Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Signs of the Time

Time was when Time magazine was a bastion of editorial conservatism, by which I mean nothing like conservatism of the political or religious sort. I mean, instead, that Time maintained a commitment to editorial objectivity — or at least an attempt at it — when most other "news" outlets in the late 20th Century were gleefully abandoning theirs.

Alas, no more. I picked up the November 13, 2006 issue today while at the dentist's office. The cover copy indicated that inside, I'd find "a spirited debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins" in the cover story entitledGod vs. Science(click the title to read the archived article online at the Time Web site). Curious, I bit, and dived into the article. Done in interview format, the piece is billed as the transcript of a 90-minute debate moderated by a Time correspondent. The exchange however, is something short of spirited (I suspect the editors thought that was a clever play on words) and it delivered nothing like the sort of discussion implied by the title.

From its inception the article assumes that intelligent design, an alternative to evolution that actually predates Darwin's work, is simply the religious wolf clad in new scientific wool. "In recent years," writes article author David Van Biema, "creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of 'intelligent design' (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality." Scientifically worded? Very convincing totality? So much for editorial objectivity. So the creationists are mentioned, then dismissed, before the debate begins.

What does take place is a conversation between two scientists — one a Christian and one who, though billed as the athiest in the group, actually attempts late in the game to confess to agnosticism — who despite their differences about the existence of a deity of the sort currently worship by Christian, Jew or Moslem, both accept the prevailing theory of evolution as substantially sound. This is not God vs. Science. Rather its a discussion about whether or not an evolutionist can be a theist without surrendering his key to the lab.

Mr. Dawkins does his best to make it the promised spirited exchange. He twice refers to Collins' position as a "cop-out," the second time, "the mother and father of all cop-outs." He refers to those who believe the Genesis account of creation to be literally true as "clowns" whom theist Collins should ignore. He even trashes one of his own, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (who did more in the last Century than any other living scientist to rescue evolution from its critics by postulating changes to Darwin's classic theory that explained away glaring flaws) by saying that Gould's belief that evolutionary theory and religious belief could co-exist was a politically motivated sham. Collins, to his eternal credit, does not respond in kind. But he certainly is not a representative of those who oppose evolution on biblical grounds.

Van Biema notes that Dawkins is an outspoken member of a much published group of scientific types who are currently on the offensive against religion. The growing list includes Sam Harris, the much publicized and verbally pugnacious author of The End of Faith as well as a posthumous collection of astrophysicist Carl Sagan's skeptical lectures about God.

Personally, I welcome the assault. The rising atheist tide comes at a time when evangelical Christianity, the presumed progenitor of I.D., is in the throes of a much needed self-examination. But Christians are never more like their true selves than when persecuted. Historically, efforts to stamp out their faith have inevitably failed. Christians outlasted Russia's Secret Police and China's Red Guards in the last Century. And they will outlast America's 21st Century Materialists, too. Especially if they're no longer invited to the debate. That'll give them more time to do what Jesus told them to do. Arguing with atheist scientists really isn't on the to-do list.

No comments:

Post a Comment