Posted on 01/25/2005 6:15:41 PM PST by 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
Well... proselytizing is legal, it's Constitutionally protected
Is it? We have the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship. So stating your religious beliefs is certainly protected and worshiping as you wish as long as you do not infringe on others rights is legal. But is getting in someone's face and badgering them with your religious beliefs and trying to force them to be taught in public schools legal?
if done by responsible people, ultimately benefits society.
Freedom of speech benefits society. Only the proselytizers believe that proselytizing their belief benefits society. Others do not.
Just like gun ownership, right?
Gun ownership is a right. Trying to convince people they should own a gun if they don't is okay provided they have asked you to convince them or they can 'turn you off', like a TV commercial, if they don't want to hear it.
I *am* a Christian. I am *still* in need of a Savior, Someone to save me from my many sins, including the sin of bearing false witness. If I've truly sinned against you in that way, let me know and I'll apologize.
No. "Facts" are the information we draw from observation and the results of experiments. They are very simple things, like "we added 10g of HCl into a solution of 5g NaOH & 95g H20, and 7.4 seconds later we observed bubbles in the solution" or something like that.
Facts are extremely small pieces of information, like a dot on a page. It's only when you have lots of facts, and can see a pattern between them, that you can start to guess at what the theory is. The theory is the picture that you think would involve most of those dots. Knowing a bunch of facts is good, but understanding a theory that fits the facts is even better.
Flase dichotomy. A person can believe that man was created by God using evolution as His method.
You cannot twist the Bible into man's evolution from animal without denying it's validity in every other area.
Why not? If God created man through the process of evolution, how does that invalidate the rest of the Bible?
Come on. You said that the passages in Gensesis 2 where animals were created AFTER Adam were figurative and that the animals were actually created BEFORE Adam.
My friend, it's clear you hate God.
You have no idea what I believe nor what my emotional relationship is to God, a supreme being, the prime mover, the universe, etc. You have no idea whether I am Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, a Deist, etc. Your statement says more about you than me.
Hmm. Your definition of proselytizing isn't the same as mine. In my mind we're talking about the freedom to share the bible with someone and to pray with him/her if s/he accepts the gospel. Apparently in your mind it's a rather violent, forceful process.
That's unfortunate. :-/
I have no antagonism toward the creator. However, I do thank you for your thoughts on evolution.
Not per se. However, everyone who rejects evidence that exists right before their eyes and instead relies on an allegorical, centuries-old text as their basis for an understanding of science is a philosophical cousin with men like Bin Laden.
Romans 5 is clearly talking about human death. Evolution does not rule out the possibility that there was no human death before the fall. On the other hand, nothing in the Bible rules out animal death before the fall. It explicitly mentions plant death.
Besides, you've got to reject more science than just evolution if you want to believe there was no animal death before human sin.
It requires one to think, instead of just repeating that which man has taught him to believe.
Right
Based on what?
In my mind we're talking about the freedom to share the bible with someone and to pray with him/her if s/he accepts the gospel.
What you describing here is freedom of worship, not proselytizing. So no argument there.
It becomes proselytizing when the 'sharing' is forced on someone who is not interested.
Evolution has nothing to do with improvement. You're thinking of Social Darwinism and Eugenics.
specifically the *increase* of meaningful genetic information through generations.
Evolution can occur through a loss of genetic information, through an increase or through a simple alteration in currently existing material.
I disbelieve in both "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution, if evolution is defined as the meaningful "increase" of genetic information through generations....
Your statement is meaningless, as that is not the definition of evolution.
Not per se. However, everyone who rejects evidence that exists right before their eyes and instead relies on an allegorical, centuries-old text as their basis for an understanding of science is a philosophical cousin with men like Bin Laden.
Well said.
Sorry for jumping in...
Yes, you would predict that over time, an equal number of regressions and progressions would occur... but since certain regressions would lead to death, the surviving population over time would not remain stagnant, as (if I'm reading you correctly) you seem to suggest... but would progress.
If you are Christian, sure. But to Jews, whose story Genesis is, that is not the case, so the questions remain.
Further, given the fact Creation occurred prior to Mary's pregnancy and the development of Jesus's body, how could Adam have been made in Jesus's image if that image had yet to exist? (i.e., Adam wouldn't have been made in God's image, but on the image God would take if Adam and Eve decide to disobey God, causing the fall, and necessitating the incarnation of Jesus. Was man created in God's potential image???)
Finally, Jesus had all the attributes of man because, as the Nicene Creed says, God "became" or "was made" man. Thus, his physical form was necessitated by him becoming man, and not on his essence as God. Therefore, logically, his human form could not be the image upon which man's form was made because it was not a function of his Godhood, but his personhood.
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.