inconsistency on ONE side, vicious attacks on BOTH fronts...

Before anything else, I just have to say:


(1) Just so any reader would know, i'm a fledgling Christian and a physics doctoral student. There is no dilemma for me (though it did take some time for me to figure things out). Why? Because science and faith are not completely antagonistic. (They're NOT two sides to a coin, or two poles of a magnet.)

For lack of a better question: how many scientists have spouses or friends? Is there trust in his relationships, or should a scientist perpetually run tests of love and loyalty to make sure? (And should those tests be quantified? We have to measure the "much" in "I love you very much"...)

And all ye faithful: if your friend or spouse tells you that it's raining, and your eyes and ears and skin sense the scorching summer sun...who will you believe?

Please please please. Scientists are NOT evil. Believers are NOT stupid.

Well, not always, and not all of us. ;p (Might i remind the reader that i belong to both camps.)


(2) There's a lot of vicious attacks from both the "science" and religion" camps.

BOTH sides. OK? Stop already!

Can't we discuss this as the professional/intelligent (ei, scientists/academics!) and/or moral/loving (ei, religious/faithful!) adults that we profess to be? Attacks will never help, and will only make things worse. Please.

================================================================================


I just found some inconsistency in defending the theory of evolution. An article reporting new archaeological evidence concludes with this:

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, [science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University Bill] Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.

So...it's not a weakness in the theory...but we're forming better theories?And here's another statement:

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
“This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,” Anton said. “This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do. It’s a continuous self-testing process.”

A preparatory defense that suddenly takes the offensive. Like i hinted at earlier, religion doesn't self-test because it's founded on "absolute" truth. But are those truths really the Truth? That's another issue altogether. Here is where science can actually be religion's friend. If i am so sure of my beliefs that i am willing to offer my life for them, then surely i should treat experiments as ways to vindicate my God! (Good experimental design is essential though: the God of the Bible, for example, is unseen and can "cheat" physical properties like gravity.)

Science, on the other hand, admits from the start that anything it measures and tests can be proven wrong. Science is supposed to be objective and humble and stop being dogmatic about theories like evolution. At the risk of being redundant, note that scientists still call evolution a theory. Also note that unlike this recent archaeological discovery, the Bible's absolutist claims have never been directly disproved.
I have the deepest respect for people who subscribe to the theory of evolution even though I don't..which is exactly why I'm bringing these to their attention, and everyone else. :) I hope this makes even at least one person reading think a bit deeper about the theory of evolution, and the claims of creationism, and whether we actually started to exist at random or created on purpose.

Kudos to Bob Dudesky and Dan Goldfinch, whose blog articles brought the quoted statements to my attention. :)