What is particularly annoying about this article is that evolution is not 'Darwinism', which portrays is as a cult built around Darwin. Wallace was as instrumental as Darwin in early formulation and countless other scientists have contributed since then. That is what the writer should have stressed. Perhaps it should have also been mentioned that we actually know more about evolutionary processes than we do about gravity. Should 'intelligent falling' be taught next to gravitational theory?
As for whether there is a fundamental polarisation between science and religion. Of course there bloody is. Science is operates by observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena, with activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Religious faith, by contrast, are believes that do not rest on logical proof or material evidence but rather acceptance instead of questioning. Faith can't be put in a test tube. Thats why it shouldn't be put in a science classroom! All religions were spawned by ignorance of the natural world. Drought? Unhappy god. Kill a cow. Earthquake? Unhappy god. Throw a virgin into a volcano.
0 comments:
Post a Comment