It was the standard political interview, about ambition and the right size for government. Then came the curveball question to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida from Michael Hainey of GQ magazine: "How old do you think the earth is?"
Senator Rubio, a possible contender in the 2016 Republican presidential race, gave the following answer: "I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians."
He went on: "At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created, and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.
"Whether the earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."
It may have been a mystery back in the 17th century, when Archbishop James Ussher calculated from the age of the patriarchs and other sources that Earth was created on Oct. 22, 4004 B.C. Today's best estimate for the age of Earth, based on the radiometric dating of meteorites, is 4.54 billion years. The real mystery is how a highly intelligent politician got himself into the position of suggesting that the two estimates are of equal value, or that theologians are still the best interpreters of the physical world.
Catholics and Jews have always emphasized their priests' interpretations of the Bible, not the text itself; Protestants, starting with Martin Luther, insisted the Bible was the literal truth and the sole dependable source of divine knowledge, a belief the Puritans implanted firmly in American soil. Then, in the 19th century, German textual critics like Julius Wellhausen showed that the Bible was not the inerrant product of divine inspiration but had been cobbled together by many hands whose editing was all too evident.
At that point most Protestants decided to join Catholics in interpreting the Bible metaphorically and avoiding embarrassing public spats with science. But after discussions in the early 20th century, the conservative wing of the Protestant movement elected to double down their bet and insist that every word in the Bible was true.
The inevitable clash with science, particularly in the teaching of evolution, has continued to this day. Militant atheists like the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins beat the believers about the head, accomplishing nothing; fundamentalist Christians naturally defend their religion and values to the hilt, whatever science may say.
A scientific statesman, if there were such a person, would try to defuse the situation by professing respect for all religions and making a grand yet also trivial concession about the status of evolution.
Like those electrons that can be waves or particles, evolution is both a theory and a fact. In historical terms, evolution has certainly occurred and no fact is better attested. But in terms of the intellectual structure of science, evolution is a theory; no one talks about Darwin's "fact of evolution."
Unlike a fact, a theory cannot be absolutely true. All scientific theories are subject to change and replacement, just as Newton's theory of gravitation was replaced by Einstein's. The theory of evolution, though it has no present rivals, is still under substantial construction.
Evolutionary biologists are furiously debating whether or not natural selection can operate on groups of individuals, as Darwin thought was likely but most modern evolutionists doubt. So which version of evolution is the true one?
By allowing that evolution is a theory, scientists would hand fundamentalists the fig leaf they need to insist, at least among themselves, that the majestic words of the first chapter of Genesis are literal, not metaphorical, truths. They in return should make no objection to the teaching of evolution in science classes as a theory, which indeed it is.
And rudderless politicians like Senator Rubio wouldn't have to throw 15 back flips and a hissy fit when asked a simple question like how old is the earth.
Nicholas Wade, a longtime science writer for The New York Times, is the author of "The Faith Instinct," about the evolutionary basis of religion.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Essay: Biblical Literalists’ Clash With Science
Dengan url
https://scienceteko.blogspot.com/2012/11/essay-biblical-literalistsa-clash-with_28.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Essay: Biblical Literalists’ Clash With Science
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Essay: Biblical Literalists’ Clash With Science
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar