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
A point that needs to be reiterated, Johnny. Reconciling an unreliable Bible (merely the words of man) with ones 'Christian' faith is impossible.
One may have some form of faith and say that, but it is most certainly not Christian.
I like it... I like it a lot... only I'd say "Evolution is a scientific theory; as such it is our best guess on what happened. Current alternatives to evolution are not even good guesses."
People come back to life all the time, sometimes after having been dead for the better part of an hour. Science has observed this numerous times and has formulated theories to explain the phenomenon.
Because theories are, indeed, a higher level of understanding.
Facts are disconnected observations. All you can say about them (at the fact level) is, "I understand that objects fall downward", "I understand that a prism separates light into different colors", etc.
At a higher level of understanding, however, theories tie facts together into "how and why" types of understanding.
What the author is saying is not that theories are "greater" than facts (i.e. more reliable, more "true", or whatever in the hell gobucks was trying to say in his crappy title for the thread), he's saying that they're a step up in our heirarchy of understanding about the world. They're a "meta-understanding", in the senses #1b and #4a of the meaning of the prefix "meta-":
meta- or met-
pref.
- Later in time: metestrus.
- At a later stage of development: metanephros.
- Situated behind: metacarpus.
- Change; transformation: metachromatism.
- Alternation: metagenesis.
- Beyond; transcending; more comprehensive: metalinguistics.
- At a higher state of development: metazoan.
- Having undergone metamorphosis: metasomatic.
- Derivative or related chemical substance: metaprotein.
- Of or relating to one of three possible isomers of a benzene ring with two attached chemical groups, in which the carbon atoms with attached groups are separated by one unsubstituted carbon atom: meta-dibromobenzene.
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.
Sigh... No, it becomes a well-established theory. A "tautology" is something else entirely. I don't know what word you're searching for, but it's not "tautology". As long as I'm doing dictionary citations...:
tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
- Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
- An instance of such repetition.
- Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.
[Late Latin tautologia, from Greek tautologi, from tautologos, redundant : tauto-, tauto- + logos, saying; see -logy.]
How would YOU smell after being buried underground for four days? ;)
Precisely. They are using one set of standards for creation, and another for the rest of Scripture.
That is why the problem I have is with 'theistic evolution.' It is, on its face, inconsistent. If one denies the existence of God, then any explanation is plausible and the reasoning of men becomes their god, but if one tries to claim faith.......especially Christianity, the problems get much stickier.
That is not to say that I don't know intelligent, well-educated Christians who truly believe in evolution, but they have to contort quite a bit to get there.
So basically you have a single example of an event, and there is no way to test whether that event occurred or not. Doesn't sound like a job for science. Nor is there any way to know that the event actually occurred, rather than just being dreamed up by the writer.
anguish, I dont know.That's a fair answer.
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.I call myself an agnostic seeker. Personally I don't see the Bible and science 'butting heads', but instead describing if not different things, then the same things in different aspects.
Big difference between the Resurrection of Christ and the coming back to life after a few minutes or even hours because of the advances in modern medicine.
Viable in the sense that it could sustain itself?Basically, yes. If there never was supposed to be death, the earth would be overcrowded in no-time. How long it would take - days, months or years - would be determined by what species inhabited Eden.
There's still no way to know whether the event actually happened or whether the author simply made it up.
It wasn't 'dreamed up by a writer.' It really happened.
I'm sure there was a plan should there be 'overcrowding' on the earth, but God in His pre-knowledge knew what Adam's choice would be.......that there would be sin and subsequent death.
At any rate, one cannot take guesses as to what might have happened if there were too many fruitflies, and dismiss the entire creation story because of it.
Just one more note........it is not a singular 'author' who told of the resurrection. There were many eyewitnesses to the risen Christ, more than one of whom wrote down what he saw.
I know you have a personal stake in this, and I actually sympathize with your point of view. However, making false claims to advance your position does your postion a disservice.
Nicely done discussion of Hitler. Gotta save that for linking it in my own refutation. As we all know, some bozo brings that garbage up in almost every thread.
I know you're going to find this answer simplisticWell, yes. But that's my nature :)
So if God knew Adam was going to sin, that means he created something that he knew was unable to perform 'adequately', then 'punished' his creation for functioning as designed. *head exploding* Either way, my brain isn't wired to compute these theological questions :)
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.