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
Furthermore, I don't object to Darwinism.
And as to persecutions and citing the french government that isn't spit in the bucket for what the churches did to each other since the 1500's where denoinations had governments and marshalled armies and then militarily fought those who disagreed, they also colonized and with the sword and missionary speand the Gospel -- that would include the dutch the french the english the germans etc.
I also have first hand knowledge and the statement that Goy give that evangelicals beleive the four Gospels is a loaded statement as both we know it implies that you have this powerful wide array of belief that has the Gospels radiating as your core.
But in fact what it means is that as menno simons contended in 1560 when he wrote out the books and doctrines on Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism that this Old Testament was only permissable for a believer to read -- In his language it meant it was a boarderline offense that was almost a shunnable offense -- and in practice the mennonites and Anabapists branches have dshunned tens of thousands over reading and teaching OT scripture. (And all that later spawned from them unknowingly use his theology making him more influential in the protestant church than christ and the apostles becasue he redefined the terms and wrote all the rules for protestantism and the interpretation of scripture)
And today becasue of this in all churches that stem from Menno's simons even though for hundreds of years they say they beleive the whole Bible there is an aversion to the writings in the Old Testament -- in baptist and pentecosta church and charismatic churhes there is a Code word used -- it is called old covenant teaching -- and pastor and parishioner will say That's old covenant brother -- discounting and devaluing the words.
First we need to understand what bible did Jesus use? if you can't remember no harm no foul.
Jesus read the Old Testament But Christ did not call it that, He called it the Law and the Prophets. Did he make up that term -- No the Jews to this day call it the law and the prophets.
Second how does the Gospels testify of themselves? they testify that they are the fulfillment and receive their content from the law and the prophets and their combined words are called scriptures
Scripture is an important designation and I want you to note that nowhere in the new testament does the apostles refer to each other's words or their own words as scripture
Now for all I have to say about Lutherans and Catholics both denominations seem to have some understanding of this. So if pauls writings are not scripture what exactly are they -- well we have to study the word of God to see what they call their writings and each others writings -- They call them Gospel perhaps as much as a hundred times. More importantly neither Christ nor the Apostles invented that term -- As I was plainly taught as a Lutheran and it is so taught also among evangelical churches
The term Gospel was prophesied by the prophets not only as to the content of it -- but the name of it. There were at least two witnesses of this Isaiah and Ezekiel.
So by the testimony of what has come by men to be called the New Testament -- is called within the Gospel it is all Gospel -- this Gospel according to Paul to the Corinthians the Gosple of Paul the the Ephesians.
What Bible did the twelve apostles read and what bible did the Apostle Paul read -- The answer is the law and the prophets.
I will not at this time get into a prolonged discussion on Scripture and the Gospels but the Gospels are that which was spiritually discerned in the Law ad the prophets. And of the Gospel John the Apostle first tells us that Chirst did a lot more and taught a whole lot more than what he wrote in the four synoptic gospels To cover that would have taken dozens of books.
And then John tells us that if all the works of Christ were to be written that the world would not be able to contain those books.
Think of what is he implying -- and what good exactly does this do us since it wasn't written -- if that knowledge is out there but not in the sphere of man how are we going to get that? See instead of having the desire to know God with all our hearts minds and strength -- Evangelicals have devolved taht down to denomination membership, showing up on a certain percentage of sundays taking sacraments -- and doing nice things to select people aka church members and designated places and individuals (A homeless shelter the red cross the united way etc.
Jeus said all of the law and prophets can be fulfilled in one commandment and what is that To love God with all of our heart with all of our soul with all of our mind and all of our stength. But is this to love God? Many marriages with the same effort given of an hour or two a week end in divorce
So we say we are a robust evangelical I am "Board member" I am "Teacher" I go and "do causes" I ask is that the Love of God? It is reither the love of Church or the Love of self that makes you a board member and the same of a teacher -- you find those fulfilling -- gifts to charities I will leave for the moment)
To Love God with all your heart is not within an evangelical because of what they are taught or more importantly not taught. Have you ever seen and evagelical cry because they as so hungry for God, Hav you ever seen an evangelical weep that they might know God? Have you ever seen an Evangelical so love sick for God that they can't eat or sleep?
And what would be said of such behavior? See what is taught is that what Christ did not mean love with all your heart wink wink he just meant if you use the word christian to describe yourself you are in. How breathtaking is that "Interpretation" and by a church or denimination weilding the word interpretation we can say anything says or means anything else other than what it actually literally says.
With all of our heart means that our heart is briming over with love feelings and the desire to speak of our devotion to God and to others of our devotion for him. Evangelicals are not known for this gushing devotion -- they find it annoying and disturbing instead they have books and readers that are called devotionals dead words written by dead men that as supposed to turn the head of an all seeing all knowing God and somehow get him to believe that you have this deep heart felt devotion -- No God is not fooled his head is not turned.
Lets now look at to love God with all your mind -- what do we imagine that might mean -- People say defensively I pray some times I read the bible some times -- I even went through all the trouble to memorize a few scriptures. How is that different from showing up to church on sunday for 1 hour or giving 3 hours a week and keeping the remainder of it for your life hobbies and pusuits?
The great commandment does not say to love God occasionally with intermittant random acts of kindness. It does not say with with some segreated portion of your mind at some time durring your week or during your day. And as to any arguement that the love there is intanglible, and unarticualtiable (Made that word up) Just let a husband tell his wife that and the wife will tell this man in no certain terms how it is tanglible and can be articualted.
With all our mind is to say God is in all our intellectual pursuits -- contantly in our thoughts we write create and compose to him we write read and think to learn of him to seek him -- is there anyone that has this kind of devotion yes but not on a denominational basis as discussed previously there are some baptists and fundamentalists that have this kind of love for God -- but that was not taught to them by men or their pastor. there are some pentecostals that have that kind of love and devotion but that was not taught to them by their pastor or denomination -- they transcended their denominations and were able to reach out and touch God.
To love God with all our soul means with our inner being evangelicals other than having identified that the soul departs the body and lives on after death are not ones to discuss the soul muchless to discuss woshiping looking and reaching out to God with all your soul while yet alive. Fundamentalists are somewhat stumbled by this at least doctrinally -- but there are those that do worship God in spirit and in truth -- and becasue we don't know of it or have not experianced it does not relieve us of the great commandment -- this is taught lightly as God's great wish list, we can do it if we like it or we can say it's not meaningful to me so I can just walk away -- yes you are free to -- but the commandment stands.
And finally all our strength I will leave you to imagine what this might mean.
Now when we look at truly what Chirst is demanding here there riseds a cry from all churches and denominations that such demands are impossible, but that is the design of it. Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God. (And if the Great Commandment is the sum of the Law and the Prophets it must show that all men continually sin and have fallen short of the Glory of God.) Read romans chapter 1-8 and understand that th law is to enlighten your mind as to your state with God as opposed to an imagined state that is taught by men, philosophers, and church denominations.
There are evangelicals and others that say say it is unreasonalble to suggest that God would require any such thing of believers or even non-beleivers and therefore it must be dumbed down to an acceptable level that we are all willing to obey. Hence we have denominations that have their own set of false demands of God their dumbed down version that we and even "Good" unbeleivers might have eternal life.
This is no longer the Gospel of Christ or the Gospel of the Apostles because you can't find any of this in their words. You need to understand that these unbelieving people have written their own gospel -- this is christian ebonics this is liberals when tey are losing the arguement they just redefine the terms. Liberals take their programs ie their doctrines and rename and repackage them with something else hoping to find something that is appealing to men.
This is exactly what has happened with denominations the difference being that the liberals are doing it before our eyes and the denominations did this stuff hundreds of years ago and what they have done has been enshrined with the thought that it is a great historical tradition -- when men say that it is valid because it has been done for hundreds of years -- this is the weakest of all reasons to beleive or do something -- when this is said these people confess taht they no longer know why they do what they do, that they no longer know why they beleive what they believe or secretly they are admitting that they know know there is no basis for what they beleive but because men were at one time persuaded to follow their man made gospel and their children and childrens children accepting what their parents palmed off on them as fact perpetuated this -- and so millions of christians in like manner perprtuate the teaching of their denominations.
Now we will agin speak of FR and those that are here and what we do. We do not do as the liberals do that is to follow the traditions that have been created and foiseted upon the american people over the last 230 years. We know what america is. We inimately know what our rights are as americans not because be have preachers and teachers that tell us so but becasue we have a bible called the Constitution and the bill of rights and we have epistles that explain what the founders meant in the federalist papers. our beliefs and faith in America hinge on the words of this bible. We have a firm foundation. The Liberals have redefined terms they have made pacts with other nations to abridge the constitution and they have exerted great authoirty to use congress and the courts to alter our rights - the Church to has a bible and the writings of the apostollic fathers to help us understand what the writers had in mind -- but in the church liberals have been at work for 1800 years -- they have sought to abridge the rights and pomises laid out therein and in order to seize power they created denominations with their own man made rules. They claim a billion followers they have 100,000 priests prophets apostles pastors teachers evangelists and missionaries that all proclaim short changed versions of what is in the Bible but the wonder of it all is that after 2000 years they have not suceeded in getting rid of the Bible or the writings of the apostollic fathers and replacing it with commentaries
There are a small minority compared with their great number that seek truth and seek it from the churches constitution and the churches federalist papers. And those people strive to walk in the promises that once were delivered unto the church -- that have been long lost.
The ancient ceremony and pomp only indicates ancient sin and willful disobediance.
The words of Christ and the Apostles by their testimony are from ancient scripture -- our words and doctrines admittedly are not they are of our own invention as so the church discounts scripture as a source and makes the claims and boasts of any man of the cloth who stands among us as valid.
The church is naked before God and without excuse. And those that do not have a love for the churches constitution in its entirety and the writings of Chruches federalist papers are not followers of Christ and are not persuing God. They are disciples of their denominations and followers of the corruptions that men have made loving them over truth.
this is so appart from evagelicalism
Why the dig that I "worship the created"? I didn't say that.
I said that when the question is about the Creation, then the Creation itself is what should be studied. I'm not saying the Word of God is irrelevant or wrong. Just that by definition there cannot be a conflict. If there is an apparent conflict, then it's man's interpretation that's wrong.
In the case of studying Gods Creation, since there is vastly more information about the Creation in the Creation itself than in the Word, that I will lean to interpretations based there first.
I see that we will never come to an agreement, so I bid you adieu, and wish you well.
Did you actually think you could convince me to doubt that Gods Creation is anything other than it seems?
How do you do that?
Plants are not considered alive in Biblical terms. The word wither is used to describe the decay of plants. Which is handled by different Hebrew words than the death of an animal or human.
Hebrew for 03001
yabesh {yaw-bashe'}
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to make dry, wither, be dry, become dry, be dried up, be withered
a) (Qal)
1) to be dry, be dried up, be without moisture
2) to be dried up
b) (Piel) to make dry, dry up
c) (Hiphil)
1) to dry up, make dry
a) to dry up (water)
b) to make dry, wither
c) to exhibit dryness
Hebrew for 05034
nabel {naw-bale'}
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to be senseless, be foolish
a) (Qal) to be foolish
b) (Piel)
1) to regard or treat as foolish
2) to treat with contempt
2) to sink or drop down, languish, wither and fall, fade
a) (Qal)
1) to sink or drop down
2) to fall, wither and fall, fade
3) to droop
Here are the words for death of an animal or human.
Hebrew for 04194
maveth {maw'-veth}
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) death, dying, Death (personified), realm of the dead
a) death
b) death by violence (as a penalty)
c) state of death, place of death
Hebrew for 04191
muwth {mooth}
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to die, kill, have one executed
a) (Qal)
1) to die
2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
3) to die, perish (of a nation)
4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
d) (Hophal)
1) to be killed, be put to death
a) to die prematurely
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.
No they weren't. There were plenty of white slaves as well. BTW, as pointed out in another post, the racial justification for slavery was developed after the Enlightenment and before Darwin by bastardizing Biblical verses. By the time most had heard of Darwin, slavery was ended in the Western world. But Darwin and the Bible were equally bastardized to justify racial discrimination. That, I am old enough to personally remember.
Could you point out where I said it was a political loser for conservatives. I would really be interested in seeing that.
I did, in fact, say that moderates don't really care that much about civil unions. You're also talking about marriage ammendments and not civil unions.
The point I made about civil unions is that it is not really an albatros.
Right back at you.
Remember, Jesus physically resurrected, thus conquering literal physical death (If He had only conquered a spiritual fall He would not have physically resurrected differing us from Angels). This is one reason He chose to become a physical man and why our inheritance is higher than the Angels.
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.
Hbr 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Hbr 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
It is all there for the diligent student to be rewarded.
OK.
LOL ! Excellent !
Here's a little excerpt concerning Darwin..
You may find it "interesting"..
.
Charles Robert Darwin was brought up as an Anglican with Unitarian leanings. At Edinburgh 1825-27 Darwin was well aware of the materialist controversies, but at Cambridge 1827-31 Darwin was fairly orthodox in Christian beliefs, though not naturally pious.
Any Christian belief waned after 1836 with a rising deterministic materialism, and after 1851 Darwin no longer even believed in a benevolent God.
Darwin remained some kind of theist/deist until the 1860’s, after which Darwin was self-confessedly muddled but belief in God further waned.
Darwin thought to the end that evolution was compatible with some kind of Christian belief, but Darwin certainly had no eleventh hour conversion, nor personal spiritual renewal.
Darwin died in 1882 as an agnostic, sorrowfully parting from his beloved and devout wife Emma, in a separation which both of them (for different reasons) believed to be final.
Just my take on Darwin..
He died a sad and lonely man, extremely confused and dismayed by Christianity's virulent rejection of his theories..
It was never his intent to deny God's role in creation.. only to explain it..
( I get that from other readings I have done on the man, but this link is pretty good too.. )
Concerning God..
A being that can create a Universe is beyond our comprehension..
Sort of like wondering if ants (or bacteria) comprehend the existence of humanity..
Our attempts to understand God, to explain, comprehend, are feeble, at best..
Rather than condemn science as antithetical to God, I see in it's attempt to understand the universe, a path to understanding, in a limited sense, God..
A good day to you ...
I am sorry. I must have missed your biblical quote that stated animals were immortal before Adam.
From The Descent of Man, Chapter 7, found here:
But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.
[snip]
The question whether mankind consists of one or several species has of late years been much discussed by anthropologists, who are divided into the two schools of monogenists and polygenists. Those who do not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species as separate creations, or in some manner as distinct entities; and they must decide what forms of man they will consider as species by the analogy of the method commonly pursued in ranking other organic beings as species. But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an indeterminate element such as an act of creation. We might as well attempt without any definition to decide whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, town, or city.
[snip]
Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the majority of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock; whether or not they may think fit to designate the races as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount of difference.
"NOBODY Ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
One could also add the scientifically correct statement: "The Creation story told in this book is essentially the same as that required by law in many Islamic countries, but is is different from that of the Native Americans among others."
They probably (based on some of my reading) were just looking for a weeping willow tree to hang their racist beliefs on.
pLAceMARKer
Why don't you try answering one of the 20 or so serious questions I have asked on this thread or join in with the one or two others who engaged in serious debate with me, rather than making a fool of yourself with an idiotic supposition/accusation you can't back up with a single fact.
I'm beginning to think that some of you are hiding under the disguise of science to lash out in blindness against anyone or anything that gets in the way of your religious zealotry.
(In other words, that was a really stupid post for someone who calls himself a doctor, Doctor).
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.