Finding common ground between God and evolution ("Theory is greater than facts)

Seattle Times ^ | Jan 25, 2005 | Froma Harrop

[gobucks]

Ken Miller is an interesting guy. He is co-author of the nation's best-selling biology textbook. It was on his book, "Biology," that schools in Cobb County, Ga., slapped a sticker casting doubt on its discussion of evolution theory. And it was this sticker that a federal judge recently ordered removed because it endorsed religion. Miller, who testified against the label, gets a lot of hate mail these days.

But Miller is also a practicing Roman Catholic. "I attend Mass every Sunday morning," he said, "and I'm tired of being called an atheist."

A professor of biology at Brown University, Miller does not believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution contradicts the creation passages in the Bible. And he will argue the point till dawn.

"None of the six creative verses (in Genesis) describe an out-of-nothing, puff-of-smoke creation," he says. "All of them amount to a command by the creator for the earth, the soil and the water of this planet to bring forth life. And that's exactly what natural history tells us happened." (Miller has written a book on the subject: "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.")

Still, today's emotional conflicts over teaching this science in public schools leave the impression that Christianity and evolution cannot be reconciled. This is not so.

In 1996, Pope John II wrote a strong letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences supporting the scientific understanding of evolution. That's one reason why students in Catholic parochial schools get a more clearheaded education in evolution science than do children at many public schools racked by the evolution debate.

American parents who want Darwin's name erased from the textbooks might be surprised at the father of evolution's burial spot. Darwin was laid to rest in Westminster Abbey, an Anglican church and England's national shrine.

Not every illustrious Englishman gains admission to an abbey burial site. Darwin died in 1882. Two years before, friends of George Eliot wanted the famous (female) writer laid to rest at the abbey. Eliot had lived immorally, according to the church fathers, and was denied a place. (She is buried at London's Highgate Cemetery, not far from Karl Marx.)

But Darwin had been an upright man. The clergy were proud both of Darwin's accomplishments and of their own comfort with modern science.

In 1882, during the memorial service for the great evolutionist, one church leader after the other rose to praise Charles Darwin. Canon Alfred Barry, for one, had recently delivered a sermon declaring that Darwin's theory was "by no means alien to the Christian religion."

Nowadays, Catholics and old-line Protestants have largely made peace with evolution theory. Most objections come from evangelicals — and not all of them.

Francis S. Collins is head of the National Genome Project and a born-again Christian. He belongs to the American Scientific Affiliation — a self-described fellowship of scientists "who share a common fidelity to the word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science." Its Web address is www.asa3.org.

But back in Cobb County, the debate rages. The sticker taken off Miller's textbook read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Why should Miller care that the Cobb County School Board — having bought his book in great quantity — pastes those words on the cover?

First off, he says, "It implies that facts are things we are certain of and theories are things that are shaky." In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts, he notes. "Theories don't grow up to become facts. Rather, theories explain facts."

Then, he questions why, of all the material in his book, only evolution is singled out for special consideration. Miller says that if he could write the sticker, it would say, "Everything in this book should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Clearly, many religious people regard evolution theory with sincere and heartfelt concern. But theirs is not a mainstream view — even among practicing Christians. Most theologians these days will argue that the biology book and the Good Book are reading from the same page.

Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is fharrop@projo.com

[JohnnyM]

I would say that plants died because they were eaten, but saying that plants died means death was in the world is complete sophistry.

The fact of the matter is, that prior to the fall there was no death in the flesh, i.e. man or animal. In fact both man and animal ate only plants at this time.

Gen 1:29-30 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

After the fall, was flesh now fair game? Well, we have Abel sacrificing a lamb. We have Adam and Eve being covered in skins, so we do have hints. Scripture also supports this idea of death after the fall. That through Adam sin came into the world, and through this sin, death.

Rom 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

Now right after the flood we have God declaring this:

Gen 9:3 - Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant

So now we see that after the Flood meat could now be eaten, in fact I would say that meat is commanded to be eaten.

JM

[WildTurkey]

Animals were created to be eaten by man.

I don't think so ...

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[ohioWfan]

Have you ever read an explanation, or developed your own, of God's special creation of man can be consistent with our evolution from animals?

How is the distinction between man and animal made within the theory of evolution? (How did we get our soul, spirit, reasoning power, etc.)

How does a theistic evolutionist reconcile what is taught in science class and the reality that man is a unique creation possessing soul, spirit and the ability to reason and create, but who sinned, and for whose redemption Jesus died?

I know that those questions would not be addressed in a science class, but how do you personally reconcile the difference in your own thinking?

I cannot see any way to bridge the gap between what evolutionists teach about how man evolved, and the unique creation of man as documented in Scripture.

[JohnnyM]

"I will make him a help meet for him. "

Gen 2:20: "but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him."

The animals were not created to be Adam's help meet, as evidenced by v20. They did not remedy his lonliness. This naming of the animals was for Adam to see what God had already known, which is Adam was alone. When Adam finished naming all the animals he realized there was no one suitable for him and finally realized that he was alone.

JM

[ohioWfan]

I'm not going to argue with you on that point. (I kind of put that "created to be eaten" in there tongue in cheek anyway.......that is very obviously NOT the reason, or at least only reason, that animals were created).

God in his foreknowledge, however DID know that Adam would sin, and that we would be having steak dinners sooner or later. :o)

[bigLusr]

Well... proselytizing is legal, it's Constitutionally protected, and if done by responsible people, ultimately benefits society.

Just like gun ownership, right?

[WildTurkey]

How is the distinction between man and animal made within the theory of evolution? (How did we get our soul, spirit, reasoning power, etc.)

There is no distinction since evolution does not address the soul. That is religion, not science.

[ohioWfan]

It's just a short leap from proselytizing to persecution. And from persecution to Bin Laden.

Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!!

It is a HUGE, insurmountable leap between people of faith who believe that God lovingly created humans in HIS image for fellowship with HIM, to a murdering madman.

Anyone who makes that connection, as you just did, is completely ignorant of the truth. Believing in the loving, Sovereign Creator of Scripture is in NO way connected to the hatred and evil of Osama bin Laden.

[Theo]

You mean no animals or plants died before Adam sinned? Why then did Adam's sin thus set mortality on the animals when they were without sin?

It is strange to think of that, but it's a central theme in Scripture. If death existed prior to Adam's sin, the Scripture is wrong. "Death" was the consequence of disobeying God's explicit command, and Adam's sin did affect all of creation. It's when Jesus arrives on the scene that death is defeated.

[WildTurkey]

They did not remedy his lonliness.

God failed his task.

[ohioWfan]

I asked how YOU made the distinction.

Had you read my entire post, you would know that.

How does a theistic evolutionist, believing what he is taught in science class, explain the uniqueness of man?

I have yet to see anyone do it......or even try.

[ohioWfan]

Thank you for that.

It supports my contention that one cannot believe in evolution as it is taught in science class, and also believe the most important truth of Scripture; that is Jesus' death for the redemption of man's sin.

[WildTurkey]

I cannot see any way to bridge the gap between what evolutionists teach about how man evolved, and the unique creation of man as documented in Scripture.

That is because you are limiting your view of God to that which man has taught you. Remember, once the church didn't want the layperson to have a printing press, now we have the internet to open you up to new ideas.

[JohnnyM]

"God failed his task."

Which is what YOU are saying. You said God created the animals to solve Adams lonliness, and it did not work.

I am saying, and the Bible clearly indicates, that God made Adam name the animals so that Adam could realize that he was alone. Adam saw that there was no one of his kind, and once he realized what God already knew, God made him a suitable helper.

JM

[JohnnyM]

"That is because you are limiting your view of God to that which man has taught you"

Kind of an ironic statement coming from an evolutionist.

JM

[WildTurkey]

How does a theistic evolutionist, believing what he is taught in science class, explain the uniqueness of man?

Lots of people have by the designation of a soul.

[ohioWfan]

You are once again evading my direct question by bringing up the wrongs of the past (which are completely irrelevant).

I would like an answer as to how you explain it. I need to leave for a meeting now, but I'll look forward to your explanation when I return.

[ohioWfan]

How did the soul get there, and which homonid-missing link- received it?

Not adequate.

[WildTurkey]

It supports my contention that one cannot believe in evolution as it is taught in science class, and also believe the most important truth of Scripture; that is Jesus' death for the redemption of man's sin.

I think it is your contention to just be anti-evolution and denigrate the beliefs of others. Just because your belief is narrow-minded and based on the teachings by men wanting to control your mind is no reason for you to assume that others cannot lead a more enlightened life.

[Constantine XIII]

bumpity