Thursday, April 12, 2007

Rev. Sam had this link to an interview between Richard Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford.

The one point that they got right is that the literal interpretation of much of the Bible had been rejected in the 1830's and 1840's. By the 1870's, the theological community had already embraced evolution. Of course, biology wasn't a science until well into the 20th century, so the mental disconnect should be obvious.

The part that I find especially interesting is their discussion of homosexuality. They take the view that the Bible was wrong about evolution, therefore, it is also wrong about homosexuality. That is certainly refreshing compared to the theologians who argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.

It does, however, confirm my theory that Charles Darwin was the founder of post-modernism. Evolution has amazing explanatory powers. In fact, evolution can evolve to explain anything. There is no set of data, whether real or imaginary, true or false, that a practitioner of evolution cannot explain. Once we apply this logic to the entire Bible, we have a world view in which anything can be justified by the Bible, even when it is explicitly condemned.

1 comment:

Bunc said...

Hi Looney,
Its certainly true that some have used evolutionary theory and specifically Darwinism to seek to explain things in areas where the theory is not well enough developed to give a robust explanation.

There have been lots of attempts to show that there is a "homosexual gene". Announcements come at regular intervals but none are very convincing so far as a complete explanation. And Darwinism has of course little if anything useful to say about the morality of issues such as homosexuality. Morality is not a matter of scientific analysis of course but a matter of human choice.

Indee homosexuality could be seen as posing something of a problem for natural selection because Dawkins would argue that such genes should not be capable of surviving. He argues that selection is at the gene level and that success in these terms is about whether the gene reproduces and becomes more widespread in the gene pool.

Clearly a gene "hard wired" for homosexuality would die out because there wouldnt be much reproducing going on!

However if the gene had other useful traits and wasnt always expressed behaviourally in exclusively homesexual behaviour then I suppose it could be succesful.

As to your comments about the Bible - there have been those who have used the Bible to justify some strange things. Including from memory some groups who said that sex with children was approved by it.

There are nuts in all walks of life - religious and scientific! (I still think religious nuts are far nuttier by and large - but of course thats my prejudice showing!)