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 submit that you, being human, can be fallible in your interpretation of Gods Word.
I also submit that Gods Word and Gods Creation can not conflict. Only human interpretations of the Creation vs the Word can conflict.
See my tagline for what I think God really did.
Yeah.......right! He's a spoiled murdering brat who kills for sport and power.
Your comparison is empty and hideous.
Whatever his other motiviations, OBL is clearly a true believer. He believes that the Koran is the infallible word of Allah.
your hideous accusation that I am one step away from Osama bin Laden.
I didn't say that. And it's not right to say I did.
I agree completely that God's Word and God's Creation cannot conflict.
It's when atheistic scientists get in the way and interpret what they see that the problems start.
Your comparisons are HIDEOUS.
That first evolved homo sapiens sapiens is Adam?
Yes.
And Eve?
The first female homo sapiens sapiens.
How foolish and tragic not to believe something you yourself call "God's Word."
How you underestimate the Creator of the universe.
The problems start when students of Gods Word decide that they can override the students of Gods creation.
You slander quite a few people by implying that only athiests believe in Evolution. That is not true at all.
It does not contradict the scriptures, and it follows logically from the facts we know from both the scriptures and science.
However, I will not take the time to respond because of other elements on this thread which are forcing me to leave before I say things I will regret.
Thank you for some 'food for thought.'
Sounds almost like an argument for ID. Was that your intent?
No. I don't even see how it could be. What is your ID "theory" on inspect respiration?
At any rate, it shows the opposite, in fact. The limitations on the size of insects is nothing more than an accident of their ancestry (contingency of history) coupled with limitations based upon physics. At a certain size it simply can't exchange oxygen or carbon dioxide efficiently enough.
FWIW, I think the fact that it has an exoskeleton and not internal support is also another major factor in the size of insects. I didn't mention that previously.
I didn't say that. Ever.
I know LOTS of people who believe in both God and in evolution, I just disagree with them.
Please reread what you have misinterpreted in what I've said.
I believe in Gods Word. But I also know that words are a very imprecise way of conveying information. Words are required for humans, not for God.
When the question of the properties of Gods Creation comes up, I think it is wise to study Gods Creation directly as the final arbiter. Knowing that the imprecise words designed for human consumption may appear to be in conflict. But that appearance of conflict is my mistake, not Gods.
What you said was: It's when atheistic scientists get in the way and interpret what they see that the problems start.
If I misunderstood you to mean that all people who believe in Evolution are "atheistic", then I apologize.
MM has posted a followup in #313. I understand his comparison and it is valid. Please read.
Here is one link to a history of the philosophy concerning the existence and nature of the soul..
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm
Graeco-Roman philosophy made no further progress in the doctrine of the soul in the age immediately preceding the Christian era.
None of the existing theories had found general acceptance, and in the literature of the period an eclectic spirit nearly akin to Scepticism predominated.
Of the strife and fusion of systems at this time the works of Cicero are the best example. On the question of the soul he is by turns Platonic and Pythagorean, while he confesses that the Stoic and Epicurean systems have each an attraction for him. Such was the state of the question in the West at the dawn of Christianity.
In Jewish circles a like uncertainty prevailed. The Sadducees were Materialists, denying immortality and all spiritual existence. The Pharisees maintained these doctrines, adding belief in pre-existence and transmigration.
The psychology of the Rabbins is founded on the Sacred Books, particularly the account of the creation of man in Genesis.
Three terms are used for the soul: nephesh, nuah, and neshamah; the first was taken to refer to the animal and vegetative nature, the second to the ethical principle, the third to the purely spiritual intelligence.
At all events, it is evident that the Old Testament throughout either asserts or implies the distinct reality of the soul.
An important contribution to later Jewish thought was the infusion of Platonism into it by Philo of Alexandria. He taught the immediately Divine origin of the soul, its pre-existence and transmigration; he contrasts the pneuma, or spiritual essence, with the soul proper, the source of vital phenomena, whose seat is the blood; finally he revived the old Platonic Dualism, attributing the origin of sin and evil to the union of spirit with matter.
I guess that wasn't clear.
Feel better? Not at all. I don't think your ideas are Hitler-esque. I was pointing out how similar your comparison between pro-IDers and OBL is to the snide comparisons immature anti-evolutionists make between evolutionists and Hitler. Sadly, I see the Hitler comparisons by anti-evolutionists all the time. I assumed you to be as disappointed with them as I. Figured if you'd look down on the Hitler-comparison-making-anti-evolutionists you might reconsider your own behavior.
If we could pull this debate out of the gutter we might actually learn something.
I guess whoever gets the most votes will win
Heh... I guess you mean whoever gets the most of nine votes will win. We can't seem to keep these issues in the hands of the legislature and beyond the reach of the courts.
To say that my reasoning process is the same as bin Laden's no matter how you twist and turn to make it so, is beyond the pale, and not worthy of further discussions.
I will let their hideous comparisons stand. There will be those on this thread who agree because of their shared condescension of people of faith who disagree with them on the basis of believing that God's word is infallible (repeating NOT my interpretation of it).
The rest of the people lurking on this thread will see the comparison for what it is.......full of gaping holes, lacking utterly in logic, completely ignorant, filled with spite, and absolutely despicable.
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.