Finding common ground between God and evolution ("Theory is greater than facts)

Seattle Times ^ | Jan 25, 2005 | Froma Harrop

[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

[Oztrich Boy]

"I never expected the Spanish Inquisition"

[Oztrich Boy]

Jesus had genitals, feet, eyes, ears, lungs, arms, a digestive system, and a circulatory system. And Jesus is most surely God.

But wouldn't he require these to be Man?

[Oztrich Boy]

So, you see the Bible as being less that the literal truth.

Now do you see how most people can accept the ToE as not incompatible with what words there are in Genesis?

[Drammach]

Is his Christian belief any the less because he belonged to the Church of England?
What ARe you talking about ?

I'm trying to determine what your objection is to Darwin, and his Theory of Evolution..

Is it somehow antithetical to your religious beliefs?
Does that make it any more or less relevent?
Is truth based on a belief in God?
If so, which God, and which belief?
Do any of these alter or diminish truth?

I just want to see where you stand, what your logic is..
A matter of curiosity, if you will...

[JohnnyM]

"Either your interpretation of a few hundred words in the Bible are in error. Or science is in error in interpreting the fossil and DNA record."

So you freely admit, that science trumps the Bible and that the Word of God must submit to the science of the day.

Your authority is science. Mine is the Word of God. His Word is Truth.

JM

[Oztrich Boy]

"We were taught in Sunday school that that was why man had one less rib than woman."

It was in a holy building and she was inspired by God. Doesn't that mean anything?

Obviously didn't override that she was an Evolutionist(Lamarkian)

[Ditto]

Almost. The missiles launched by the Biblical literalists are intended to destroy evolution and are intentionally falling on all those that believe in science and believe that religion should not be in the science class.

Perhaps you are more attuned to those particular shots. As to religion being allowed in the science class, my first post in this tread explained that my first science classes where I learned about evolution, did include the religious dimension. It was the standard Catholic school curricula in the 1950s and it has, I think, served me well. Evolution was not only taught as fact, it was celebrated as an example of God's guiding hand at work.

Now I do not think that public schools should be on the same pages as my Dominican nuns were, (I wouldn't wish that on anyone. ;~)) but I think it is important to point out to students what Evolution really does say, and more importantly, what it does not say, regarding Creation.

We can't dodge the fact that even with dumbed down education, teaching Evolution begs the big question, "How did it All Start?" IMHO, there is nothing wrong with admitting that science does not have a theory that answers that question. I think it would also be fair to instruct students how different cultures have answered it, and to advise students that they may want to ask a priest, preacher, rabbi for his ideas.

Too often, science simply glosses over that question rather than admitting there is no answer.

[bondserv]

You mean no animals or plants died before Adam sinned? Why then did Adam's sin thus set mortality on the animals when they were without sin?

Here are some scriptures that might help (Taken from another thread and slightly edited).

Death is fundamental to the Gospel's efficacy. If sin didn't bring on death, there was no need for Christ to literally conquer death through His physical resurrection. The entire Jewish sacrificial system that was a typology of Jesus Christ, required shedding of blood for the covering of sin.

God's first act after pronouncing the curse for Adam's sin was to sacrifice an animal (the first animal death was to cover Adam and Eve's sin).

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Death was not part of the original creation. Getting back to the original creation.

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Jesus Christ shed is sinless blood and therefore gave up his life unto death, because He is God, He was able to take up His life again from the dead so that, like Him, we can have eternal life.

As Paul clearly states, Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, overcame the penalty of death brought on by Adam's sin. If evolution was true, Jesus Christ would have had no reason to resurrect Himself because He could have become a spirit being and went straight to heaven.

Sin brought death into the world, and death needed conquering by the shedding of sinless blood. Jesus Christ allowed His life's blood to pour out for us. He had the power to lay down His life for His friends.

On death, shed blood and sin:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Luk 24:39-40
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them [his] hands and [his] feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (emphasis added in scripture text)

[Drammach]

You are an agnostic? You sound more like a DEIST.

I suppose that is possible..
I see no reason for God to "intercede" with a miraculous creation of Man/Woman..
I see no reason to believe that we are the "end product" God intends...
God created the Universe with all of that in mind..
Just as God intended that the physical laws of his universe would create stars, planets, life, through physical processes..
Such as geology, and evolution..

[Oztrich Boy]

Perhaps if the stickers said, "Evolution is a scientific theory; as such it is our best guess on what happenned. Alternatives to evolution are not even good guesses."

[RadioAstronomer]

Nice post. :-)

[qam1]

It was also responsible for the widely held view that Africa and Asia were full of "lesser breeds," a commonly held view a hundred years ago. Again, not Darwin's fault, but part of the big picture.

Yeah sure, It was all because of Darwin. Let me guess it was just a coincidence that all the slaves the Christians owned pre-darwin just happen to be black.

And I'm sure the KKK and Aryan Nations are big subscribers to TOE.

[narby]

So you freely admit, that science trumps the Bible and that the Word of God must submit to the science of the day.

Science studies Gods Creation. When the subject of the question concerns Gods Creation, then it only makes sense to study Gods Creation directly rather than to study Gods Word and attempt to interpret His Creation second hand.

Your authority is science. Mine is the Word of God. His Word is Truth.

My authority is Gods Creation. Which is equally valid to study as His Word. Gods Creation is not a lie.

[WildTurkey]

I think I missed the quote that said that animals had immortality prior to Adam.

[JohnnyM]

"My authority is Gods Creation."

So you worship the created rather than the Creator? You are saying that your understanding of the thing created trumps the Words of the Creator Himself.

I am reminded of Satan's conversation with Eve, where he says "Hath God said...". He makes her question the words of the Creator. I would advise against going down the same path.

I see that we will never come to an agreement, so I bid you adieu, and wish you well.

God Bless.

JM

[jwalsh07]

Perhaps if the stickers said, "Evolution is a scientific theory; as such it is our best guess on what happenned. Alternatives to evolution are not even good guesses."

Doesn't matter either way. In America the central government doesn't have the power to dictate to local school districts. Ain't America great?

[puppets]

Thank God I was raised Catholic. It is truly an enlightened religion. The fundamentalists are still ranting that the sun revolves around the Earth. Creationalism should NOT be taught in schools in any way shape or form.

[LauraleeBraswell]

yep, you are a Deist.

[Oztrich Boy]

What else do you think has souls? Canids?

Yes..

According to Judaism, and Old Testament scholars, animals were Not Excluded from possessing souls..

Oh! Canids. (I thought at first you were claiming Canadians had souls)

[LauraleeBraswell]

I'm a Deist. Both my parents are Episcopalians who converted from Catholic. We rarely ever went to church, so I had no religious education. Religion was not a part of my life. And that's my life story.