The problem with inerrancy isn't that it conflicts with science. It's that it conflicts with the Bible. You don't have to get past the first few verses of Genesis chapter 2 to realize that the story of creation you're reading is completely different from the one in chapter 1. The only thing consistent between the two chapters is that the world was created by God for a purpose.

Why is it that only atheists like me seem to know these things?

1. I don't know a single person who believes that every word of the Bible is literally true. Not even the nutjobs who think there is only one correct translation believe that.

2. Science and the scientific method are completely incapable of answering most of the big questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "Why is there a universe?"

3. Proponents of Intelligent Design are not the same as Young-Earth-Creationists and do not have a problem with macro or microevolution necessarily. They do not accept the notion that life is the result of random processes, but this doesn't necessarily rule out evolution. Evolution attempts to explain the similarities in physical structure that we see around us. It is not ultimately an explanation of origins.

4. The notion that one must give up blind faith before engaging in the scientific method is probably accurate, but really doesn't tell me much. There are lots of people for whom a belief in God is the result of rational inquiry, not a groundless statement of naked faith. Some of the most intelligent and well-informed people on the planet are Christians, and your quote of Wilson seems to suggest otherwise.

I've never met a proponent of 'inerrancy' - I'm not convinced they exist in significant numbers in Europe, but I'm prepared to believe they exist in the US. Such people must suffer from constant cognitive dissonance, because as Jemaleddin observes, the Bible is not self consistent.

But I have to balk at "Thus was born scientific humanism, the only worldview compatible with science’s growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature."

What a sadly short-sighted statement. There need be no conflict between science and religion, as their domains need not overlap. Science will never produce testable hypotheses on metaphysics or ethics which is religion's 'home turf'.

It's this sort of arrogance that gives atheism its bad name.

Hey Steve,

1. I do. Lots of them. Head down to your local Southern Baptist Church. Heck, I know some catholics that believe in inerrancy. Ask around! =-)

2. As opposed to Religion which answers them with guesswork and mysterious answers like, "Because God won't tell you Mwhahahaha!"

3. Proponents of Intelligent Design are also not really proponents of the scientific method. Adding a step into your theory that says, "At this point, something I can't replicate or explain happened, so God must have done some magic because I can't think of any other explanation" doesn't count as science.

4. I think the difference is in the phrase "blind faith". Most of our great scientists were men of faith - but not necessarily blind faith.

Nice chatting with you...

Thanks, Jemal.

1. I think there might be a distinction between literalism and inerrancy. Inerrancy is a lack of errors. Literalism is the opposite of symbolism. It is possible to believe that the Bible is without error and still understand significant portions to be poetry or other symbolic references. To take the whole thing literally would be foolishness. My understanding is that the Southern Baptists don't believe in complete literalism, but would still hold to inerrancy. I personally don't think that absolute inerrancy is all that important. Copyist errors, differences in taxonomy, and the like hardly have much bearing on the larger messages the Bible contains.

2. When science admits a lack of knowledge about the big questions, it's an honest answer. Religions are really the only ones offering any answers - not that that makes their answers better than admitting a lack of knowledge. When different religions claim to have answers, those answers are often incompatible. They should be evaluated against all available evidence, even the evidence available through the use of the scientific method. At that point you either accept one religion's answers over another's or you go back to admitting a lack of knowledge. But I suspect that the kinds of answers that science is capable of offering, even after many more years of discovery, will never be sufficient to answer the questions that matter most.

3. My point here wasn't to engage in the "Is Intelligent Design Science?" debate. It was meant to point out that evolution need not be the enemy of ID generally, or Christianity specifically.

4. I think we agree on this point. :)

Interesting perspective here: Is creationalism an American thing?

Greg Ross interviews Michael Ruse for the American Scientist:

You've studied this controversy for years, and you openly side with the Darwinians. Why? Have you always held this view?

Well, first of all, I am English-born (lived most of my life in Canada), and I come from a Quaker background. For me, it was simply assumed that science and religion could coexist. The thought that Genesis might be true literally was—and is—nutty. I studied the physical sciences as a student—my undergraduate degree is in mathematics. So I really came somewhat late to biology and evolution, in my mid-20s—not that I was a creationist or anything, but I was not interested in or informed about biology. Then, when I did start looking at the issues—in main part because I was looking for a thesis topic—I found them conceptually fascinating. Also, this was the time (the 1960s) when Thomas Kuhn was telling philosophers of science that they must study the history of science. I loved looking into Darwin and all of that—I am a bit of a fanatic about Dickens and Anthony Trollope and so forth.

So I fit right into evolutionary thinking, and for me Darwinism was the only way to go. Is this because I am English? Perhaps. Certainly natural theology, which is very English, helped—I was used to looking at adaptations as marvels of organic engineering. Again in the 1970s, when the human sociobiology controversy blew up, I was inclined to go with the Darwinians like Ed Wilson. I had grown up with people like Julian Huxley on the telly, and it never occurred to them that one could not be a good socialist unless one repudiated the influence of the genes on human nature. So again, there I was, a hard-line Darwinian, and still am to this day. In 1981 I wrote a book called Darwinism Defended, and I have a new one to come out next year called Darwinism and Its Discontents. The discontents for me lie not in the theory but in its critics.

"2. Science and the scientific method are completely incapable of answering most of the big questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "Why is there a universe?" "

To me, the second question is an interesting one to BS over while having a beer, but is really a nonsensical inquiry. Then again, I think 'meaning' is a human construct.

As for the first question, for the moment I believe physicists have decided that it can't be answered. I may be wrong about that, but more importantly, the physicists may be wrong about that too. Their ideas are subject to revision, which is one of the things I like about them.

Science provides a method to answer the question: "What can we know about the universe?" Religion, at least insofar as I have been exposed to it, provides more of a direct answer to that question than it provides a method. What method it does provide I find wholly unsatisfying and, to be honest, more than a little insulting. I suppose it comes down to a question of evidence.

I agree that religion and science need not conflict, but it seems to me that for there to be no conflict religion must confine itself to a narrower scope of questions than it is traditionally accustomed. Or science must drop out altogether. I don't know how many religious people would be truly happy with such a restriction on religion, and I guess you can tell what my preference would be.

Intelligent design advocates may not accept the notion that life is the result of random processes, but I'm not too clear as to why. To me the far greater unpalatable leap of logic is to propose the existence of an unseen and unobserved being with unspecified powers that fills the gaps in evolutionary science.