Home
What you are referring to, I believe, is a piece of mine that actually appeared last year as a letter to the editor in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle rather butchered it, but I have placed it below in full:
Richard Monastersky informs us in his article “On the Front Lines in the War over Evolution” (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10 March 2006) that more than 10,000 U.S. clergy have signed on to “An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science”, the gravamen of which is to insist that religion and evolutionary science are perfectly compatible. The fact that clergy trained in the mainline seminaries are so sanguine about evolution, while a bracing reminder of the continuing effects of Kantian epistemology on modern theology, really tells us nothing about whether the cosmogonies of the religions they profess to believe in can be so easily forced into the Procrustean bed of a Darwinian a/anti-teleology. All it shows is that serious attention to metaphysics has given way to social ethics in the contemporary divinity curriculum.
These doubtless well-meaning signatories notwithstanding, one need not have read the Bible (or Koran or Upanishads) literally or subscribe to what currently passes for “creationism” to know, and not merely opine, that cosmology and theology ought to go hand in hand, and one therefore need not be a flat-earther to listen closely when someone of the intellectual stature of a Thomas Aquinas (let us say) informs us—in words echoed mutatis mutandis by innumerable other authorities, East and West—that “an error concerning the creation, by subjecting it to causes other than God, engenders a false science of God, and takes the minds of men away from Him, to whom faith seeks to lead them” (Summa contra Gentiles).
Taking minds away from God may be just what is needed, of course. Several of the more aggressive proponents of evolution clearly think it is and that a mass injection of evolutionary doctrine is the key to curing the disease called religion. Richard Dawkins comes readily to mind for his in-your-face quip, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker), but E. O. Wilson, Daniel Dennett, and other polemicists are not far behind. They are wrong of course, atheism being a logically self-contradictory faith, but I am frankly delighted to have their voices in the mix and indeed much prefer their tough-mindedness to the flaccid and unthinking abdication proposed by the “Open Letter”.
Fine, let us not teach creationism in the science classroom. But why not instead a required course for high school students—mandatory as well for all those grownups in the academy and clergy who themselves seem to have missed out on the relevant lessons—in the history and philosophy of science? No doubt the reigning evolutionary paradigm affords a way of envisioning our terrestrial environment, but to suppose it the only way, uniquely qualified to give genuine insight into the world around us, is merely to prove that one has never given two seconds thought to the question of what constitutes a fact—never realized that what we take to be an empirical given is always the result of many prior selections and interpretations, now embedded in the fossil record of an unexamined worldview.