Laughing at Tulsa (for good reason)

Reader Antonio Manetti offers these thoughts in response to my earlier post criticizing the New York Times editorial on the decision to install a Genesis display at the Tulsa Zoo:

It strikes me that the Times editorial, far from poking fun at Tulsans in general, was ridiculing those thin-skinned folk who are offended whenever they perceive a threat to their favorite religious account of creation. Apparently, many citizens of Tulsa had the sense to object to such nonsense. Good for them.

If you are implying that the inclusion of the Genesis account in science museums and similar public venues is inappropriate because these institutions are ill equipped deal with such matters, then I agree. I'd go a step further and suggest that such an inclusion opens the door for a scopes-like legal circus whose likely outcome would be the requirement to include other religious accounts of creation as well. Would you want Genesis to share equal billing with those? More importantly, of course, attempting to juxtapose Evolution with Genesis does both a disservice by failing to recognize that the fundamental truths expressed by Science and Religion are incommensurate.

As to evolution's 'singularity' -- it seems clear from the text of the article that such singularity comes not from the exclusion of or hostility to religion but because evolution is the only scientifically valid account. Not an unimportant distinction in my view.

That brings me to what I believe is the real issue -- the implicit fear you refer to. One aspect is the fear you ascribe to the editorial writers of disturbing the societal consensus due to science with the divergent views of religion. Although I'm not as certain of that as you seem to be, I believe there's another element of fear at work -- namely the fear on the part of the religious establishment that, in their heart of hearts, people have more faith in science (and scientists) than religion. After all, science delivers the goods much of the time while prayers often go unanswered. When a scourge strikes, we may ask God for deliverance, but we set the scientists to work (evolution and all) and have faith that they’ll save us once again as they have in the past.

The fact is that, in practice, people worship science more than religion. Instead of combating this kind of idolatry using the laws, courts and the coercive power of the state to marginalize valid science it would contribute to the public discourse to focus on the faustian bargain through which we often enjoy the fruits of science at the expense of religion’s transcendent values.

Thoughts?  Is the law, as Antonio suggests, obfuscating the real tension at work in society's stance toward science and religion?

Rob