Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Russell Moore Hits The Nail On The Head

Russell Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. It is the SBC's flagship seminary. Moore also contributes regularly as member of the Henry Institute (The Carl F.H. Henry Institute for Evangelcial Engagement). In a recent post, Moore exposed a little bit of the bias to be found in the New York Times. He wrote:

Did you see the article in today's New York Times exposing how many of the nation's leading Darwinists are atheists, agnostics, or members of left-leaning religious bodies? Did you notice how the Times pointed out that such irreligious worldviews draw suspicion to the scholarship of these thinkers?

Of course you didn't. No such article appeared. But the Times did publish an article pointing out how many signers of a recent petition calling for debate over Darwinian naturalism are members of evangelical churches.

(Kenneth Chang, "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition," New York Times, 21 February 2006, D2.)
As MOore goes onto to note, Christians knew Genesis 1 and John 1 and Colossians 1 long before we ever heard of irreducible complexity. OF COURSE most opponents of evolution are Christian.

However, it seems odd that the NY Times failed to make the connection that almost all of the proponents of Darwinism are motivated just as equally by their "religious" thought system. And make no mistake - it is a religion.

Moore writes, "The problem instead is that the Times doesn't explore the equally theological and metaphysical presuppositions of the parties decrying creationism and Intelligent Design. Now that would make for an interesting article, and the beginnings of an honest and perhaps fruitful discussion."

1 comment:

Jim Pemberton said...

To add to Dr. Moore's observation:

Context is king and presupposition is the context of this debate. It's naive for an atheistic scientist to frame evolution as science in juxtaposition to a belief system that he believes a priori he cannot test or detect. It's naive because he hasn't tested his own motivations. He has simply trusted the arguments that others have provided for him because those others espouse a belief system that he desires to emulate. This belief system is desirable because it provides defensible answers to material questions while promising to deny the need to seek justification for the answers to intangible questions he would rather not ask.