Tension between Christianity and science exists only for propagandists

Published on Sunday 23 March 2008 20:09

The myth of "tension" between science and Christianity (Leader, 22 March) rests on just two episodes.

The Catholic Church's rejection of Galileo's heliocentrism was a mistake by the Church leaders of the time. The dispute over the sufficiency of undirected natural processes to produce the startling complexity and diversity of life is ongoing, and is a genuine academic debate (although some evolutionists behave more like inquisitors than scientists). Huge numbers of scientists were and are Christians, experiencing no tension at all, and I have never met a Christian who does not hold science in high regard. The "myth" is propagated as common knowledge by secularists and scientists rejecting the moral guidance of the Church. If the Catholic Church has blundered in scientific matters on occasion, how many times have scientists blundered in scientific matters?

The media attention that the Catholic Church achieves through its forthright pronouncements is impressive, but it should be remembered that Catholicism and liberalism are not the only Christian games in town. There are many growing Churches applying Christian principles to contemporary issues, but they seem to have virtually no media profile at all.

RICHARD LUCAS, Cowan Road, Edinburgh

The discussion inspired by Bishop Joseph Devine's outburst over the last week (your reports and Letters, passim) has simply highlighted the absence but need for someone to represent my atheist, rationalist and science-based views.

Now, Cardinal Keith O'Brien has waded into the debate on embryonic research with views that are based on the supernatural and superstitious (your report, 21 March). He has tried to create the image in people's minds of human-rabbits jumping around our streets which is as ridiculous as it is ignorant. It is however consistent with someone who believes in the eternal soul, human life and consciousness starting at the point of conception and his own divine moral right to instruct our elected politicians.

These are all positions that I fundamentally dispute, but where is my leader able to command a fraction of the airtime and column inches that the cardinal can? Religious leaders continue to occupy an elevated position in our society not because they are representative, not through any expertise, qualifications or experience but because they assert the divinity of their own institution.

NAOMI McAULIFFE, Inverleith, Edinburgh

There is really no valid comparison between the treatment of Galileo in 1633 by the Roman Catholic Church and the forthright condemnation by Cardinal Keith O'Brien of so-called medical research involving the deliberate creation of hybrid human embryos.

Galileo was defending his right to report what he had observed was true, but there is no obvious connection between such experimentation involving hybrid human embryos and the discovery of cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and motor-neurone disease.

Unfortunately, the basic assumption on which much of this experimentation is based, is that science is not really concerned with morality and that an imaginary end justifies the means.

(DR) DAVID PURVES, Strathalmond Road, Edinburgh

The current debate raging over embryonic research raises the question "do we have any politicians with integrity"?

Politicians who vote according to their conscience and in the way expected by their electorate?

JOHN ATKINS, Grigorhill, Nairn, Inverness-shire