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

[WildTurkey]

He is not a Christian nor does he believe the Bible

Just because I don't believe in YOUR interpretation of the Bible ...

[Ichneumon]

Ok, again, what you are describing is evidence not facts. Theories explain evidence, which when the evidence holds up in testing and research becomes fact, facts then help validate theories, which eventually, in very very few cases become what is know in science as a Tautology, or truth.

Wow... Who messed up *your* education?

In the scientific method, theories never "graduate" to "truth", and "tautology" is another thing entirely (try a dictionary). Sheesh.

If you studied the scientific method you would know this.

ROFL! Don't presume to teach your granny to suck eggs, son.

[WildTurkey]

You forgot the one about Angels holding the planes aloft.

[JohnnyM]

I have disdain for the Word of God. Its ok to admit what your actions have testified to.

JM

[anguish]

God said be fruitful and multiply. He did not want "population control".

You understand, of course, that if all species indeed were fruitful and multiply (and did not die), the world would by overpopulated in notime. You see, a pair of fruitflies would easily take up all earths biomass in months with their offspring if they could not die.

[JohnnyM]

haha ooops.

It should read: "You have disdain for the Word of God. Its ok to admit what your actions have testified to"

JM

[ohioWfan]

Do you have scientific evidence that there were fruitflies in the Garden of Eden?

[WildTurkey]

It should read: "You have disdain for the Word of God. Its ok to admit what your actions have testified to"

I think it is you and O that have disdain for the meaning of God and have become obsessed with a man-written document ...

[anguish]

Do you have scientific evidence that there were fruitflies in the Garden of Eden?

That's in the theology department, not science.

[WildTurkey]

Do you have scientific evidence that there were fruitflies in the Garden of Eden?

I will concede you this one and say that, for arguments sake, there were no fruitflies in the Garden of Eden.

[ohioWfan]

Right.......but if you use fruitflies and their reproductive methods to question the Genesis account of Creation, don't you think the basis of your argument should be sustainable scientifically?

[anguish]

Right.......but if you use fruitflies and their reproductive methods to question the Genesis account of Creation, don't you think the basis of your argument should be sustainable scientifically?

It was merely an example (though I imagined that in a world without evolution, all animals were created from 'scratch'); the same is true with millions of species.

[ohioWfan]

But it was an example without merit, since you know neither whether any insects which multiply rapidly were in the Garden of Eden, nor how long Adam and Eve were there, making your argument invalid.

[anguish]

But it was an example without merit, since you know neither whether any insects which multiply rapidly were in the Garden of Eden, nor how long Adam and Eve were there, making your argument invalid.

That brings forth two questions - (1) did God create those species later and (2) was not the Garden of Eden designed to be viable?

[Ichneumon]

My problem with evolution is that it's junk science.

Oh? Please demonstrate your level of knowledge on this subject by trying to support this claim.

But there's enough doubt about the General Theory of Evolution so biology books should present it as a theory, not a fact.

They do.

I don't see why that is so difficult to accept.

It isn't.

I have no problem with teaching kids about evolution, which is now an important part of modern intellectual history. But it really should be taught as a theory.

The theory part of evolution is a theory. The fact part of evolution are facts.

Of equal interest is the effect that evolutionary theory has had on politics and other fields. It was largely responsible for the euthanasia movement under the early Communists

Darwin's book on evolution ("Origin of Species"): 1859. Marx's book on communism ("Communist Manifesto"): 1848. What's wrong with this picture?

and under Hitler, for instance.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler's own handwritten notes, drawing an outline of his philosophy:

Hitler divided his study into five sections:

1. The Bible
2. The Aryan
3. His Works
4. The Jew
5. His Work

Under the first section, "The Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind", he lists these topics (among others): "2 human types-- Workers and drones-- Builders and destroyers", "Race Law", "First people's history (based on) the race law-- Eternal course of History".

So it seems that Hitler was actually basing his racial view of mankind on *Biblical* foundations.

Nazi SS belt buckle, with motto "Gott mit uns [God is with us]":

Nazi propaganda paper:

The headline reads, "Declaration of the Higher Clergy/So spoke Jesus Christ". The caption under the cartoon of the marching Hitler Youth reads, "We youth step happily forward facing the sun... With our faith we drive the devil from the land."

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.

Uh huh... And this view was not "widely held" before 1859? Go pull the other leg now..

[Ichneumon]

So anyone know if this guy's book "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" is any good?

I haven't read it, but I've heard good reviews from science-literate people whose judgment I trust.

[JohnnyM]

anguish, I dont know.

I cant give you information about every little detail before the fall. Its just not possible for me to do.

There are a lot of things in the Bible that science cannot explain. Are we to then say these things did not happen for that reason. I dont know where you stand in regards to Jesus, but if you are a Christian, than science and the Bible will butt heads in many areas. Science says a dead person cannot come back to life, meaning no resurrection. Using the logic of many Christian evolutionists on this thread, this could not have happened, and is therefore not true.

JM

[ohioWfan]

That brings forth two questions - (1) did God create those species later and (2) was not the Garden of Eden designed to be viable?

Viable in the sense that it could sustain itself? Is that what you are asking? (Forgive me if that seems like a stupid question, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'viable' with regard to a place).

[Ichneumon]

"In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts, he notes" That whole line, unfortunately, couldn't fit in the title.

So why did you lie about what he said by misleadingly "condensing" it to, "Theory is greater than facts"?

My agenda? Gee whiz. I don't have an agenda ...

I find that very hard to believe, considering how you've misrepresented what was actually said.

[ohioWfan]

Added note........the Garden of Eden was designed to be eternal, and had Adam not chosen to sin, would have been.