Sunday, January 13, 2008

Creationism, who needs it?

My friend, The Roan is waging a war against evolution on his blog. I've told him that literal readings of Genesis don't seem to be necessary from a religious viewpoint (let alone the problems with their scientific accuracy). Today, I thought I'd put up a couple of quotes on the matter. This one comes from blogger Daniel Larison:
"Fideistic understandings of religion and materialistic philosophies that seek to exploit evolutionary biology to their advantage enjoy a symbiotic relationship, since they both thrive on promoting mutual antagonism between reason and faith. Tell the Christian that he must either endorse evolutionary theory or accept the Bible, and he will typically take the Bible, especially if he is not grounded in an authoritative teaching tradition that tells him that this choice is a false one. Tell the average educated secular person that revealed religion is incompatible with scientific theory, and he may very well conclude that those who continue to adhere to revealed religion must be either ignorant, insane or up to no good."
And from a Jesuit astronomer:
"If you read the Church fathers, going back to St. Augustine, it's clear that they are not what modern people would call literalists, or Creationists.

In a lot of ways, that's a modern heresy that comes from our mechanical world, where more people are likely to be reading owner's manuals than poetry."

Feel free to post your dissent.

Labels: , , , ,