The Gadsden Times - Latest News from Gadsden, Alabama

Amy Welborn beat me to the punch on this one. I know, I know, what a surprise! The pre-eminent blogger of the Catholic Blogosphere scooped me! How will I live with this shame?

But I digress. The Gadsden Times of Alabama had this report on Scientists--with and without Faith in God!

For a MSM outlet, the story had a refreshing sense of perspective. Either that, or I'm so full from my roasted Chicken dinner that I'm soft right now. In any event, reporter Cornelia Dean notes the challenge religious scientists pose to their secular collegues:

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith.

"It should not be a taboo subject, but frankly it often is in scientific circles," said Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and who speaks freely about his Christian faith.

Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force.

Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people.

OK, so the "creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design" meme slipped past my radar. Sue me! Seriously, though, Ms. Dean makes an interesting point. Too many people are willing to see an inevitable conflict between science and religion. As these faithful scientist prove, that's not always the case.

Of course, this is a back-story report to the now smoldering controversy the President poured gasoline on recently: ID in the schools. Ms. Dean notes that at least one Roman Catholic scientist sees no conflict between the theory of evolution and his Faith:

Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown, said his students were often surprised to find that he was religious, especially when they realized that his faith was not some sort of vague theism but observant Roman Catholicism.

Dr. Miller, whose book, "Finding Darwin's God," explains his reconciliation of the theory of evolution with his religious faith, said he was usually challenged in his biology classes by one or two students whose religions did not accept evolution, who asked how important the theory would be in the course.

"What they are really asking me is "do I have to believe in this stuff to get an A?,' " he said. He says he tells them that "belief is never an issue in science."

"I don't care if you believe in the Krebs cycle," he said, referring to the process by which energy is utilized in the cell. "I just want you to know what it is and how it works. My feeling about evolution is the same thing."

Now, some Reasonable folk might object at this point. "Oh, no," they might say, "We know what your Cardinal said. Roman Catholicism pulled a Galileao. You can't believe in evolution and be a Faithful Catholic, you Foolish, closet-creationist!" To which I would say, after laughing myself to the floor, "Easy on the kool-aid friend. The Cardinal's objection is not the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution but the philosophy of Darwinian evolutionism."

As a Catholic, I have no conflict of conscience over considering the viability of evolution as a theory while practicing the Faith. If God has choses random selection as a mechanism by which his creation thrives, who am I to argue. As a man with a passing interest in science, I respect the level of evidence that support the theory of evolution. I also acknowlede that, as a theory, it has holes. As an educator, I don't see a conflict between presenting ID as a theory as an explanation for the emergance of life that some have, considering evolution's deficiencies. No one suggests scraping the teaching of evolution in the classroom, or even minimizing it. Unless I missed the memo, I don't believe schools are required to teach evolution as the new Dogma of all society. Isn' their some ammendment against the establishment of Religion in the constitution? I assume that includes secular religions. Right? Besides, wouldn't such Dogma-manufacturing be considered more philosophy then science?

I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. I do object to the philosophy of evolutionism. Scientists such as Richard Hawkins, that use the theory of evolution to make materialist metaphysical assertions violate the principles of science. They offer an assertion they can't hope to prove; there is no way to scientifically disprove God. Therefore, Mr. Hawkins assertion is one made without evidence; it's his opinion. I can take it or leave it. Far too many scientists, however, refuse to see these naked assertions as opinions. They regard them as natural extensions of the theory of evolution.

Well, they are adults. If they want to go around calling an opinion fact, more power to them. Unfortunately, enough Reasonable secularists attempt to impose this evolutionism in the classroom (particularly through teacher-training programs, thus indirectly affecting primary/secondary students). The current opposition to ID being taught in science classrooms sounds a little too much like an attempt to mandate evolutionism. That's simply inappropriate.

Perhaps more believing scientists will begin to agree. I can only hope they'd be so Foolish!