Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Spitting in the Face of 2000 Years of Science

Yesterday, the Journal Gazette ran a short piece discussing an upcoming event at Concordia High School. This event (coined "Celebrate Creation Week") will include several guest lectures by Mike Riddle, a speaker on creation from Answers in Genesis, a Kentucky-based non-denominational organization.

Of Mr. Riddle's lectures, Concordia's science department chairman Mervin Koehlinger says:

“He will emphasize the fact that in the past the church has been willing to reinterpret the Bible according to what science was saying. We don’t have to do that. We can interpret science in light of what the Bible is saying.”

Wow, is that backwards. Seems to me like the scientific community has done quite well with the "burden of proof" over the years. The same can NOT be said of those who strictly interpret Biblical passage.

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Scrap 2000 years of logic and research by using a 2-millennia-old book full of metaphors as a scientific benchmark.

Folks, I'm all about people teaching kids this stuff at Sunday School, but Monday-Friday school should really be more calibrated to cold, hard facts. These kids have to leave the nest sometime, and I would hate to think this is what they are being taught in lieu of actual science. Perhaps they will be prepared for a lustrious scholarly career at Whittenberg...but if this is the scientific knowledge they are touting...they will get SHREDDED at state schools.

People can believe anything they want, I certainly will not even try to stop them...but c'mon folks, give your kids a chance! It has been accepted practice for a VERY VERY long time to explain Biblical events through science. I (as a Lutheran) have always been extremely comfortable rationalizing these accounts/stories by using science. I am NOT, however, comfortable with turning that process inside out. It seems to me like that whole cart/horse thing. But what the hell do I know? I'm just a lowly blogger.
2 Comments:
Anonymous John Good said...
Wow. Andrew, in a flip back to you. Thanks for defending the seperation of church and state. There's always room in the Democrat's "big tent" for progressive-minded individuals such as yourself. Preach on, brother! Oops, didn't mean to be punny. ;)

Anonymous Andrew Kaduk said...
John,
This has nothing to do with the separation of church/state. Concordia is a private church school, which pretty much gives them the right to do whatever they please with their curriculum, providing standardized testing scores remain adequately high. This is a matter of logic versus metaphor. For example, we all know that human DNA and our genetic code is the foundation for our uniqueness as humans. The Bible discusses NOTHING about the human genome. Does this mean that DNA doesn't exist? NO, it means that a bunch of goat-herders in the middle east were not adequately prepared to accept such truths, so obviously metaphor had to be employed to explain human existance. I have no problems coming to grips with this as a Lutheran, so why are the religious zealots so blind to it?

Now don't misunderstand me here...I am extraordinarily conservative when it comes to strict constitutional constructionism. If it doesn't say it in the Constitution, the Supreme Court/Federal Government has NO jurisdiction. I am a VERY big proponent of State's rights. This also makes me a unique conservative in respect to marriage. I don't think the federal government has ANY business differentiating between married folks and single folks in respect to taxes, so IMHO the whole "gay marriage" thing is a moot point and a non-issue. If the government ever gets smart and implements a flat national sales tax, the whole dog-and-pony show that the gay rights movement has been putting on for the last couple of years will be nothing more than a trivial bit of historical marginalia. It is my opinion that God belongs in the hearts and minds of our elected officials, NOT in the legislation which governs people of or apart from their personal faith.
This used to be a foundation of Republican thinking, where as the Democrats (party of 'majority rules') would have allowed instances of church/state mixture due to an overwhelming Christian majority in the U.S. The Republican party in my view, is only a watered-down and blurry version of what it once was, and that disappoints me greatly. I'm afraid Jesus would be fairly pissed about the state of U.S. politics if he were here today. He would also likely be upset that his name was being used by some scandalous, crooked folks just to get elected.
Just one lowly blogger's opinion.

Linkage:
Create a Link