Flipping through archived covers of old issues of Time, I wasn't sure what exactly I was looking for. I suppose I hoped to find a cover with leading cover lines, a loaded question, some sexist or racist pictorial representation; basically a magazine cover that forwarded some of Galacian's myths or an advertisement that created unrealistic or harmful expectations. A cover meeting any of those prerequisites would make this assignment easier and I could neatly apply our new terms and concepts. Coming across the the November, 2006 issue I paused after giving the cover the same cursory glance I had given the ten previous covers before hitting the 'next' button. "God vs. Science" written in black jumped out at me from the all white background. To the right of the cover line--the only cover line-- a DNA helix descended, transforming into a rosary with a cross attached to the end.
This cover didn't seem like a convenient venue for an application of my newly acquired 'unrealistic expectation debunkers,' but the statement "God vs. Science" immediately implied and perpetuated notions that many us have come to accept casually, without much challenge or worry. First, this seems like an acceptable statement. God and science are at odds, or so it seems, each representing ideals and standards of knowledge. While that notion--perpetual conflict between the two--seems troubling to me, many people, when picking sides line up exclusively under one of these banners. Those choosing God see their understanding as grounded in faith, approaching the idea of truth as a transcendentalist concept that must be studied with a firm, literal interpretation of scripture. Those choosing Science will claim that reason, discovery, and empirical verification provide the only means of true understanding. But is this notion a myth? Why do people in both camps accept the battle, and why to observers see the debate as an unavoidable confrontation and corollary of the two biggest modern influences?
This notion of the diametric opposition of God and Science is furthered by a contentious history: the execution of Copernicus, Galileo's forced abjuration, the John Scopes trial and a continuing debate over evolution, as well as the way modern society's cultural progression erodes fundamentalist values.
The media's habit of sensationalizing, taken together with the foundational purpose that God and science serve in our approaches to life blind us--the debaters and observers from asking different questions and making different statements, such as: "God and Science"; "Can scriptures be reinterpreted in light of recent scientific discoveries?"; and "Does scientific discovery require the disregard of comprehensive moral doctrines on the basis of a few inconsistencies?" A dialog needs opened without the parties bringing an uncompromising approach, or an arrogant certainty to the table.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is a good post that touches on a subject that I believe is a big issue, especially today. There seems to be this issue of science and God where one is right and one is wrong. I personally have two close friends that are on the opposite end of the spectrum in the sense that one of my friends does not believe in God but he believes in 'science' where my other friend believes in God and does not believe in 'science'. At a moments notice my two friends can begin to argue about this topic and it usually consists of them calling each other stupid and they can not believe how ignorant the other one is and I usually just end up leaving the room to avoid the confrontation. I agree with you in the sense of why it has to be a battle and the title that you found "God vs. Science" shows that perfectly where it looks like it is a boxing match.
ReplyDeleteI think god does want me to make a comment, or atleast i should capitalize God and maybe he or she will let me copy/paste my comments from word, but whatever ill retype.
ReplyDeleteThe god vs science battle as been going on for over 500 years with little signs of slowing up. I am a person who believes in god, or what kind of higher power might exist. However i am still raional enough to believe that many of the things written in scripture are not to be taken literally which i feel is the major with religious fundamentalist. The problem with people battling science is that do read things in scripture to be fact. Then a scientific theory arises to explain things like evolution poepl automatically take that as blasphemy against the word of god when in fact it's man becoming enlightened. For many years people read scripture as a way to explain the unexaplainabl, and we have the tools to explain the unkown and must embrace this instead of looking and thinking backwards. That isnt to say lose religion because it has it's place, and that place is private. Untill people begin to realize that scripture is not black and white, but rather all shades of gray it will continue to be a battle. Thanks you to time magazine for further intreching this in peoples minds as a battle, and thank you to this website for making retype all of that twice. I didnt proof read my retyping...