MARTIN: Why do you think it is that after decades now of grappling with scientific information and discovery about the way the universe functions, about the origin of the universe, that we still have not come to peace with this?Read the whole thing.
Prof. AYALA: Well, a good number of people in United States (unintelligible) have not come to peace with science, and that is based on poor scientific location and typically poor religious education. I would go farther, you know, I would say that for people who understand the consequences of their faith and that understand science, it is how the statements that are made contrary to science by proponents of so-called creationism or intelligent design, those are statements.
Although they are made in good faith usually, but they are contrary to the religious faith. Science is compatible with belief an impotent [sic] [should be omnipotent] and benevolent God, creationism is missing out, because if all organisms were designed by God, God will have a lot to account for. You know, the world is full of cruelty and then we have earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. It's much better to explain those things as the result of natural processes than accuse them today, particularly the sign of the creator.
----------------
Now playing: The Buggles - I Love You (Miss Robot)
via FoxyTunes
I heard this on the radio when it was broadcast and was struck by this same section you cite in the transcript. However the transcript has numerous errors:
ReplyDelete(unintelligible)= and elsewhere
based on poor scientific location = based on poor scientific education
creationism is missing out = creationism is not(compatible with a loving and benevolent God)
However the paragraph break is perhaps the worst muddling of what he was saying. This is what he actually said:
I would say that, for people who understand the consequences of their faith and that understand science, it is how the statements, that are made contrary to science by proponents of so-called creationism or intelligent design, those are statements---they are made in good faith, usually---but they are contrary to the religious faith.
Putting it all together Ayala is saying that Creationism is both bad science and bad theology. The scientific, i.e. evolutionary, understanding of origins, provides an apologetic for the problem of evil.
This is I think a very good way of presenting an EC position on origins in a positive, faith affirming way.