Christian Comments

Albert Mohler comments on John Kerry's Faith, which has become a news item lately. Such is life in the political fishbowl--here they guy suddenly gets the urge to go to chruch and take Communion, and people act like he did it merely for political purposes! Mohler notes that "in the modern age, the Catholic Church has faced the development of 'cafeteria Catholics' who pick and choose the Church teaching they will accept, and simply disregard and disobey the rest." Like picking on Kerry is going to solve that problem. One could always consider upgrading the menu.

Christianity Today posted an interview with William Dembski, the leading proponent of Intelligent Design, the latest incarnation of Creation Science. His bio notes he has studied just about everything except biology. Well, no wonder he doesn't quite appreciate evolution. Let me just take this opportunity to say something nice about the LDS Church: It managed to dodge the Creation Science bullet (despite the best attempts of Joseph Fielding Smith and his son-in-law). At BYU you get real science (despite the best attempts of the Religion Department).

Catholic Analysis embraces George Bush as the most Catholic President in American history. That's kind of a slam on Kennedy, but the author was looking at actions rather than labels, and Bush has done more things in line with the social issues Catholics favor than Kennedy ever did, it seems. Still, he deserves nice marks for making the Peace Corps. And for avoiding WWIII in Cuba and West Berlin. And for the moon thing. The post notes that Jeb Bush of Florida is a convert to Catholicism. I'd never heard that--how interesting, especially with Catholicism becoming an election issue. It's gonna be a strange year. Ralph Nader actually has a chance to win, I think, if he picks a credible running mate. How about Bill Clinton? He's available. Great speaker. No skeletons left in his closet.

Comments

[Clark Goble]

While I don't agree with it, I think many Mormons simply compartmentalize with regards to evolution. i.e. they allow for evolution when thinking about science or related topics. They act as if there wasn't evolution when thinking about religion.

I don't think there is any conflict, mind you. But the compartmentalization view isn't quite good either. The problem with directed evolution of the sort Evangelicals discuss is that I don't think it quite works and also it still doesn't fit with Mormonism. (IMO) I prefer the idea that Evolution is Evolution and that any direction comes from tweaking the environment and thereby the probabilities. As I've argued though, Mormonism requires some direction to life forms, although I don't think it requires direction within evolution itself.

[Dave]

Clark,

I actually read through that White and White article you posted on Mormonism and epistemology. It helped me appreciate the extent to which the Big Three (Roberts, Talmage, and Widtsoe) were not just scientifically oriented, but seemed genuinely committed to the unity of knowledge and thus the necessity of integrating scientific and "spiritual" knowledge (or at least of making the attempt). If they didn't win the argument for evolution in church councils, I think they at least prevented an "official" rejection and thus saved science for the Church.

[Clark Goble]

Erich Paul actually argues in _Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology_ that they weren't just open to their unity but had largely adopted scientism. Widtsoe apparently thought through the implications of this later and backed away from it a fair bit towards the end of his life. But I think in a way, while a lot of people rip on _Man, His Origin and Destiny_ that it provided a necessary counterweight to the perhaps over-enthusiasm of some of the brethren at the time. Of course _MHO&D_ was *extremely* problematic and started the integrating of a lot of more conservative Protestant exegesis in the church that only started ending the last decade or so. (In my opinion more due to FARMS than groups like Signature, Sunstone or Dialog)