Wouldn’t you like to expose your newer readers to some of your earlier posts that they might never have seen? Or remind your long term followers of posts that they might not remember? Each Friday I will publish a post I wrote on this exact date in a previous year.
How about you? Why don’t you reach back into your own archives and highlight a post that you wrote on this very date in a previous year? You can repost your Friday Flashback post on your blog and pingback to this post. Or you can just write a comment below with a link to the post you selected.
If you’ve been blogging for less than a year, go ahead and choose a post that you previously published on this day (the 4th) of any month within the past year and link to that post in a comment.
This was originally posted on February 4, 2007 on my old blog.
Signs of the Times
I recently read an article in USA Today by Tom Krattenmaker, who covered a topic that has previously been discussed with much passion on my part in this blog. It seems that in the spirit of fair play and equal time, the National Park Service sells a book at the Grand Canyon Visitors Center titled “Grand Canyon: A Different View.”
This book tells the history of the formation of the Grand Canyon from the creationist perspective. Rather than being six million years old, as the mainstream scientific community maintains, the creationist book asserts that the Grand Canyon is only 4,500 years old. Its formation, the book proclaims, was not the result of gradual geological processes, but of Noah’s flood.
In another effort to establish creationism as science, the Creation Museum is soon to be opening in Florence, KY. Krattenmaker wrote that the Creation Museum will be displaying a collection of dinosaur models, fossils, minerals, and other material to “demonstrate that the Scriptural accounts of the Creation, Noah’s flood, and other major events of biblical history can be trusted.” One display is supposed to feature two animatronic children near a pool of water with two small dinosaurs lurking behind. I’d call that bad science.
I just don’t get it. Why can’t science and religion coexist peacefully? As Krattenmaker suggested, “Let science be science and let religion prevail in the vast areas where science has little or nothing to offer,” such as the purpose and meaning of life, the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and the nature of the human soul.
I contend that, as rational, intelligent human beings, we should to look to the scientific community to answers questions such as the age of the Grand Canyon or the evolution of the species. Science should reign on matters of empirical evidence and rational inquiry. When it comes to the really hard questions, such as the meaning of life, it’s there that religious and philosophical study should prevail. After all, isn’t that so much more important than the age of the Grand Canyon?