Readers discuss if and how evolution is compatible with religious beliefs.
To the Editor:
Re ' God, Darwin and My College Biology Class ' (Sunday Review, Sept. 28):
I absolutely disagree with the evolutionary biologist David P. Barash when he asserts that religion and science, in the form of the theory of evolution, cannot be reconciled. Science begins with the Big Bang theory, and evolution according to Darwin begins with a simple one-cell life. But science can say nothing about what preceded the Big Bang or how life was injected into that simple cell.
In essence, science cannot say where we came from, where we are going or even where we are, and certainly not why we are. Those kinds of questions are the business of religion.
Science and religion do not compete. They are separate animals that can and should work together to discover what and who we are.
SKIP JOHNSON Charleston, S.C., Sept. 28, 2014
The writer is the author of 'The Gospel of Yeshua: A Fresh Look at the Life and Teaching of Jesus.' To the Editor:
I think David P. Barash may be deceiving himself about the efficacy of 'The Talk' he gives his students, in which he attempts to illuminate the logical superiority of evolution over belief. Like him, I am always stunned by repeated surveys showing the public's ignorance regarding evolution's status as established science, and I'm sympathetic to his attempts at remedying the situation.
As often seems the case, however, his arguments soon become more grandiose than convincing. He argues that the patent amorality of the natural world leads to an 'unavoidable' exclusion of a benevolent creator, just as random variation excludes the need for a grand 'watchmaker' god.
While I agree that these distinctions are masterful explanations of how we understand the physical world, they do not unavoidably exclude a creative force. To overstate the case against a creator, in my mind, is as logically obtuse as preaching the reverse.
DANIEL SULLIVAN San Diego, Sept. 30, 2014
To the Editor:
As a Catholic biology teacher, I see that teaching students about life processes is a powerful mode for learning about their creator and understanding their place in the cosmos. Like Prof. David P. Barash, I recognize the centrality of evolutionary theory in biology; however, I also see that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive theories. The creation story in Genesis is meant to communicate that God created the world and has a certain relationship to it, not how he created the world.
Also, Mr. Barash does little to prove his claim that science and religion cannot be reconciled. It all depends on how science and God are defined. Science, without religion, becomes its own belief system. We would benefit to embrace science as a valuable, though limited approach toward understanding the multidimensional mystery of life.
MEGHAN SHAUGHNESSY Louisville, Ky., Sept. 29, 2014
To the Editor:
David P. Barash argues that science and religion cannot be reconciled. That is true if one reads the Bible literally. But if we extract from the myths of the Bible (such as the creation myth in Genesis) the moral underpinnings, then the teachings of the Bible and religion hold relevance even for the scientist. The most important lesson of the creation myth is that we are all created equal, from a common ancestor, in the divine image. Genesis is not a textbook of geology or astronomy; it is an attempt to discover the true meaning of human existence.
Albert Einstein observed, 'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.' The Nazi doctors who performed atrocious criminal experiments on humans were all educated scientists - but they lacked religious and moral values. If we can grasp the significance of the two disciplines and their legitimate functions and limitations, then science and religion might coexist peacefully and enrich one another.
(Rabbi) GILBERT S. ROSENTHAL Needham, Mass., Sept. 28, 2014
The writer is director of the National Council of Synagogues. To the Editor:
David P. Barash notes that evolutionary processes show 'no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator.' In other words, he argues (very reasonably) that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, in religious logic, this absence only indicates that the creator is withholding the evidence - perhaps to test your faith.
Science deals with theories that stand or fall on the data; there must be (at least potentially) tests to prove or disprove the theories. Religion is a non-falsifiable 'theory of everything' in which the conclusion need not fit the facts, but rather the facts must be fitted to the conclusion. This methodological conflict is the essential reason that science and religion are incompatible and not merely nonoverlapping.
Professor Barash falls into the trap of trying to apply scientific logic to religion. Indeed, the New Testament firmly discourages use of the scientific method: 'Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed' (John 20:29).
PULAK DUTTA Evanston, Ill., Sept. 29, 2014
The writer is a professor of physics at Northwestern University. To the Editor:
Perhaps The Talk should begin with a preface and change of venue. David P. Barash should gather his students where they have a clear view of the nighttime sky and acknowledge that he is a human being with limited intelligence, living on a small planet traveling through space at 67,000 miles per hour, rotating around a medium-size star in a small solar system that is on the fringe of a galaxy that is one of billions out there in the universe. Sometimes a little dose of humility discourages scientists from thinking that they have all the answers.
WILLIAM TUNNEY Bel Air, Md., Sept. 29, 2014
To the Editor:
In discussions about the alleged conflict between science and religion, our ethnocentricity is apparent. We seem to regard our own religion as what 'religion' really is, and assume that if our religion has a problem with evolution, then all religions must have that problem. However, many religions have no problem with evolution. It doesn't bother most Hindus or Buddhists. The problem, then, lies not in 'religion' per se. But if we believe that Scripture is an infallible source of historical and scientific facts, then we are asking for trouble.
STEPHEN E. SILVER Santa Fe, N.M., Sept. 29, 2014
To the Editor:
A colleague of mine, a professor of biology, with whom I shared this article mentioned that he too has The Talk with his students - the only difference being that his conclusions are the opposite of that of the author. Indeed, an evolutionary biologist should know better than to suggest that religion does not evolve. In the 21st century, orthodox theology has unapologetically confronted the conflict of science and religion, and declared not only that the two are compatible but also that they wonderfully complement each other.
MICHAEL SHAVOLIAN Great Neck, N.Y., Sept. 30, 2014
To the Editor:
Prof. David P. Barash argues that evolutionary biology has 'demolished two previously potent pillars of religious faith.' Contrary to his claim that evolutionary biology has narrowed the space for religious faith, many theologians and scientists argue that Darwin has opened new horizons for the understanding of God and the place of the human person in the cosmos. It turns out that Darwin's work is as great a gift to theology as it was to biology!
While Stephen J. Gould's 'nonoverlapping magisteria,' or 'noma,' principle - viewing science and religion as separate but compatible - may be simplistic, it at least allows room for theological exploration, which Professor Barash would shut down. Mr. Barash presents his stereotyped comprehension of religion as the only one. Does he not realize that the discouragement of exploration is anti-science?
Until he is willing to openly consider Judeo-Christian religion and spirituality in all its many forms, I would ask that Mr. Barash please spare us, and his students, The Talk.
GLENN R. SAUER Fairfield, Conn., Sept. 28, 2014
The writer is a professor of biology at Fairfield University. Entities 0 Name: David P. Barash Count: 7 1 Name: Barash Count: 5 2 Name: Darwin Count: 4 3 Name: Catholic Count: 1 4 Name: National Council of Synagogues Count: 1 5 Name: Northwestern University Count: 1 6 Name: Ky. Count: 1 7 Name: JOHNSON Charleston Count: 1 8 Name: Ill. Count: 1 9 Name: MEGHAN SHAUGHNESSY Louisville Count: 1 10 Name: Great Neck Count: 1 11 Name: Conn. Count: 1 12 Name: DUTTA Evanston Count: 1 13 Name: Stephen J. Gould Count: 1 14 Name: New Testament Count: 1 15 Name: GLENN R. SAUER Fairfield Count: 1 16 Name: N.Y. Count: 1 17 Name: Fairfield University Count: 1 18 Name: Md. Count: 1 19 Name: Mass. Count: 1 20 Name: TUNNEY Bel Air Count: 1 21 Name: N.M. Count: 1 22 Name: Santa Fe Count: 1 23 Name: Jesus Count: 1 24 Name: GILBERT S. ROSENTHAL Needham Count: 1 25 Name: S.C. Count: 1 26 Name: DANIEL SULLIVAN San Diego Count: 1 27 Name: Nazi Count: 1 28 Name: Albert Einstein Count: 1 Related Keywords 0 Name: religion Score: 137 1 Name: barash Score: 120 2 Name: science Score: 72 3 Name: evolution Score: 45 4 Name: 2014 Score: 41 5 Name: evolutionary Score: 40 6 Name: biology Score: 39 7 Name: theory Score: 35 8 Name: editor Score: 34 9 Name: sept Score: 32 Authors Media Images 0
Post a Comment for "Science and Religion - New York Times"