>Eugenie Scott plays an important political role in trying to
>keep creationism/ID out of the government schools. But on
>Dec 2, she gave a presentation at the University of Colorado
>on the topic of Life on Mars and Religion (or so I hear).
>During this presentation, Scott allegedly argued that if we did find
>life on Mars, or anywhere else, religion would be forced
>to come to terms with this and perhaps make readjustments.
>She also noted that this is more true of some religions than
>others (Hinduism/Buddhism would be less concerned than
>Christianity/Judaism/Islam).
>
>Now, if you think this through, one begins to suspect that
>the notion of government schools being neutral on the
>issue of religion is an illusion.
Someone who speaks at a university is not the same thing as someone who
teaches science to 8th graders. I heard Angela Davis (self-proclaimed
communist) speak at OU in the 70s. Trust me, her views were not shared by
the management. Speakers are brought to a university to expose students as
broad a range of ideas as possible. Through the years I've also heard
Richard Leakey, Hogey(sp?) Carmichael, Allan Ginsberg (3 times!), and
Leonard Nimoy among many others.
>First, Scott asserts that finding life on other planets would
>have an effect on Christian theology. But how can this be?
>We have long been told by many authorities in the scientific
>field that religion and science are completely separate.
>But if they were completely separate, there would be no
>reason whatsoever to anticipate religious reactions to scientific
>findings.
First of all, anybody from the Pope to the Hot Tamale Man can comment on
and react to scientific findings :-) Second of all, nobody said "religion
and science are completely separate" (well, *I* didn't, in fact, I said
they inhabit the same reality). Science simply can't address religious
issues (like design or purpose).
>Thus, it is simply irrational to argue on one hand
>that the two realms are completely different, but on the other
>hand, argue that religion will need to adjust to scientific claims.
The mission of science is to document reality. The bible has a story in it
about a magic tree and a talking snake. Science has never documented a
talking snake. Therefore the Garden of Eden story is probably a myth, a
story that has something to teach besides scientific truth.
I've always thought that requiring Genesis to be historically true the way
accounts of the Civil War or the Fall of the Roman Empire are true is to
rob the story of its real content and message. The real message of Genesis
cannot be physics or cosmology and why should it be? The people for whom
the story was intended had no use for physics or cosmology. It is my
understanding that the true message of Genesis is the proper relationship
between man and God.
>But it is true, as Scott noted, that Hinduism and Buddhism would
>be much less concerned with finding life on other planets. This
>is because for these introspective religions, it is more valid to say
>that religion and science are totally separate.
I don't know much about Hinduism, but Buddhists do not require their
mythology to be literally true. They are not currently contending that
newborn infants sometimes walk and talk--as the Buddah is supposed to have
done just after birth. Seeing into the true nature of things and developing
and exhibiting compassion toward all living beings are just vastly more
important to them.
>The standard way origins is taught in government schools is
>to argue that science deals only with the natural world and
>religions deals with different issues. Yet if tax-payer money
>is used to promote this thinking, isn't it denigrating the
>religious views of Christians/Jews/Muslims (whose theology
>would have to react to scientific claims yet is excluded from sitting
>at the table of scienitific speculation) and promoting
>the religious views of Hindus/Buddhists (whose theology is
>more in line with the divorce between the physical and
>spiritual)?
:-) Wiccans perhaps practice the only religion that is fully backed up by
science. We really *are* all one family, the Earth really *is* our
"mother." (the reincarnation thing is obviously hogwash, but hey, no
religion is perfect!!)
And *anybody* with good ideas backed up by careful research and good data
is welcome at the table of science. If ID ever comes up with anything
besides "it looks designed to *me*" then IDers will be welcome at that
table also. Jews, btw, who pretty much own the pink slip on the Old
Testament, generally look for the meaning and the message in the ancient
writings. They don't require Moses to be a physicist or a molecular
biologist. I think that, generally, they would be delighted to find out
that we are not the only life in the universe.
>I'm not interested in flame-war type replies (or mere
>posturing). I'm more interested in insightful, open-minded
>comments. As I said, I oppose teaching creationism/ID
>in government schools, but nevertheless, there still appears
>to be a serious problem of subtle favoritism that deserves
>attention.
perhaps you can explain why it matters to biblical literalists that life is
found on other planets. When the "Mars rock" was found a couple of years
ago, the creationists of the time went into full tilt Bart Simpson mode:
"It didn't happen, you didn't see it and you can't prove a thing. " It
confused the heck out of me at the time.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/