surprised that you don't seem to realise this.
Mark Granier said…
Todd,

I see that I have misspelt your name at least TWICE. Apologies. That wasn't deliberate (though it may have been Freudian). I have also said too many times that you "surprise me", which begins to seem patronising or disingenuous (or both). Again, this was not deliberate.


Mark

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".