Dear readers,
Please bear with me for my long absence from my post. I have recently begun a Master of Arts degree
in “Science and Religion” from Biola University. At the same time that I am adjusting to
disciplined homework and the writing of papers (I love the material!) I have
dealt with serious on-going problems with my computer that has included a
hindered access to the internet. Now
that I am settled in with a highly functioning computer, I intend to post once
a week. I am very grateful for all who
have visited my blog in the past. I hope
you will continue.
Most sincerely, Gary Jensen
The following is my recent response to an editorial in the
Seattle Times. I was limited here to just a
few of a longer list of arguments I might have offered in rebuttal of the writer's’
essay, but the paper limits letter writers to 200 words.
Re: “Where There is No Conflict Between Religion and
Science,” by Michael Zimmermann, Feb. 9, 2014
Dear Editor,
Dr. Zimmerman’s faulty line of argument is
grounded on the “black or white” logical fallacy. With qualification I agree with the title of
his essay in that science and religion are not necessarily at war with each other.
But his suggestion that affirming the harmony of these categories must lead logically to Darwinism
ignores the reality of other viable (indeed superior) options. As one convinced by main-stream empirical
science that the cosmos had an absolute beginning out of nothing (the Big
Bang), I consider that recent discoveries from cosmology converge with the
opening declaration of the Bible in Genesis 1:1.
Everyone
interested in scientific inquiry ought to be offended by Zimmerman’s suggestion
that the posing of alternate theories to Darwinism is to “deliberately embrace
scientific ignorance.” The truly
scientific spirit gives priority to submitting given hypotheses to rigorous
testing. Zimmerman suggests that advocates
of Intelligent Design resort to the “god of the gaps” argument. This raises questions about his own awareness
of the facts and his commitment to truth.
A simple investigation of their writings will answer that question. In actual fact I.D. advocates join Darwin in
their commitment to inference to the best explanation in light of the data.
Sincerely Gary Jensen, Pastor
