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

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

But what if what was made in God's image and man's physical form is merely a vessel? What if the "in God's image" part was what is termed the soul. Or are you suggesting that God has a human-like body? I don't see how he would need one.

Of what use to God are genitals, as he does not reproduce??
Of what use to God are feet, as he has no need to walk??
Of what use to God are eyes, as he knows all, so needs to see nothing??
Of what use to God are ears, for the same reason??
Of what use to God are lungs, for he has no need to take in air??
Of what use to God are arms, as he can move things by his will??
Of what use to God is a digestive system, as he need not eat??
Of what use to God is a circulatory system, as he need not distribute oxygen??

In fact, it seems to me that the only things that God would seem to require, under Christian theology, is thought.

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."

In theory, this is correct, however, in practice this is nonsense. Miller's comment completely disregards the Human Factor. In other words, scientific theories rely heavily upon the commonman's faith in the scientific community. That faith is weak at best, and currently it is the fault of weak scientists who put their personal situations ahead of Truth.

For instance, primary- and secondary-school science curricula in this country are polluted with political agenda. Students can clearly see that the extinction of certain species of animals will not affect the earth's ability to be self-sustaining, that rain forests can be replanted, that "old forests" offer no benefit over new forests, and that nuclear power is really the only clean, renewable source of energy currently available.

Undoubtedly, many folks are sucked in by politically-driven science lessons that rely on the "cute, tiger cub factor"; but when they finally realize the Truth they are angry, embarrassed and looking for someone to blame. If they don't entrench themselves in their positions, then the obvious scapegoat will be the Scientific Community as a whole. In other words, they can reasonably conclude that if scientists are misleading folks over one topic, they may be practicing deceit in other areas as well.

Does popular opinion matter, though? The Scientific Community mistakenly believes that if they, who comprise perhaps .05% of the population, know the Truth, then the "opinions" of the other 99.95% of the population are invalid. At the same time, though, the outrage and frustration over the general population's mistrust of Scientists is a regular topic in boardrooms of research organizations and publications across the country. Metaphorically, this dilemma can be compared to the old riddle of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear the 'Bang!', did the tree make a sound?" What use is a theory that only a small majority trust or believe?

What value is public opinion if it is simply wrong? Public opinion in actual fact is The Force that drives public will; and public will is the force that encourages young people to become researchers, technicians and inventors. Public will is the force that funds education, research and medical innovation.

Perhaps the scientific community will eventually accept the fact that it is their duty to improve public opinion, and will work to root out those within the community who perpetrate myths and half-truths for personal gain, whether to win research grants or acceptance of administrations and social peers.

Persuading public opinion will also require the theorists to abandon the practice of passionately defending any theory that has been officially declared a "Theory". They must eventually realize that in the mind of the average reader some of this over-zealous defense is the equivalent of Shakespeare's "The lady doth protest too much!".

Finally, if the scientific community does desire reparation of its tarnished reputation, it must choose reputable scientists to speak out publically when the NY Times, Scientific American and Science News, for example) print articles like "Air pollution trims fetal growth" that rely on correlation data and indirectly related "rat studies".

Miller is in a better position than most to stem the tide that has bred mistrust throughout the education systems in America and Europe.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.