By Erich Vieth on August 13th, 2006
Evangelicals pressure Kenya’s National Museum to hide its hominid fossils.
Reading Dispatches from the Culture Wars, I learned of this recent article published by the Telegraph (U.K.):
Powerful evangelical churches are pressing Kenya’s national museum to sideline its world-famous collection of hominid bones pointing to man’s evolution from ape to human.
Leaders of the country’s six-million-strong Pentecostal congregation want Dr Richard Leakey’s ground-breaking finds relegated to a back room instead of being given their usual prime billing.
No, science cannot co-exist with this type of religion.
Great response Erich, I didn’t think Donald’s post would fly too well here. Are you sure the Discovery Institute is still up to no good though? Lately, all I have seen (on TV) is great science documentaries from them. To me, it seems they have adjusted their image and aren’t the real enemy here, and are actually good for science. (Please enlighten me if I am wrong)
I’ve responded to the comment of James Davenock at length here: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1066
“evolution is a theory as much as gravity is a theory. That’s right, gravity is still technically a theory. We’ve come to accept it as law because of its pervasiveness. While we can’t observe an ape mutating into a human, it’s evidence is just as prolific. ”
Donald. This phrasing alone demonstrates that you don’t understand the difference between a legal theory and a scientific theory. Theory in science means the matter is established. Everyone with an armchair understanding of what they think science is makes this mistake. The term for what you mean is Hypothesis, which is very different. A hypothesis is a working idea that still requires evidence to make it a theory. A theory is an established explanation based on evidence. Which means that until a new Einstein comes along to blow it out of the water, it’s as good as an established fact. So when one hears the phrase “It’s ‘just’ a theory” one knows that the speaker is talking through his ass, even if it appears that the speaker is defending science.
On this basis, religious claims will never be theories. There is no equivalence. They are, in many ways, different languages. Critiquing one with the other is possible only in the areas where the two coincide, that is in what Dawkins has called “existence claims”–matters of observable fact. When religion makes such claims (the earth stood still, the waters parted, the universe was created in six days) science can step in and viably say “Bull shit.” And religion can’t argue, because it is not based on a system whereby defense of such claims can be made independent of the claimant.
What this means is that while science and religion can indeed coexist, their claims are not mutually compatible.
Dr. Smug, it turns out that the “Discovery Institute” is NOT related to the “Discovery Channel”. The link Erich provided for the Discovery Institute indeed led us to a warped right-winged-beast. The website almost seems humorous at first glance, but becomes truly horrifying when the realization hits that this is how people are lured into supporting the likes of Michael Behe and William F. Buckley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
Hopefully, the similarity in names hasn’t confused too many people (other than myself). Please continue to enjoy the magnificent educational productions by the Discovery Channel, friends of science and nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Channel
I absolutely love the Discovery Channel HD documentaries, and am so relieved to learn they are not funded by (or related to) the despicably unscientific “Institute”.
Theories come and theories go with science and that is the way it should be. The scientific method is the only tool we have that allows us to test our hypothesis and that is why I believe science is a better tool for explaining the world I can see around me.
This debate between science and religion is frankly stupid as there can never be a winner in this entirely illogical argument . The fact that some people of the scientific community fail to see this is a fault in their reasoning process and a form of elitism that many in the scientific community seem prone to. Not everyone has been given the oppourtunity of a university education and they have to simply make it up as they go, best they can.
People rely on religion because they are scared shitless of death and due to the plain sad fact in this world that shit just happens for no apparent reason to everyone. Try and tell the person who just lost his or her family because some earthquake buried their village that it’s just a case of stress being released between tectonic plates, they don’t care as they have just lost everything they depended on in their life.
There is a big black void beyond this Earth that I can’t recall anyone coming back from with proof about what happens when you die one way or the other. That’s why we have religion, to try and explain death to people because no one in science has brought back a videotape of John the Baptist and Darwin having tea with Buddha.
If you want to kill religion then come up with proof of what happens when you die otherwise religion will be with the human race forever.