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
I think there is a big inconsistency when a Christian uses nuclear power to light his lamp. After all, it is a GREAT LEAP OF FAITH to use an energy source developed outside the teachings of the Bible.
The Spanish Inquisition was a sinful manifestation of incorrect theology,
That's not what was being said at the time. Quite the contrary. IIRC, it's purpose was to aggressively, and if necessary violently, purge 'incorrect theology'. This is usually called persecution of those who don't agree with you.
And I am not a member of the left, it is now viewed as an aberration of Christianity but it wasn't at the time, and it is not specious to point it out as an example of religious persecution akin to Bin Laden's (and the Taliban's) persecution and treatment of 'unbelievers' and 'sinners'.
I used to eat bananas, but since I started my company many years ago, if I need some rems I just point and shoot the X-ray tube.
No more discussion with you is necessary. Your thought processes are fogged up by your cynicism.
(That's a polite way of saying, if you really believe that, you are also sick).
Lo cal, high rems.
Bioengineering is not really relevant to the argument, although it brings up some interesting questions.
Bioengineering mostly shuffles known traits around and between species. It doesn't generally create new traits, and if it did, they would not be known in advance. This kind of engineering would be indistinguishable in principle from natural variation and selection.
If you want to suggest that emergent traits, genuinely new properties, can be predicted, then ID needs to demonstrate this ability. It would make a good research project.
That first evolved homo sapiens sapiens is Adam?
And Eve?
If that is what you believe. I will not try to pursuade you otherwise.
How can Adam be the first man to receive a soul if he is not real?
Interesting concept. Maybe, if as you say, it is merely allegorical, that "Adam" represents the beginning of man and the time God bestowed a soul on man to separate him from the animals. Before that, man was one with the animals? You do make this sound very interesting. Thank you for your thoughts.
And Cain's wife. Whom he did not meet till he left the realm of God? Interesting thoughts.
Interesting. You knew you were wrong and posted anyway.
I NEVER said Genesis was not true! Why do "Christians" always keep making things up (falsifying) when discussing evolution and the Bible?
The teacher. Part of the church?
ID does not exclude evolution and ID does not require God
In my experience, ID has been always been presented as an 'alternative' to evolution.
If ID's 'Intelligent Designer' is not God (or a prime mover or equivalent), who/what is it?
unless you think Monsanto is God.
Are you saying that ID's 'Intelligent Designer' is man?
Why do Christians on these threads always make the most personal attacks?
You believe that there were evolved human beings without souls until they developed to the point where God decided to breathe HIS Spirit into them?
How do those pre-soul humans fit into your view of Scripture, and redemption for sin?
(And I am not, as you continue to accuse, relying on what other 'men' are telling me. I am thinking for myself based on my own understanding of God's word and the intellect and reasoning power He has given me......so please leave that out of any future posts).
What's "the realm of God"?
I would imagine by saying that God did it. It's a theological concept regarding a supernatural substance and a supernatural being. The allegory in Genesis is that the "breath of life" was breathed by God.
Was it in homonids?
By definition, it was in hominids. What else do you think has souls? Canids?
No. But you called him an atheist and when challenged on it you said "Found it" and posted that he was agnostic thus introducing a "confusion factor" into the discussion.
You see, I don't have as much problem understanding atheistic evolution, as I have understanding how you mix Scripture in with it and come out with the Scripture's being reliable.
:-} It may not be relevant to you, it certainly is to me. It is evident that 21st Century man can Intelligently Design bio products.
Bioengineering mostly shuffles known traits around and between species.
Thus changing the allele frequency from one generation of bananas to the next.
It doesn't generally create new traits, and if it did, they would not be known in advance. This kind of engineering would be indistinguishable in principle from natural variation and selection.
You can't be serious here js. Or are you suggesting that the mechanism for evolution does not include random mutations that are selecetd? These mutations are directed, ie: ID.
If you want to suggest that emergent traits, genuinely new properties, can be predicted, then ID needs to demonstrate this ability. It would make a good research project.
Way past my blue collar.
Why don't you post the "wrongness" in my statements.
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.