Quote:
Originally Posted by mriff
|
For those that didn't open the link and read, I wanted to post just one paragraph of the article. It's a very good point in the debate. At least I think it is. Evolutionary biologists are on a quest for truth through discovery, just as any other scientist. And yet, they are vilified by some for even being interested in this path of scientific work.
This short introductory article to the debate is one of the best I've read.
Evolution is no more atheistic than is medicine. Practitioners in both fields exclude supernatural interventions from their explanations of the phenomena they investigate. For example, you wouldn't expect your doctor to say, "We don't need to research your disease because we believe it's the result of a curse from God, so your only treatment is repentance." Just because medicine excludes supernatural explanations as a matter of method, it does not follow that medicine is therefore committed to atheism. Medical doctors are not being inconsistent when they both believe in God, and practice medicine under the working assumption that God has not jumped in to manipulate natural laws in order to create a disease or other medical phenomena. Similarly, evolutionary science also excludes supernatural explanations as a matter of method, but again, this is not equivalent to saying that evolutionists are committed to atheism. What medicine and evolution (and all the sciences) are saying is that direct intervention by God, or other supernatural beings, is assumed to be unnecessary in explaining the phenomena they investigate.