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
Because bioenginnering is the essence of ID.
No it's not. The essence of ID is that an 'Intelligent Designer' (=God) best explains the diversity of life, not evolution. ID opposes the evolution.
Is genetically modified wheat a subject for science class or philosophy class?
Because when you single something out like that, it undermines its legitimacy in people's minds, and that's the ONLY goal, here. If the government mandated that bananas be labelled with radiation symbols, what do you think would be the effect on sales, and how would the purveyors of bananas react? And yet, the labels would be accurate: bananas are radioactive, and measurably so.
They would seem to be in harmony with your hierarchy.
They would, if the schools did an adequate job of teaching what a theory is.
The schools probably also don't teach that most people don't get as much radiation as would be optimal for health. People should react to radiation symbols on bananas by saying, "oh, radioactive potassium-40, yum!", but do you think they would?
Of course, you can say that their understanding of theory and fact does not accord with yours but that is like moving the goalposts when Philly nears the end-zone.
These books are for children, not professional scientists. It isn't the same playing field.
Perhaps if the stickers said, "Evolution is a scientific theory; alternatives to evolution fall short of being theories, and therefore lack legitimacy," people would react differently.
It is typical of the left to use aberrations of Christianity that do not reflect God's will, or Christ-like behavior as representative of what Christianity is, but it is absolutely specious to do so.
Try again. (and leave out the Crusades).
I stand corrected.
The science of it is appropriate for science class, but the ethical issues of bioengeneering are appropriate for a philosophy class.
Sorry, you are simply wrong. ID does not exclude evolution and ID does not require God unless you think Monsanto is God.
In response to post 100
Choose your own words,
Did I ever say that Agnostic meant atheist?
Man did not create evolution and all the evidence of it. God did. By rejecting evolution, you reject God. You will have to explain your blasphemy when you die.
Evolution is not compatible with the Bible, so I stand behind the Bible.
The majority of the world's Christian denominations disagree with your incorrect interpretation of the Bible.
Call me naive.
Okay.
Call me what you will, but those "centuries old" text that you deride are Truth and Life.
You mean the Koran?
Your reply was not unexpected.
Failure to Deliberate.
Why do you ever bother to discuss anything, with anyone? What can you gain? You already have the Word.
(If I wanted to be combative, I would say "Okay, prove that the expression 'They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden' is not a poetic expression or literary device meaning, 'They sensed God's presence.'")
All that passage shows is that, according to the Bible, God can appear in human form or take human shape. That doesn't mean his true form is that of a human, anymore than Moses seeing a burning bush that is not consumed means that an angel's true form is that of a shrub en fuego.
(This could lead to some theological musings of mine with regard to whether any particular form of matter is or could be more or less pleasing to God, or whether all matter is the equally pleasing. I could imagine, to him, having created it all, he would not particularly favor one form of matter over another. This could lead to some interesting speculation regarding the Eucharist, the incarnation of Jesus and evolution.)
To use the error of a Sunday School teacher to say that Genesis isn't true is a false argument. (I had a teacher once say that blacks were meant to be slaves of whites according to the Bible).
The whole problem here is THEISTIC EVOLUTION. There is no inconsistency in an atheist who is using science to explain how things have happened without a God. (It is a great leap of faith to do so, however).
But to be a theistic evolutionist, one must delete parts of Scripture to make it line up with evolution, and it requires quite a bit of contortion to make it work.
Bioengineering wheat is Intelligent Design. No way around it. Technology is moving past Darwinism and only the "Luddites":-} will continue to demand the blasphemous words ID be kept in the basement.
I already have. I said that it is my understanding of God that he gave Adam a soul and immortality and free will. This was only done AFTER humans reached a certain level of development such that they had the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.
That's what I was asking you.
Don't answer a question with a question..
You have a poor understanding of God if you think rejecting evolution is blasphemous. God is about souls, not strata.
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.