Sean R. Reid

One of the more frustrating aspects of my journey of faith, both before and after coming to Christianity, was the seeming divide between what could only be considered “fundamentalists” in both the science and religion camps. I think Stewart nails that point to the wall here. It’s one in which I’ve made myself. At some point there is a layer of “faith” to all scientific exploration despite it lacking a deity. The scientific method is the best means for acquiring answers to many of the questions of the “how” of the world but even it has it’s limitations. Particularly when it comes to the “why” of the world, a question which religious faith is more adept at answering.  To these ends I think Stewart’s comparison of anti-matter and God, albeit a humorous simplification,  is spot on.

h/t: Huffington Post via Pete Enns

More important is the statement made by Robinson regarding the nature of this debate, “The gladiators for both sides are inferior representatives of these sides.”  I couldn’t agree more.  The longer this shallow, arguably spurious, debate continues the less quality we get from the worlds of science and religion.  It becomes folks like Dawkins and Hitchens trying to out-yell the Southern Baptist Convention and Kenn Hamm. It is a futile and stupid exercise that advances nothing aside from egos or a few more book sales.*

Thankfully there are organizations like BioLogos which bring a measure of sanity and intelligence to the table. It’s a refreshing change from the rampant stupidity.  Sadly, both sides seem to be threatened by the idea that they should be challenged to think which places BioLogos, and like-minded individuals, squarely in the cross-hairs of the aforementioned screaming hordes. I think Chaplain Mike from InternetMonk.com said it best when he referred to it as “trench warfare.”

I’m also thankful for folks like Marilynne Robinson who seem unafraid to call “bollocks” on this debate. I’ve not heard of her before watching the video but now I’m very intrigued about picking up her new book.

Hmm…did product promotion just work on me?? 

*Which I argue might be the actual reason for the debate the first place. Nothing sells quite as well as controversy, even a manufactured one.

I find myself absolutely fascinated by the discourse of intelligent design (ID) proponents.  Mostly I find myself drawn to the debates like one is drawn to a car crash. It’s been a constant source of confusion and frustration since converting to Christianity.  I have never been able to reconcile a necessity that I suddenly cease to believe all of the science that is available.  I came to know Christ because of the facts as they presented themselves in my life.  It would be intellectually dishonest of me to suddenly change my opinion without examining the evidence. It would be equally so if I were to suddenly deny scientific fact and replace it with a “God of the gaps.” I simply cannot believe that faith in God renders evolution false any more so than evolution renders God false.

Evolutionary biology has proven time and time again to be solid and good science (meaning it subjects itself to testing and scrutiny and incorporates new findings accordingly).  Unfortunately, ID just doesn’t seem to hold up under scientific investigation.  At least, in my opinion, it doesn’t hold up outside of “God spoke it so” and works accordingly through natural processes. If you want invoke an intelligent designer that created the rules by which all things are governed, I’ll agree. If you want to invoke constant tinkering and manipulation l then we’ll part company. Read more »