Weighing in on intelligent design
I have commented in the past on the necessity of the separation of Church and State, not merely to allow the State to encourage an open and free society, but also to allow the Church freedom from political influence and the mire which inevitably accompanies it. I comment not because my thoughts on the matter are particularly original or insightful, but because the great works on this debate are largely on the order of two centuries old, and an occasional modern, timely recapitulation is in order.
In the past, i have largely focused on the fact that involving the Church in politics or other highly secular concerns has nothing but a degrading effect on religion. See, for example, the recent comments by an esteemed conservative preacher that assassination might be a valid political tool to use. Such comments can do nothing but draw accusations of hypocrisy, and, eventually, universal loss of respect.
But the situation in Dover, Pennsylvania is of a different type. I understand that, since the Enlightenment, there has been some friction between Church and Science. And i further understand that the current incarnation of the State seems partial to the religious cause. So the temptation to seek help from the State in the perceived struggle against Science must be immense. However, seeking that help is not merely detrimental towards the Church's image, but capable of actively destroying the Church's power.
Science, for all of its various pretensions, has been either uninterested in, or ineffective at, answering the questions which, ultimately, boil down to "why?" Those questions have all, at their heart, been questions belonging to the Church (in its various incarnations). When humanity begins to contemplate the meaning, motive, or purpose of what we perceive, it turns to religion.
The school board of Dover recently mandated that a disclaimer be read to students prior to study of evolution, specifically stating that evolution is a theory, and that a different theory, entitled "Intelligent Design", answers questions which the theory of evolution seems incapable of addressing. Well, of course the theory of evolution doesn't answer all questions. Nothing, save possibly divine enlightenment, can answer all questions.
The problem, though, is not that the perceived shortcomings of the theory of evolution are being put forth, but that the State is pointing students towards the answers to the difficult questions of why. The State, the fickle political body, is being asked to serve as the first and most visible guide to the questions of meaning, motive, and purpose. If this power is given to the State, what will prevent it from using that power when it decides that a different explanation is in order? What happens when it realizes that these questions have an incredible power for propaganda? What qualifies a school board to decide which religion your children should hear about in school?
I understand that the institute which is pushing for Intelligent Design is, itself, against such actions by a school board. And for that, i applaud it. But this is an action which must be opposed by all who respect the Church, and by all who wish to limit the power of the State. This is not merely an issue of respect or reputation, but one of existence.
Thank you for your time.
In the past, i have largely focused on the fact that involving the Church in politics or other highly secular concerns has nothing but a degrading effect on religion. See, for example, the recent comments by an esteemed conservative preacher that assassination might be a valid political tool to use. Such comments can do nothing but draw accusations of hypocrisy, and, eventually, universal loss of respect.
But the situation in Dover, Pennsylvania is of a different type. I understand that, since the Enlightenment, there has been some friction between Church and Science. And i further understand that the current incarnation of the State seems partial to the religious cause. So the temptation to seek help from the State in the perceived struggle against Science must be immense. However, seeking that help is not merely detrimental towards the Church's image, but capable of actively destroying the Church's power.
Science, for all of its various pretensions, has been either uninterested in, or ineffective at, answering the questions which, ultimately, boil down to "why?" Those questions have all, at their heart, been questions belonging to the Church (in its various incarnations). When humanity begins to contemplate the meaning, motive, or purpose of what we perceive, it turns to religion.
The school board of Dover recently mandated that a disclaimer be read to students prior to study of evolution, specifically stating that evolution is a theory, and that a different theory, entitled "Intelligent Design", answers questions which the theory of evolution seems incapable of addressing. Well, of course the theory of evolution doesn't answer all questions. Nothing, save possibly divine enlightenment, can answer all questions.
The problem, though, is not that the perceived shortcomings of the theory of evolution are being put forth, but that the State is pointing students towards the answers to the difficult questions of why. The State, the fickle political body, is being asked to serve as the first and most visible guide to the questions of meaning, motive, and purpose. If this power is given to the State, what will prevent it from using that power when it decides that a different explanation is in order? What happens when it realizes that these questions have an incredible power for propaganda? What qualifies a school board to decide which religion your children should hear about in school?
I understand that the institute which is pushing for Intelligent Design is, itself, against such actions by a school board. And for that, i applaud it. But this is an action which must be opposed by all who respect the Church, and by all who wish to limit the power of the State. This is not merely an issue of respect or reputation, but one of existence.
Thank you for your time.