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
And may I modify what I said about your interpretation of Genesis. You believe only parts of it.
You'll forgive me, if as a Christian, I think that's morally repugnant.......but I DO.
Don't turn his evil comparison on me because I reacted to it with disdain.
If the teacher lets the discussion go away from science and get into religion, then yes that's what happens.
But my point is that people with your interpretation of Genesis set up the conflict. Science does not, it merely studies the physical evidence of Gods creation and comes to the best conclusion it can.
If you had the wisdom of the Pope to say up front that there is no conflict between science and the Bible. That any such "conflict" was prejudged to be a disagreement between men and not between Gods creation and His Bible. Then the conflict and the challenge to young people's faith vanishes.
Evolution speaks against the God of the Bible. It certainly has caused young children to question thier beliefs. So please spare us this false dichotomy.
Wrong. You are the problem. You have created the conflict between Gods creation vs. Gods Word. You have the power to end the conflict by acknowledging that the two cannot conflict by definition. Only man's interpretations can conflict and you have misinterpreted the Bible.
It's Ok. People interpret the Bible wrong every day.
Well, you're experience is wanting I guess.
If ID's 'Intelligent Designer' is not God (or a prime mover or equivalent), who/what is it?
Dunno. I think it is God but it doesn't have to be.
Are you saying that ID's 'Intelligent Designer' is man?
I'm saying that Monsanto genetically designed a new variant of wheat thus changing the allele frequency of same.
If you are trying to make evolution fit into some kind of theology, surely you would have more than "I imagine God did it" as an argument.
This homonid/homo sapiens evolving person had to have suddenly had not only a soul, but the ability to think and reason and create. I am asking who was first, and how did it happen......or should I say what are the theories for how it happened.
If we throw out the Genesis version as merely allegory, we should have a viable substitute, shouldn't we?
Like Adam, who was the first man bestowed with a soul, Eve was the first women so bestowed. Good enough?
There's as much problem how to mix one verse against another as there is mixing Evolution and Creation. There are whole texts explaining how some scholars interpret parts of the Bible. Since those descriptions disagree as well, I'd think the best way is to read it, and interpret it as well.
Keeping in mind always that you are looking at God's creation all around you, including those tonnes of fossils in the museums, and they are at least as important to study as Gods word.
Did she just happen to evolve at the same time and in the same place?
Are you saying that church members can sin and error in the name of God?
And may I modify what I said about your interpretation of Genesis. You believe only parts of it.
NO. You cannot make any statements on my beliefs unless you are restating my statements of belief.
Well, you're experience is wanting I guess.
Probably, but it doesn't matter to me whether ID opposes, accepts, or is indifferent to evolution.
If ID's 'Intelligent Designer' is not God (or a prime mover or equivalent), who/what is it? Are you saying that ID's 'Intelligent Designer' is man?
Dunno. I think it is God but it doesn't have to be...I'm saying that Monsanto genetically designed a new variant of wheat thus changing the allele frequency of same.
I'd call all of that evasive and unconvincing and not something I'd want to see taught in school as 'science'...as philosophy or religion, okay, but not as science.
That's not what I want at all. But it's sad that students aren't taught any of the evidence that suggests that something else might be at work. Why is it that we can't seem to create one-foot-tall fruit flies? That after fruit flies get to be so big they become sterile and we can't make any bigger ones? If we could create one-foot-tall fruit flies then they certainly couldn't mate with their one-centimeter-tall 99th cousins and we'd have created a new species. But we can't. There's something that seems to keep species within certain bounds. What is that something? Is it encoded in DNA? Do all species seem to have it? How is that bounding bypassed to create new species? Do viruses play a role?
There are other solutions besides initial_life + natural_selection(chance_mutations * billions_of_years) = all_the_varied_life_of_today and void + Gods_Word - science = all_the_varied_life_of_today
All I'd like to say is that people can choose not to believe (evolution) it if they want
Not really. If you "choose" not to believe in evolution and you speak out about it, you're harassed... branded an idiot or a religious nutcase (some will even compare you to OBL). Now.. I'll admit... the ignorant label is largely the fault of the anti-evolutionists themselves. When the anti-evolutionists speaking the loudest say things like evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics... well, what else could you expect? But the evolutionists have taken so strongly to defending their theory that they no longer allow rational discussion on the topic. If you do something as innocent as point out that evolution is only a theory, you're "corrected" and informed that in science, theory means the only rational way to explain known facts.
maybe someone someday will come discover a better scientific theory that explains the evidence... If that happens, evolution will be retired. But it seems highly unlikely.
Newtonian physicists would have said the same thing before Einstein came along. It's the arrogance of mankind (not to be taken as a personal attack... We've all got it.) Most of us probably believe the US will be around forever, too. The Romans had a similar notion.
So I look, myself, at the whole of Scripture (including the New Testament) and I see Adam as a human being (ref. 1 Corinthians 1: 20-22, among others), and I see that the whole reason Jesus came to earth to die, was for the redemption of those of us who are dead in sin because of this man, Adam, and our subsequent choice to sin.
Then I look at God's magnificent creation, and know that it could not be made by chance, that it had to have been designed. And I look around me, and see the fossils that exist, and wonder where all the rest are that should be there, if the earth is as old as evolutionists claim it is. And I wonder where all the people are who should be on this earth if people have been here for millions of years. I am not a scientist, but I see the belief in evolution as a tremendous leap of faith, since it doesn't make sense on the surface. Nothing I see is evolving, nor has evolved since the recorded history of man began.
I see empirical evidence all around me that refutes what evolution teaches. And I have a personal relationship with the Creator, and study His revealed word that leads me to trust HIM first, and the scientists second.
Yes..
According to Judaism, and Old Testament scholars, animals were Not Excluded from possessing souls..
If we throw out the Genesis version as merely allegory, we should have a viable substitute, shouldn't we?
Why throw out Genesis?
While out of order, Genesis is remarkably accurate in it's depiction of the creation of the Universe, not just the Earth.. ( Although the Earth WAS the Universe to them..)
While the first verses of Genesis speak in a general sense, they got much of creation correct.. science and (judeo-christian) religion tend to agree on many aspects..
I looked for it. Do you have a post#? I will discuss it with him pending my review of it.
If I had a guess, I'd say that this teacher was just mistaken, and you appear to magnified her importance as a spokesperson for the church beyond any form of reason.
As to what you believe, I have only based it on what you have said. Of course, I don't know what you believe in your heart, and I am not trying to say that I do.
Very open minded of you.
I'd call all of that evasive and unconvincing and not something I'd want to see taught in school as 'science'...as philosophy or religion, okay, but not as science.
OK fine, as long as we are calling things as we see them, I'd call you a Luddite.
Denying the fact of bio Intelligent Design is as kooky as denying adaptation.
It did not "just happen". As with certain other species, sexual differentiation occurred as it provided those species with a biological advantage in their enviornment.
The sun was created on Day one. You lose again.
It is morally and ethically repugnant to have done so.
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.