Martin Nowak

Well if this is any indication of where this conversation is moving, we can perhaps begin to see more light at the end of the tunnel. Martin Nowak is herein described by a Harvard colleague as “the greatest evolutionist ever.” I would suppose then that his voice and views on such matters would at least carry some weight with other evolutionists. I see nothing of substance in this report of his talk that I disagree with. Here is a sampling of some of his statements:

“Science is no replacement for religion.”

“We are confronted with many questions that do not have a scientific answer. It would be naïve to think that every aspect of human life could be addressed by science.”

“The biggest challenge in the discussion of Christianity and evolution, says Nowak, is ‘scientific atheism, which says science is all that is needed for understanding the world… Religion is false or absurd.’ ”

“To this, Nowak said, ‘The God concept of well-formulated theology, certainly of Catholic Christian theology, is more sophisticated than what is rejected by most scientists. The god that is rejected by scientific atheists is not the God that is taught by the Catholic Church.’ He said scientific atheists are ‘overstepping a purely scientific interpretation.’”

“So what is the proper interaction between science and religion?” asked Nowak. “Scientists should admit that science does not provide every answer… Religion and science must work together.”

Wow. Think about it. This would be like Billy Graham telling creationists they misunderstand both evolution and atheists and that the biggest challenge in this discussion was their ignorance.

This entry was posted in Evolution, Martin Nowak, Religion, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Martin Nowak

  1. Burk Braun says:

    So god has some role that is indistinguishable from having no role. This saves all the god-talk from complete absurdity … how? And how does it support Catholicism with its specific theology? For all the feel-good vibes here, the thought process is completely defective. There is no connection between the premises and the conclusions. Has the Catholic church become a deist or pantheist universalist shadow of its former self?

    It is frankly disappointing to see how reasonable people can let their brains fall out like this. Suppose for a moment that god does “support” all of reality all of the time. What difference would that make? The same science we had before would say that the miracles of old are still tall tales, the prophets all self-appointed, the prayers bootless, and death permanent.

    Like

  2. Darrell says:

    Burk,

    I think you just confirmed many of his points. Perhaps you should write him a letter. In any future talks, he could then hold it up as an exhibit of what he was talking about.

    Like

Comments are closed.