It’s a Matter of Science, Not Religion

Posted: July 25, 2011 by Amy Hall in Intelligently Designed

Radio host Thom Hartmann would not be swayed from his agenda: paint all opposition to evolution—including scientific opposition—as religion. Strategy: get Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute to admit he believes God created the world and then triumphantly sneer away all his arguments as invalid. Great plan, except it didn’t quite work.

Even if the objections to evolution turn out to be completely wrong, that wouldn’t change the fact that they’re scientific objections, not religious ones. There may be religious implications, but so are there religious/worldview implications if evolution is affirmed and not objected to. This misunderstanding of the issue is frustratingly widespread.

You can read a detailed review of this radio interaction at Evolution News and Views. And consider subscribing to the Discovery Institute’s podcast.

  1. Chad Miller says:

    Wow! That dude just would NOT quit, would he?

  2. Chad Miller says:

    It’s like he wasn’t even listening to what Casey was saying… Like Casey said, I hope that was a very instructive interview to his listeners about the true motivation behind that interview.

  3. Sam Harper says:

    That was kind of annoying to watch.

    I think if I were interviewing Luskin, I would’ve gone in a different direction. Since he’s advocating that we allow challenges to scientific paradigms, like evolution, in grade school textbooks, I would ask him if he thinks we should draw the line anywhere. For example, should we allow challenges to the view that the sun is the center of the solar system? Or the view that the earth is round? Should we do the same thing with history? Should we allow challenges to the view that the holocaust happened?

    If we SHOULD draw the line somewhere, where should we draw it? What criteria should we apply to a view to determine whether we’re going to spend any time on it?

    If we should not draw the line anywhere, how can we avoid getting so tedious, considering every view out there, that we aren’t able to cover the views that have the most consensus among scientists in any kind of depth? Should we give more time to view that have the most support, or should we give them all equal time, regardless of their merits (or what the scientific community, as a whole, thinks has the most merits)?