Who deserves to be seated at the public-policy table?
Not people of faith, according to the late Christopher Reeves—a.k.a., Superman—speaking at Yale University: “When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have a seat at the table.” This assessment doesn’t simply pertain to public policy; it’s applied to questions of faith-based initiatives, school textbooks and curriculum, what constitutes good science, and every other public debate or legislation.
How is this bias against people-of-faith justified? Some plead Church and State separation. However, this just won’t work. It would mean that the faithful would be prevented from having any voice—clearly not the intention of the framers of the Constitution! Therefore, many secularists have shifted their discriminatory strategy:
As a secularist, I believe the purpose of public education is to learn facts wherever possible. Evolution is based on evidence observed and conclusions derived. Religion offers “divine truths,” none of which are provable by any measure, hence the word “faith.” (Pique, April 2009, 1)
Indeed, if religion is purely subjective, without an evidential basis, then religious assertions shouldn’t be made to apply objectively to the lives of others. In this, both Humanist and Christian agree. It would represent the height of arrogance for a religious person to say “Do as I do because it feels right to me!” This assertion would be like saying “Your feelings and sentiments don’t count! My feelings are more significant than yours, Mr. Atheist!”
There are other areas of agreement. Most Humanists and Christians would also agree that the contention that science and religion talk about different and therefore non-overlapping and non-competing things doesn’t hold up against scrutiny. Science clearly has a lot to say about religious issues and religion is not silent in regards to the claims of scientists.
Along with this, both Humanists and Christians believe that it is imperative to have a coherent worldview. This is in opposition to postmodern thinking, which is willing to tolerate incoherence—for instance, the common postmodern judgment: “You can’t judge me!”
As such, we both believe that the opposing positions of naturalism (Darwinism) and supernaturalism (Creationism) require some form of resolution. Here’s where the tension enters. Both sides lay claim to the facts. However, according to secular humanists, religion should be a private matter because it doesn’t speak in the language of facts, as does evolution. In contrast, I’d like to suggest that Christianity also involves facts, and that evolution depends upon faith. Here are just a few of the faith-based assumptions of evolution:
A THEORY ISN’T VIABLE IF IT CAN’T EXPLAIN THE FACTS IN ITS DOMAIN: Naturalism (Darwinism) can’t even begin to provide an explanation for the origins of the laws of nature, life, the cell, DNA, freewill, consciousness, fine-tuning, etc. AMAZINGLY, FAITH is usually invoked: “Science doesn’t have an answer yet, but eventually, it will.”
NATURALISM IS FAITH, NOT SCIENCE: Both sides agree that there are laws that determine material events. However, science can’t directly observe the source of these laws. Naturalists assume that gravity, for instance, is a free-standing, natural, mindless force. However, there is no proof of this. Instead, the laws might simply be part of the mind of God. In fact, their uniform operation throughout the universe would tend to argue for the latter—the existence of an omnipresent God.
THE FOSSIL RECORD FAILS TO SUPPORT MACRO-EVOLUTION: Even evolutionists agree with this assessment:
· “All Paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” S.J.Gould.
Not people of faith, according to the late Christopher Reeves—a.k.a., Superman—speaking at Yale University: “When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have a seat at the table.” This assessment doesn’t simply pertain to public policy; it’s applied to questions of faith-based initiatives, school textbooks and curriculum, what constitutes good science, and every other public debate or legislation.
How is this bias against people-of-faith justified? Some plead Church and State separation. However, this just won’t work. It would mean that the faithful would be prevented from having any voice—clearly not the intention of the framers of the Constitution! Therefore, many secularists have shifted their discriminatory strategy:
As a secularist, I believe the purpose of public education is to learn facts wherever possible. Evolution is based on evidence observed and conclusions derived. Religion offers “divine truths,” none of which are provable by any measure, hence the word “faith.” (Pique, April 2009, 1)
Indeed, if religion is purely subjective, without an evidential basis, then religious assertions shouldn’t be made to apply objectively to the lives of others. In this, both Humanist and Christian agree. It would represent the height of arrogance for a religious person to say “Do as I do because it feels right to me!” This assertion would be like saying “Your feelings and sentiments don’t count! My feelings are more significant than yours, Mr. Atheist!”
There are other areas of agreement. Most Humanists and Christians would also agree that the contention that science and religion talk about different and therefore non-overlapping and non-competing things doesn’t hold up against scrutiny. Science clearly has a lot to say about religious issues and religion is not silent in regards to the claims of scientists.
Along with this, both Humanists and Christians believe that it is imperative to have a coherent worldview. This is in opposition to postmodern thinking, which is willing to tolerate incoherence—for instance, the common postmodern judgment: “You can’t judge me!”
As such, we both believe that the opposing positions of naturalism (Darwinism) and supernaturalism (Creationism) require some form of resolution. Here’s where the tension enters. Both sides lay claim to the facts. However, according to secular humanists, religion should be a private matter because it doesn’t speak in the language of facts, as does evolution. In contrast, I’d like to suggest that Christianity also involves facts, and that evolution depends upon faith. Here are just a few of the faith-based assumptions of evolution:
A THEORY ISN’T VIABLE IF IT CAN’T EXPLAIN THE FACTS IN ITS DOMAIN: Naturalism (Darwinism) can’t even begin to provide an explanation for the origins of the laws of nature, life, the cell, DNA, freewill, consciousness, fine-tuning, etc. AMAZINGLY, FAITH is usually invoked: “Science doesn’t have an answer yet, but eventually, it will.”
NATURALISM IS FAITH, NOT SCIENCE: Both sides agree that there are laws that determine material events. However, science can’t directly observe the source of these laws. Naturalists assume that gravity, for instance, is a free-standing, natural, mindless force. However, there is no proof of this. Instead, the laws might simply be part of the mind of God. In fact, their uniform operation throughout the universe would tend to argue for the latter—the existence of an omnipresent God.
THE FOSSIL RECORD FAILS TO SUPPORT MACRO-EVOLUTION: Even evolutionists agree with this assessment:
· “All Paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” S.J.Gould.
· “No real evolutionist…uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” (Mark Ridley)
· “I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument…If I knew any, I certainly would have included them.” Dr. Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History--his response when asked why he didn’t include anything about transitional forms in his book, Evolution.
· “It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another.” (Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History)
· This lack of evidence of intermediary forms is so damning that again evolutionists invoke the faith that the gaps will someday be filled.
LACK OF EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE: “No experiment has ever shown how useful functioning information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes.” (Malone)
Meanwhile, the proofs of the Christian faith are so extensive that, at best, I can offer only the barest outline. There are many theistic proofs: the cosmological, teleological (“argument from design”), moral, and transcendental arguments. In addition to these, there are numerous arguments in support of the Christian revelation, including fulfilled prophecy, internal and external evidences and miracles. For the one miracle that is most central to the Christian worldview—the resurrection of Jesus—there is a wealth of compelling historical evidence, so much so that the Jewish historian, Paula Fredricksen, acknowledges:
The Disciples’ conviction that they had seen the risen Christ…is historical bedrock, facts known past doubting”? (L. Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 119).
Historian and atheist, Gerd Ludemann, also admitted that Jesus’ disciples were convinced that He had risen from the dead:
It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ (Strobel).
Why then isn’t Ludemann a Christian? He chooses to believe that the many accounts of Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances were the result of all of the disciples having the identical auditory and visual hallucination, many at the same time and over a period of 40 days! In view of the weighty and extensive testimonial evidence in favor of the resurrection, this represents a manifestation of great faith!
Who then should be denied the seat at the table?
Daniel Mann
challengingthedarkness@yahoo.com
