Monday, May 30, 2005
God Qua Science
Jim Remsen of the The Philidelphi Inquirer recently ran an exchange between evolutionary biologist Stacey Ake and biblical creationist Paul G. Humber over teaching the concept in science classes. Here's a sample:
RSR wants to thank reader T. Flatley for bringing it to our attention.
Inquirer(to Humber): Critics say that where the evolutionary approach is always adjusting and is open to the results as they appear, your side knows its conclusion already and isn't open to evidence that's contrary to the biblical account.
Humber: One of the things I have found interesting is how very faithful the Bible is to anticipating modern science. George Washington, the science of his day said if you had bad blood, you have to drain the blood. And in Leviticus, it says the life of the flesh is in the blood. Now, how does man know that? Well, it's revealed. In Psalm 74, it talks about God stretching out the sky, the heavens, and that is very consistent with the idea of an expanding space.
Ake: What I have a problem with is saying it's OK that we have an expanding universe because the Bible says it's so, and science agrees with us. Good science. But when it disagrees, bad science. This is something that scientists from experience have a negative gut reaction to, because they're right back into the Soviets trying to control genetics, the Nazis trying to do the same thing... . Science can say nothing about God qua science. That's why science cannot say that there isn't a God, either. And people who say that evolution thus proposes atheism are also wrong.
RSR wants to thank reader T. Flatley for bringing it to our attention.
