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
What is a load of crap is the crap like that from people that can't read what he really wrote and then go on to post falsely. Good Grief. Show me where he said evolution is "more than fact" as you put in quotes. Your total arrogance is reflected that you put in quotes words that are NOT in the article. Good Grief.
*whew* What kind of music theory classes have YOU taken? Mine was BASIC MUSIC THEORY. The first time I tried to do it by ear (I have near perfect-pitch) and got a resounding F. I took it again with the enlightened understanding that music theory is pure and simple MATH, and got 100 percent on every test. Yeah, that's hypothesis and conjecture, all right! Talk about JUNK SCIENCE!!
The Bible is incompatible with evolution, from the very beginning and throughout its entirety.
The Bible says, for example, that death followed sin -- that death did not take place before Adam sinned. But evolution says that death preceeded sin, and that it was a necessary element of evolution.
Did you intentionally "misquote" inorder to fit your agenda? I think so.
Yes. I know. It is a repeated offense by the creationist to falsify "information" to fit their agenda. "freak-out" fits the bill on that one.
"In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts, he notes"
That whole line, unfortunately, couldn't fit in the title. My agenda? Gee whiz. I don't have an agenda ... no more than you do.
Fundamentalists Denominational Baptists, methodists, church of the brethren, church or the Nazarene etc. (The preacher barking up the wrong tree 150 -250 years in the Tennessee camp meetings among other places these people used to speak in tongues shake and fall down)
Holy rollers = Denominational Pentecostals (Nickname denotes someone rolling on the floor while speaking in other tongues or prophesying -- this died out some 50 years ago)
Charismatics = nondenominational latest out cropping of spirit filled believers
See this is in the bible, the apostles experienced it, the apostolic Fathers had it in their churches until 200-250 AD.
There is way too much in this regard that all to many churches pretend it doesn't exist of it doesn't matter
Because I don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Because I say it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.
Because I have been taught to reject it does not change what it is.
So if it is plainly in chapter after chapter of the bible and it is in church history after the apostles, and it keeps cropping up again and again in virtually every church and denomination -- I wonder if that might indicate that God is at work or still possibly speaking?
But then most denominations after this experience has left them for a few centuries fall back to a view that God dwells in a book and that there are only the words of those who once spoke with him thousands of years ago. And there are the humane rules that are derived from such.
If God is eternal he is alive or at least it would seem so.
If God is alive and he cares about men then it would seem that he would communicate with men in more real time means than just with a book with conversations from 2000- 4500 years ago.
Old time protestants seem to have problems believing that God is alive and that he can speak and that the bible even means what it says.
Fundamentalists believe in the parts of the bible that suit them and believe that God can only speak through the sections of the bible that suit them.
Pentecostals believe in the parts of the bible that suit them and though they say they believe that God can speak through prophecy dreams and visions -- they really believe that God can only speak through the sections of the bible that suit them.
And Charismatics believe in the parts of the bible that suit them and though they say that they believe even more tjat God can speak through prophecy dreams and visions and are sometimes inclined to obey what they see or hear they generally back away from such behavior and instead believes that God can only speak through the sections of the bible that suit them.
The reason that there is all this similarity between fundamentalists pentecostal and charismatics is they are all historically from the same branch and carry the same doctrine that was written 500 years ago by Menno Simons
If we would care to learn our roots church wise we might understand where we have come from and maybe we might also grasp where we are headed
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?
Ah, well - happy days are here again, I guess. The divorce rate has been falling steadily since 1980. Cheers!
Right.
My appologies for putting quotes around my statement. It was not inteded to quote the writer of the article or Ken Miller. Here is what set me off:
"In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts" which is from the words of the article writer and not the scientist. Now, can you explain to me how a theory can be a higher understanding "than" facts. From what I understand of science a theory is a higher understanding "of" facts and evidence not "than" them. Of course I must also appologize for my misunderstanding of the term facts. I would like to say that what Ken Miller states about theory is correct. Theories are tools to explain facts and evidence. Once a theory has emmassed enough facts and evidence that in themselves are tuatologous, it then becomes a tautology. Like the theory of our solar system is now a tautology. We all know that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around as was previously believed.
BTW, there's probably a lot more in common between current Pentecostal practice and that of the Church of the First Born (Lutheran) in Finland than you'd probably believe.
Thanks for the ping!
Are you claiming that before 1859, Europeans and Americans thought that Africans and Asians were as highly developed as Europeans? So was did the South consider iteslf to be enslaving equals before 1859?
Perhaps he is unable to quote things properly.
As far as Christianity is concerned, will their be more unity or more factionalism in the future?
Here we go again.
Here is a link to a good discussion of the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
When discussing scientific methods, it is best to be aware of these guidelines.
For a starter, there are billions and billions of facts out there, but there is no such thing as "evidence" (better try a courtroom). A theory organizes these facts into a framework. Might be right, might be wrong, might be ridiculous. But, how do we know which? Well, lets test it!
From this theoretical framework one can derive hypotheses (i.e., one can make a prediction). For example, "Rocks are hard. If I bang my head against a rock it is bad news for my head but not for the rock." That hypothesis can be tested. Chances are your head will suffer more than the rock. From this observation you can (if your head has survived) confirm the hypothesis; in other cases an hypothesis may be rejected, and in still other cases its a draw (no data, try again some other way).
A good theory allows accurate predictions (i.e, hypotheses which are supported when tested).
This leads us back to the statement "evolution is 'more than fact' and thus holds a higher place than the scientific method." This is nonsense. Evolution is a theory based on facts and confirmed hypotheses or predictions. The attempt to say that evolution is only a theory is bogus--of course its a theory. But then, so is electricity, and I wouldn't want to bet the rent money against that one!
Lets try again. I believe that the moon is made of green cheese. That's my theory. Well, if that is true the six Apollo landings should have found some evidence of cheese. Nope! No cheese. Hypothesis not confirmed. My theory is either wrong or seriously in need of revision.
So, these are the rules. If you want to play this game you have to play by these rules. If not, start your own game and make up your own rules. However, the success of your efforts (the accuracy of your predictions) will determine your credibility.
Many of the comments following the evolution posts attempt to twist the rules. As quoted above "theories were based on evidence and facts were the result of tested theories." This is obviously incorrect: theories are based on confirmed hypotheses, which in turn attempt to organize and explain facts.
I have provided a link to a good summary of the scientific method. If you don't want to play by these rules, fine. But at least have the honesty to admit where you are coming from and don't claim to be doing science.
Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest hope that this post will make any difference.
Carry on, folks.
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection (Evolution) is an operative principle on how species change over time. For example, let's take the case of pathogenic bacteria and antibiotics.
When antibiotics were developed, people thought they would wipe infectious disease off the map. There was one problem, people did not take the full course of the medicine. The result was: Some of the most resistant specimens of the bacterial growth survived. Repeating this process, a number of times, produced some organisms that could not be killed with the antibiotic.
There is some natural variability in any species, which allows the species to survive new challenges. Variability of the species is not a contradiction to the Creator, it is just a testimonial to the Creator's wisdom.
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.