Reasonable discourse on creationism versus evolution

I found Michael Brendan Dougherty 's essay, "In defense of creationists: Sure, they're misreading Genesis. But for all the right reasons" in The Week most refreshing and enlightening about one of today's most contentious topics: creationism vs. evolution. If we might put our biases aside and take a deep breath, maybe we could close the gap. I would especially recommend this to some of the posters in Chicago Now's Atheist in Wheaton blog.

Dougherty addresses the ideas from both sides, so don't think that he's singling out just one side in the below selection

To submit to the authority of science does not mean to place one's personal and irrevocable imprimatur on today's most supported theories. It simply means accepting the rational process of investigating claims about nature through rigorous observation and experimentation. What does it mean when laymen say they "believe in" a scientific theory? Must they decide between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins on "punctuated equilibrium?" Who is supposed to be impressed by these declarations?

On the other hand, I've always found those Christians who hold to six-day accounts of man's origin difficult to refute and even more difficult to despise. There is a certain strength and flexibility to their tautology. Further, even though they're wrong on the science, they are right about the things that really matter to the human heart and to human civilization.

Well done, Mr. Dougherty. I might agree with everything, but it stands out, way above some of the emotional and non-sensical arguments that we're hearing. My own believe is that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive lines of thought.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • And what exactly does this "certain strength and flexibility to their tautology" consist of?

  • Guess you'll just have to read the article. I didn't find it to be a waste of time.

  • As Freddie Schliermacher was telling me, Für diese Vorstellungen von einer exoterischen und esoterischen Philosophie fordern eine kritische Sichtung, soweit sie mit ganz unterschiedlichen Bedeutungen erscheinen zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten. Denn unter dem frühesten Pythagoräer bezeichnet diese Unterscheidung so sofort zur Sache, dass die Versuchspersonen wurden als esoterische wovon sie würden sich ohne die Grenzen ihrer intimsten Kreis der Verbindungen nicht begangen bezeichnet, und anzunehmen, dass ihre politischen System belegt werden kann, ist die Ort der esoterischen weit mehr als ihre metaphysischen Spekulationen, die so unvollkommen unverdächtig waren."

    Well, no kidding.

  • In reply to PatHickey:

    12694.

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement:
  • Fresh Chicago News