Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive; we need both

Re: We shouldn't confuse roles of science and faith, Aug. 4.

Thank you Donald Eastman for your cogent, elegant piece concerning faith and reason. It is a blast of fresh air in what you point out as the false debate about intelligent design (creationism) and evolution. I can't agree with you more that if this false debate is allowed to continue that we will be on a fast track to the Dark Ages.

In an age in which science and reason are required to find real solutions to very real problems in an extremely complex world, science is often taking a back seat to religious dogma and political agendas. My fear, as yours, is that the younger generation will be educated without an appreciation for the scientific process and our solutions to modern-day problems will not reflect the knowledge of the day. What a chilling and dark future that would leave for us all.

My own conclusion is that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Instead each should be used to leaven the other so that we can find the answers that will keep us in an enlightened age and not answers that will take us back to the Dark Ages. I believe our future depends on it.

Acknowledge what's possible

Re: We shouldn't confuse roles of science and faith, Aug. 4.

Donald Eastman warns that we shouldn't let faith supersede science, which prompts us to ask: What is faith and what is science?

It could be said that the general theory of evolution, intelligent design and the creation model of origins are faith constructs. As opposed to empirical science, they constitute forensic science, which attempts to cast additional light on a historical event or process that cannot be fully recreated. Forensics and the detection of design as a causative agent are already at use (without criticism) in archaeology, anthropology, criminology, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and other disciplines and endeavors.

It could also be said that the scientific method need not be based on a presupposition that excludes any possibility of the supernatural. Bruce Gordon states that "methodological naturalism has been a pervasive constraint on scientific theorizing and practice, and it artificially restricts the range of acceptable theoretical options."

No one is asking science educators to teach religion, to know about religion or even to be religious people. But when evidence points to design in biological systems, then we should at least have the freedom to state it as such, and leave the religious implications for another classroom.

Faith is not "reasonable'

Donald Eastman, in his Aug. 4 column on science and faith, makes an excellent and eloquent argument for keeping religious belief out of the science classroom. I was disappointed, though, to find him waffling about the "argument from design" being valid and "perfectly reasonable." I realize he meant "reasonable" in terms of faith, not science. But "reasonable" implies logic and rationality, which underpin science, not faith. Thus the use of it in this case confuses the issue.

The English theologian William Paley, in 1800, was the most famous proponent of the argument from design, which in essence said nature must be designed, because such complexity would not appear by chance. At that time, "science" did not exist per se, and "natural philosophy" was "reasonable," and used as a logical basis for explaining nature.

It's been 200 years since then, and we know a great deal more about how the world works in terms of evolution and other natural phenomena. The key idea of science is, when we learn more facts, we may discard or modify existing theories. We no longer need to use long-supplanted theories as the basis for our science teaching. But present-day creationists (now using the rational-sounding term "intelligent design") would have us discard 200 years of accumulated scientific knowledge in order to teach an idea based on faith.

"Intelligent design" has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with faith. The idea may well be valid in religious terms, but there is no place for it in science classrooms.

Understanding intelligent design

Donald Eastman's well-written opinion piece, We shouldn't confuse roles of science and faith, misunderstands and mischaracterizes intelligent design theory (ID).

In the piece, Eastman implies that the theory of intelligent design relies on Holy Scripture for its support. This isn't the case. ID is a sophisticated theory that says (in part) that the evidence of design can be detected in living things. ID doesn't say who the designer or designers were - they might have been a race of super-intelligent aliens for all that the theory cares. ID takes its evidence from information theory and biology: Therefore, it's the bacterial flagellum, not the Bible, that opponents of ID need to grapple with.

Of course, intelligent design, if true, may have implications for faith. But shouldn't we follow the scientific evidence wherever it leads, without regard for religion?

Column brought clarity

Re: We shouldn't confuse roles of science and faith.

Wow! Kudos to Mr. Eastman for being so clear, so simple, so logical! Faith is just that. Science is factual knowledge.

Remember Pearl Harbor

Whenever I see the floating memorials honoring the horrible deaths suffered in Hiroshima, I want to see one little candle with Dec. 7 on it floating with them.

I lost family and friends in that war, the one of which Gen. Yamamoto, commander of the Japanese fleet, is quoted as saying he was afraid the Japanese had "awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."

Without Pearl Harbor, there would have been no Hiroshima.

And we pray there will never be another one.

A sad and wonderful place

Several years ago I was fortunate enough to visit the Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima. As an American my feelings were understandably conflicted and somewhat guilt-ridden but the museum's presentation was remarkably nonpartisan. The juxtaposition of the extreme horrors of a nuclear attack in such beautiful and serene surroundings was profoundly moving and effective. The agenda of the museum and the city of Hiroshima is only to prevent this tragedy, destruction and desecration of the human spirit from ever happening again, not to point fingers at the past. I wish everyone could visit this sad and wonderful place. It might make the world a little saner in the future.

[Last modified August 10, 2005, 00:37:16]