| The futile, but never-ending debate over which | | | | disputes from other scientists like Robert Owen, |
| account of human origins may or may not be | | | | not from ecclesiastical authorities (though much of |
| taught in public schools, drones on yet again. Most | | | | that came later). Are we really to believe the |
| American Christians continue to fight the | | | | implicate of the claim above, namely, that no real |
| less-than-good fight, oblivious to the fairly obvious | | | | science occured until after 1830 because most of |
| point that the Bible commands God's people, "Do | | | | the guys doing "science" at the time were really |
| not be yoked together with unbelievers." This | | | | just doing "religion disguised as science?" Isaac |
| clearly requires Christians to avoid having their | | | | Newton even wrote a book on Bible prophecy. |
| children taught by pagans -- meaning that God | | | | Does that make him a "non-scientific quack?" Of |
| requires them to avoid sending their children to | | | | course not.Fourth, if such persons as the claimant |
| public schools. This is a sinful, but common, | | | | who says, "Intelligent design is religion," fail to |
| practice among baptized households.So then, | | | | offer a cogent defintion of what religion is, then |
| having said our mind on the subject, we move | | | | his claim falters as an entirely arbitrary indictment. |
| onto the questions of logic as they pop up in the | | | | On the other hand, if any of these yokels ever |
| debate. Several of the proponents of Mr. Darwin's | | | | actually get around to offering a definition of |
| views have recently alleged that the doctrine of | | | | "religion," it will inherently entangle them in real |
| intelligent design ought not be taught in public | | | | problems, since many features of "religion" also |
| schools because it presents an inherently | | | | show up in evolutionary views.For instance,1. |
| "religious" view. Several ways to nullify the | | | | Evolutionary biology depends on the grand |
| intended effectiveness of this claim come to | | | | miracles of the "Big Bang" and "abiogenesis," and |
| mind.First, we should like to note that no | | | | other miraculous leaps from one kind of thing to |
| consensus exists among philosophers as to how | | | | another -- which have not been observed.2. |
| one might distinguish a religion from a philosophy. | | | | Evolutionary cosmology (as taught in astronomy |
| Some would accept the claim that religions come | | | | courses everywhere) forms an entire worldview, |
| with rituals or ceremonies, while philosophies do | | | | a required way of looking at the world through |
| not. But variants of ancient Orphism, | | | | the lenses of naturalistic, subtle change as the |
| Pythagoreanism and Neo-Platonism come with | | | | ultimate cause of everything.3. Evolutionary |
| mystical symbols and opaque rituals -- some of | | | | biology has major tenets -- adaptation, natural |
| which symbols were taken up by later forms of | | | | selection, micromutation, survival of the fittest, |
| Kabbala -- and these ancient views are usually | | | | etc.4. Evolutionary biology requires beliefs in what |
| construed as philosophies, not religions. And, quite | | | | cannot and have not been observed - the unseen. |
| curiously, one of the more interesting philosophies | | | | This is why evolutionary literature contains the |
| of the ancient world, taught by one | | | | ubiquitous refrain -- "we cannot observe evolution |
| "Anaximander" (ca. 550 B.C.), contained most of | | | | happening today because it occurs so slowly."5. |
| the central postulates native to the views of a | | | | Those communities which regard it as true |
| certain -- you guessed it -- "Charlie | | | | employ a unique vocabulary to express those |
| Darwin."Second, "religions" are person-relative. This | | | | beliefs.6. Evolutionary biology and cosmology imply |
| means that no particular view (by itself) may | | | | certain answers -- and logically forbid others -- to |
| properly count as "religion," since what one does | | | | the grand questions of life, "What kind of world is |
| or does not DO WITH THE BELIEFS in question | | | | this?" (metaphysics), "How do we know what we |
| has an important bearing on the point at hand. If | | | | know?" (epistemology), "What is the nature of |
| no ceremony or ritual of any kind attends the | | | | humanity?" (philosophical or religious anthropology), |
| view in question, this makes it hard to justify the | | | | "What is proper human behavior?" (ethics), etc., |
| "religion" claim. For [counter-] instance, Aristotle | | | | etc. Thus, by any defintion of religion I can |
| believed in "intelligent design," but very few would | | | | imagine, if "intelligent design" counts as religion, |
| call his worldview "religious," though his ideas do | | | | how much more will evolutionary views be painted |
| tend to show up in university philosophy courses | | | | with the same brush?So it seems appropriate |
| quite a bit. Also, many of the French "Enlightment" | | | | here to finish our answer to the original question |
| Deists were quite arguably nonreligious -- if not | | | | with a phrase from a game traditionally beloved |
| irreligious -- persons, even though they affirmed | | | | by mathematicians:"Check mate."Carson Day has |
| "intelligent design."Third -- and we need to keep | | | | written some 1.3 gazillion articles and essays on all |
| beating this drum -- almost every scientist prior | | | | manner of topics. These aim to glorify God and |
| to 1830 believed in intelligent design. And the | | | | offer people real help to live wisely and well. You |
| majority of scientists kept believing in it until | | | | can visit Carson's websites at (The Omniblog, |
| around 1870 or so. When Darwin published his | | | | where Carson blogs everything) or (Carson's Day |
| "Origin of Species" (1859), he met with his hottest | | | | Trading Outpost). Thanks for stopping by. |