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
As to your casting aspersions on the Gospels, I'll let that stand for itself as your own doubting in the validity of Scripture, and note that you left out Paul as an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.
LOL! No one's is, anguish.
Trying to digest these things makes one's brain hurt.
The fact that hundreds saw him after the resurrection, alive and well, apparently doesn't count.
Okay...
And this verifiable evidence is...
I am not against the idea the resurrection happened. I'm trying to get you to understand that some things you take as, pardon the pun, Gospel, are accepted solely on faith and are not verifiable. Because of this, there is no way for them to be tested and confirmed.
The Gospels are as tested and confirmed as any literature of the period from every type of verification that is used.
It is not 'solely' on faith, though it would be silly for me to say that's not part of it. But the Gospels are as authentic as any ancient literature tested, and that is what I am referring to.
Then it should be easy for you to find this verification and post it.
It will take a while, and I don't have this evening because I have to work, but I will find the sources of my information, and give it to you.
I don't just say things without knowing they are true, Junior.
Remember, the Bible does not count for this. You will have to find contemporary sources that verify the Biblical accounts, otherwise you're just using circular reasoning. And, I never said I didn't believe you, I just want you to back up your claims. I'm not singling out this claim, either. I do this with anyone who pulls one of those "everyone knows" things.
And I didn't say 'everyone knows' anything. Obviously you don't know it, and you seem to be pretty well educated.
No, you didn't, true. However, your statements about the resurrection came fairly close. And, I know a lot more than you credit me with. However, I do not cotton to unsupported statements. Fortunately, you've said you'll rectify that situation forthwith.
One is that there is no archaelogical evidence contrary to what is spoken of in the Gospels
One is the proximity of the first copies to the original events (significantly less than 100 years, and far closer than the writings of Homer or Aristotle or Caesar), meaning that the eyewitnesses were still alive when the verifiable manuscripts were written.
One is the number of manuscripts that are available, and their fidelity to one another.
One is that the Gospels are quoted by other authors of the period.
If the same demands were made to prove the authenticity of other ancient texts that are made to prove the Gospels, no one would believe Plato, Aristotle, or Caesar.
It may not be adequate to prove anything to a skeptic like you, but when you judge on the objective evidence, the authenticity of the Gospels is provable.
Now of course if you want to believe the apostle Paul, Matthew, Mark, Dr. Luke and John are all liars, that's quite another matter....
I'll be back with more later.........but probably not until tomorrow.
Why would false manuscripts present Jesus as such a 'loser' if they were only written to spread Christianity? He is hardly the hero type of a made up religion. He got beaten up and murdered.
Another is why would the Gospels, if they were not true, have Jesus appearing first to a woman in a culture where that would have been preposterous, especially if they wanted to spread their 'religion' around?
I believe that the first authenticated manuscript of Caesar's Gallic Wars was written after 500 A.D. I'll check to see if I can find the actual date, but it was far less reliable than the Gospel manuscripts which were somewhere around 100 A.D., I believe.
I'll see if I can find both those dates.
Nonsense. There's no way any scientist could rule out the ressurection of Jesus or any other miracle he performed. That's because the assertion that he rose from the dead, changed water into wine, raised Lazurus, etc can't be tested empirically.
And no, just because we've never observed anyone else rising from the dead or changing water into wind does not mean Jesus could not do it.
On the other hand, a literal reading of Genesis 1 presents all kinds of testable hypotheses, many of which have been falsified.
You post images from a website that defines modern fascism in a movie of 14 points ... and all 14 points are used to define G.W. Bush as a modern Nazi. So, you patronize Bush Hating web sites, and use them to post to FreeRepublic??
Interesting, and you are a Freeper? Really interesting....
http://Nobliefs.com is for the far leftist lunatic fringe.
Troll Alert.
I've been doing a little research on this to, and the only sites that have anything on the oldest extant Caesar's Gallic Wars are all Christian sites basically parroting the same information (most verbatim). I'd love to see something from a museum site, or a university or something.
The life of Jesus parallels the life of Mithras some 250 years earlier. It could all be simple propaganda to win over followers of Mithras.
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.