>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.
Susan:
>Someone who speaks at a university is not the same thing as someone who
>teaches science to 8th graders. [snip]
Agreed. But this is not relevant to my point.
Me:
>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.
Susan:
>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).
You are completely missing the point, so let me try again.
It is commonly stated (and taught) that science and religion
deal with separate realms of reality. Let's call this position
X. But judging from Scott's speech (and the opinions that both
you and Chris have shared in this thread), the truth of position X
depends on the religion you are talking about. In other words,
position X better describes some religions than others. Thus,
those who teach position X are promoting certain religions
over others. Thus, it is false that the schools
are neutral with regards to religion as favoritism is inherent
in position X. Thus it is deceptive to portray government
schools as being neutral about religions.
Me:
>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.
Susan:
>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.
You are sidestepping my point instead of dealing with it. But as
for science documenting anything, may I remind you that scientists
believe that cellular life forms existed that were once much simpler
and much more messy than that which has been documented to
exist? Should I also point out that science has never documented
the existence of such simple, messy cells. So why isn't it also
probably a myth? Could it be solely because science *needs* to
propose such mythical entities? And they *sound* more real than
talking snakes?
As for Genesis, I do agree with you.
Me:
>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.
Susan:
>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.
Like I said, government schools are not neutral with regards to
religion.
Me:
>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)?
Susan:
>:-) 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!!)
Like I said, government schools are not neutral with regards to
religion.
>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.
I used to think like this when I was much younger. Back in those
days, all that mattered in a court of law was the truth. In market
economies, the better product always won out. The reporting media
was completely unbiased. And government leaders would never
break the law. But, with age and experience, reality replaces
idealism. But it's kind of funny that if I were to propose any
of these claims today, I'd be laughed at. Yet suddenly, we're supposed
to take Susan's idealism seriously, as in science (so it goes), we
find the one and only place where humans cease being humans.
Sorry, Susan. I react to your claims about science (with these
issues, mind you) as I react to those who blindly believe truth is
what really matters in the legal system. Or look at it this way - you
haven't a shred of evidence that indicates what you believe
above is true (i.e., Origin Science in Pleasantville).
Translation: Your idealism is noted, but I'm talking about reality.
[snip]
Me:
>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.
Susan:
>perhaps you can explain why it matters to biblical literalists that life is
>found on other planets.
Since I am not a biblical literalist, why are you asking me?
Well?
>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.
Well, it turns out that skepticism was quite justified. The
media likes to report on sensational findings, but never
really follows up when those findings fall apart.
Mike