Thursday, December 15, 2005


The Economist has an article about the creation debate this week, which includes the quotation from Christian science book:

The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second. To the best of the author's knowledge, the conclusions drawn from the observable facts that are presented in this book agree with the Scriptures. If a mistake has been made (which is probable since this book was prepared by humans) and at any point God's word is not put first, the author apologises."

It is statements such as these that rock the solidity of the creationist argument. It does this by creating a false dichotomy between science and creation. By casting it as a dispute between "religion" and "science", those of inquiring minds will not bother to inquire. Were I to rewrite the statement, this is how it would sound:

"Since creation is an historical fact, 'science' will disagree with creation only in matters of interpretation. This text presents all true science, that is, all science that is observable, testable, and repeatable. It has replaced the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence with a creationist perspective..."


Blogger Noumenon said...

You say "an" historical? Weird.

I think there's a true dichotomy between science and creation, so trying to reconcile them is going to end up as syncretism. But religion isn't going anywhere, so your approach will eventually triumph.

Don't know if the rewrite helps; would you certify a Bible study course whose introduction read,

"Since evolution is a historical fact, religion will disagree with science only in matters of interpretation. This text has replaced the religious interpretation of the Bible with a scientific perspective..."

7:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home