"But materialism as a foundation for scientific explanation does not require
that we adopt materialism as a philosophy. Science does not speak to our
emotions, nor offer us moral codes. " Douglas Futuyama Science on Trial pp.
219.
"In an important way, the modern science of molecular biology is the child of
what Darwin began, an ultimate unification of biology with other sciences,
all of which now seek to describe nature in material terms. So how does this
threaten religion?
In a strict and scientific sense it doesn't. And I find it puzzling and
disappointing that so many would have pinned their religious hopes on the
inability of science to explain the natural world. In fact, I will argue
later that an accurate and complete understanding of that world, even in
purely materialistic terms, should deepen and strengthen the faith of any
religous person".
Finding Dawin's God. pp 169Kenneth Miller
"The national academy of Science clearly endorses the view that science and
religion need not be in conflict. Responding to the question of whether or
not a person can believe in God and still accept evolution they report that
many people do exactly that:
"At the root of the apparant conflict between some religions and evolution is
a misunderstanding of the critical difference between religious and
scientific ways of knowing. Religions and science have answer different
questions about the wolrd. Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a
purpose for human existence are not questions for science. Religious and
scientific ways of knowing have played, and will continue to play,
significant roles in human history".
Ibid pp 169
It's clear that SJ's attempt to imply that actions of Darwinists reflect on
Darwinism are without much merrit and that Darwinism and religion can go
along hand in hand, as it does for so many people.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 23:39:35 EDT