Though I don’t completely agree with her approach (I think we should let creationists be creationists and tell them they can succeed in science anyway), I liked this passage:
For me, it is all about taking what I know about the science combined with my life experience and how the underlying culture of my region impacts what and how people think about science. To me, belief is a quality of religion, not science, and I tell my students that they don’t have to believe in evolution, because evolution is a scientific occurrence in the physical world. It happens as a process and pattern whether we believe in it or not. I tell them that their belief in God is not impacted by their understanding of science; the science gives us a physical explanation of events in the physical world whereas religion gives them a supernatural explanation of life and things beyond the physical world. You do not have to give up one to have the other, whether you are talking about science or religion.
I like what she says about evolution (or any theory for that matter). Believing in it is irrelevant. Similar moves are happening in faith communities, where it’s not about believing.
You’ve said that before, and I still find it fascinating. Isn’t believing something a big part of being in a faith community? Or to be more specific…don’t Christians and Muslims have to believe certain things?
Is she not doing that? I’m not sure what is your objection to her approach.
Good point. That was a bit unclear. Will try to clarify soon. Pretty swamped this week and so may not get to it though.
As a Christian I don’t think I could separate what happens in the physical world from what happens “beyond the physical world” in the way she argues, as if God only affects the latter; since we believe that God holds the physical world in existence from moment to moment. Still, she’s on the right track.
Interesting point. I like it.