The Origins Debate

So Glabe alerted me to this great article that gives a new slant to the ongoing religious war between evolution and creationism. At the end of the piece there is a link to an article about Dawkins that is also very insightful. Professor Ruse makes an interesting point about how there should be a clear distinction between evolution as science and evolution as religion. The article on Dawkins demonstrates Ruse's point perfectly; Dawkins as the international poster boy for atheistic apologetics demonstrates exactly the kind of religious fervor that Ruse claims is bad for evolution as science. Although i have long been a fan of Dawkins, i can't help thinking he gave up the philosophical high ground by proposing that atheism is intellectually superior to agnosticism. As far as i'm concerned, the only valid religious paradigm from which to conduct science is agnosticism, as the very process of science itself reiterates the fact that nothing can ever be known for certain..

Ruse's observations are particularly relevant given the political climate in America right now. Last week's The Economist had an article about the ongoing struggle in American schools over how and whether origins theories are to be taught. Just as Dawkins insinuates that the problem of terrorism is exacerbated by religious fundamentalists on opposite sides (Bush versus bin Laden) who are utterly convinced that they are right, Ruse implies that the battle over high school textbooks is similarly fierce because of the dogmatic positions held by both sides in that debate..

i appreciate Ruse's appeal for a return to a non-polarized, Augustinian allowance for the coexistence of religion and science. As long as the two disciplines continue to stake out positions as though they are in direct conflict, they will continue to cause tension as they encroach on each other's territory. Evolutionists should avoid using quasi-theological arguments to convince their opponents, and creationists should avoid attempting to back up their position with science. Each side should stick to what it knows best and operate within its respective field of influence. The alternative weakens both sides' positions and makes them vulnerable to attack from the other side while the other side has a home-field advantage..

Ultimately i find it interesting that two disciplines that should be far removed both from politics and from each other have ended up becoming not only the subject of politicization but also a proxy for and interchangeable with many of the political battles currently being waged in this country - abortion, prayer in schools, gay marriage. i like Ruse's underlying implication that the only hope for a solution is for participants to look at the issues objectively and discuss them rationally. The history of science shows us the benefits of such a methodology; whether society can learn to harness these corollary social benefits of a scientific mindset remains to be seen..