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 don't think you hate God, ml. I just see that you don't know Him.
What makes you think there aren't "enough" fossils? How many should there be? Provide support for this claim.
And I wonder where all the people are who should be on this earth if people have been here for millions of years
How many people would you expect there to be on the planet if evolution was correct? Provide support for this claim.
Nothing I see is evolving, nor has evolved since the recorded history of man began.
Everything around you is evolving. Considering that we've only figured out this whole evolution thing in the last century and a half, are you surprised that people 2000 years ago weren't looking for evidence of evolution?
If you reject evidence based on your religious beliefs, then yes.
Nope...
Like I SAID... "According to Judaism and Old Testament Scholars.."
What I have read was not referenced or sourced "according to scripture".. It was a historical notation...
Just how those scholars came to that conclusion, I do not know..
And if someone refuses to entertain any challenges to their scientific theories and won't let them even be discussed in a public school they can expect resistance and being compared with others (you've heard the Hitler comparison many times, I'm sure) who do the same now and have done the same throughout history.
I hope the Hitler reference made you feel better. It gave me a good laugh.
IMHO, the two sides of this argument are irreconcilable. So I guess whoever gets the most votes will win...at least in the USA. The rest of the world will work it out for themselves.
I went back and looked at the post. BTW, there was some give and take by both sides). He did NOT say that. One can believe in the creation and still believe in evolution but those that reject science for the words of old testaments are akin to OBL. I am not sure if that is true or not for I don't know what OBL believes.
Then your statement was erroneous. If Torah doesn't contain scripture backing up your statement, then your statement was wrong. I know Torah has loads of scripture that contradicts your statement but I was wondering if it had any that supporeted it.
Oh well, you gave an honest answer.
You have faith, as well, Modernman.
I think you should expand your reading. At least to a basic biology text on evolution.
Evolution says birds evolved from land animals. The Bible says the birds were created before the land animals.
The sequences in Gen 1:1 vs. Gen 2:4 disagree with one another. This establishes that sequences cannot be relied on in Genesis, so you must study Gods creation (Evolution) to find the answer.
The Sun is not created until day 4, but plants were there on day 3. Evolution cannot explain this.
Genesis does not explain how plants lived without the light of the sun on day 3 either. And it does not explain how there were "days", with no sun until the 4th "day". As above, Genesis is unreliable on its face for sequences. You don't have to look to science to find the problems in Genesis. Raw logic is enough.
The Bible says that the animals were created "each according to its kind". Evolution says that species came about from different species.
What does "each according to its kind" mean? They travel in herds of like animals? Maybe they don't interbreed? I don't think the phrase conflicts with Evolution at all.
The Bible says sin came through Adam and death through sin. Evolution says death existed before man.
Death of what? The soul? This could be interpreted many ways that don't conflict with Evolution.
The Bible says that man was formed from the dust of the earth. Evolution says he evolved from a lesser life form.
Although Evolution doesn't cover the origin of life, science does hypothesise that life began in a moist place, maybe something like a mud pit. Mud is wet dust. God made it rain on the dust, life emerged, and with Gods patience using His invention of Evolution, man was created. What's the problem here?
The Bible says that the woman was formed from the man. Evolution says the opposite.
Obviously can't be taken literaly. Like the sequence problems between Gen 1:1 vs. Gen 2:4. Parable?
The Bible says man was created in God's image, evolution says he evolved.
Evolved into God's image. What's the problem here?
They are not compatible.
Your interpretation of Gods word vs sciences interpretation of Gods creation are what is incompatible. The disagreement is between men, not Gods handywork.
God's creation, by definition, cannot be incompatible with Gods Word. And I think your interpretation of Gods Word is the one in error. Since the intent of the Bible is not to be a biology textbook, I think you're looking in the wrong place to find the answers. Gods creation is the book to interpret, when the question is about that creation.
And those who defend doing so, are beyond despicable.
Enough of this garbage. I came here for a discussion, not to argue with insanity......
In evolution, a species evolves, and at some point in evolution certain species develop sexual differentiation thus the Bible's description, although simplistic, can be matched to evolution.
Is it just that they evolved at the same time to a certain point and God breathed into them separately? Am I taking your post correctly?
I think that was what I posted.
Where are the decendants of soul-less "humans"? Do they live in Africa or Australia? Can I have one as a slave, or use one for target practice?
Perhaps you and I could continue our discussion in the future without the accompaniment of the "you religious fanatics are the same as terrorist/murderers" element on the thread.....
Not at all. Theology is, by its very nature, abstract. It deals with the supernatural--something which is outside the realm of science. So why would the theistic part of a "theistic evolutionist"'s outlook require anything more concrete than theology can provide?
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.
These address two diffenent things. Science deals with the natural; theology with the supernatural. Science is based on facts, theories, analysis, etc. Theology is based on faith. "I imagine God did it" is a weak statement of faith, but it is a statement of faith.
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.
I would say that the first ensoulment is a question of faith. I couldn't say with certainty, because, again, it is theology, which doesn't lend itself to concrete proofs, but is subject to faith. (And because souls don't fossilize.)
I think a reasonable conclusion is that the first creature to understand the difference between good and evil was ensouled. If you ask the theistic evolutionist who that creature was, the answer is, I'm sure, that it is something you have to ask God.
If we throw out the Genesis version as merely allegory, we should have a viable substitute, shouldn't we?
No. And who said anything about "throw[ing] out Genesis"?? When I said it is an allegory, that does not mean it is a fairy tale or is without value. I mean that it can be seen as being a symbolic representation. (In a real sense every written work is allegorical, by its very nature. The word "bus" isn't a bus.)
Genesis says, through the allegorical device, that God created the world and is the source of life, that man's nature is sinful,imperfect, and in need of salvation. Genesis should be important because of the literal science it purports to portray, but because of the theological truths about the nature of God and man which it contains.
I'd say you try to make sure you give more than you perceive you get, especially in the condemnation department, while at the same time playing victim.
I detect a bit of moral vanity and hypocrisy in this.
You make my point for me. Bin Laden makes his decisions based on his personal belief that the Koran is infallible and that, therefore, anything that conflicts with it can be ignored.
You do the same thing, when it comes to the Bible. That does not make you a monster like OBL, it just means that you follow the same decision-making process as OBL when deciding whether or not to accept certain evidence.
Surely you jest!
Good bye, ml.
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.