Dawkins v. Haggard

Since I have been publishing on the same theme this morning, here is an interesting clip between Richard Dawkins (advocate of evolution, skeptic of religion, and arrogant scientist that cannot speak to "the people") and Ted Haggard (does this man need an introduction?).

But please, as you watch this...don't be arrogant. I mean, Pastor Ted is not arrogant throughout the interview.

There is a good debate halfway through about evidence and contradiction. Dawkins misses the opportunity to attack Haggard's position and I wonder if it is because he, Dawkins, does not know the Bible. But it does raise the question: when your audience sctrictly adheres to a cetain world view (religion) can you have a debate with them over science? These are two separate argumentation fields with separate rules for evidence. How can you bridge that divide?



Here is a little history: the evangelical movement begins with the break between the "fundamentalists" and "mainline Protestants" in the 1920s. The Fundamentalists created a revivalistic movement in response to the growing concerns over modernity,especially WWI, Darwin, industrialization, and the corruption of culture. Religiously, The Fundamentals accussed the mainliners that they focused too much on the social world and no longer followed the Bible-- the figurative interpretation strays to far from the actual text. They asked: how can you have a religion based on a sacred book if you do not follow the book? They believe in the literal interpretation of scripture and the inerrancy of scripture, though I am not sure how the role of interpretation, especially from one language to another, alters the art of interpretation and the inerancy of scripture. For example, in Greek the "virgin birth" translates to birth by a "young woman." To say the least, this is an improtant discrepancy. Also, the belief that Moses composed the pentateuch seems odd since his death occurs before the end of the the fifth book.

After the Scopes trial, the fundamentalists disappeared from the social scene only to return in the 1960s & 1970s. Schools used textbooks that contianed evolution, though the teaching of evolution was not widespead until the 1950's. After the USSR sent up Sputnik, the Federal Government and the ruling bodies of science decided if the UNited States were to take the Cold War seriously, then science in Schools needed to change for the better and the teaching of evolution was one of those improvements.

Of course, this did not sit well with the fundamentalist and they sought the the teaching of creationism and creation science to balance out evolution. A few think tanks sprouted up that focused on developing Genesis as scientific theory (and then had nasty loyalty oaths-- To study creation science at the Creation Research Center, a member must accept "that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truth." Further, if you closely read the first five books, there are multiple characterizations and personalities of G-D, which some scholars suggest that there are multiple authors of the pentateuch (the authors are known as J, E, D, & P.) These examples are important since they alter the debate in the literal or figurative interpretation of the Bible.

This debate rages today, usually in the form of Evolution versus Intelligent Design. Many commentators state that this dspute is between science and religion or science versus Christianity; however, it is only certain sects that possess the literal view of the Bible that interferes with the teaching of evolution.