And God made Palin, Peter Brookes
Rod Liddle in The Times takes Rev Martin Reiss to task for suggesting a less exclusionary approach to creationism in the classroom.
(See Thinking Anglicans for all conceivable links)
I guess it's a question of tactics - Reiss doesn't approve of creationism - and perhaps driving creationists into defensive bunkers is not a good idea.
But Liddle is right: what is taught in science classes is less the substance and detail of scientific discovery (though both are important) than it is scientific method and thought. Creationism is barmy, the opposite of scientific thinking and anyway, in my opinion, not what the authors / compilers of Genesis had in mind in the first place.
But creationists offer a challenge to other Christians as powerful as scientism. What place does revelation have? What weight do we attribute to words on a page (whether a school text book or scripture)? In matters of faith, as in everything else, how do we know what we know?
In the end, I think, it's all about faith: I rely on the work and words of others to use this computer, drive to the shops, cook pears. I rely on experience (mine and other people's) in worship and belief. I look for logic and coherence in thought, though I seem to have a much higher tolerance of unresolved paradox and contradiction that most. Where science wins out overwhelmingly is in its technological expression. Universality, replicability and predictability have enabled amazing technological developments from the plough to the ipod. The anti-rationalism in creationism is to be shunned completely.
But churches have long had lightening conductors. For most christians, most of the time, religion and science get along perfectly amicably.
I wasn't going to blog this, but the cartoon was so good.