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

[ohioWfan]

Am I to assume you aren't coming back to answer my question, or respond to all the verifiable historic evidence for the authenticity of the Gospels that I've provided?

Just curious.

[ohioWfan]

LOL! Junior, my last post was to you, and not to myself.

I wondered what you thought of the evidence I provided.

[eagle11]

Right on! How could God ever have a problem with evolution?

[ohioWfan]

Here you go, Junior. Start at 564.....

[Junior]

Have you checked out a reference in Josephus' Antiquities, Tacitus' Annals, or Thallus' Histories, with references to the historic crucifixion and resurrection?

Josephus apparently doesn't even get Scripture right in Antiquities:

The Jewish Antiquities, (written c. 94 in Greek) is a history of the Jews from the Creation to the outbreak of the war in the late 60s. There is an autobiographical appendix defending Josephus' own conduct at the end of the war when he cooperated with the Roman forces of Vespasian and Titus Flavius. His account, while parallel to the Old Testament, is not identical to it. There has been speculation that the differences are due to Josephus' access to ancient texts (perhaps going back to Nehemiah) which survived the destruction of the Temple. Since Josephus was close to the Roman leaders, he may have received permission to recover and retain some or all of those texts, as he indicates. On the other hand, credible arguments have been made that the Dead Sea scrolls are partially or entirely sacred scrolls from the Temple of Jerusalem hidden in various sites around the Dead Sea to protect them against possible destruction by the Romans. The two possibilities are not completely mutually exclusive, so both may be (partially) true.

And, as he was born after the death of Christ (~37) so anything he wrote on the matter would be considered second hand.

As for Tacitus:

Tacitus is considered the most reliable scholar of his time. He had access to Roman archives, and his only mistakes arose from occasional reliance on secondary sources. In this case he could have been using either Christian sources or Roman archives. It is argued that if he had been using Roman archives, he should have identified Pontius Pilate as a "prefect" rather than a "procurator," but that is disputable. The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than "Christus." Although Tacitus was Roman rather than Jewish and might have believed that was part of the name, it is extremely unlikely he would have selected it alone from the archives. In addition, Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no Roman documents related to a historical Jesus.

Regarding the reliability of Tacitus, the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions "the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of the Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv)." [1] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm)

We have a bit more of a problem with Thallus.  He may have been dead for quite some time (read: two centuries) before Christ, and his single reference to the darkening of the sky at the crucifixion may have been added after the fact:

• Thallus: an Analysis (1999)
• Jacoby and Müller on "Thallus" (1999)

[ohioWfan]

Wikepedia is your source of information? An online Encyclopedia?

And who is Richard Carrier, and what are his credentials and background?

[Junior]

Does it matter? Are they correct in their assessments or not? And, if so, how?

BTW, Richard Carrier is an historian.

[ohioWfan]

I'll tell you what matters. Richard Carrier is an atheist (checked it out myself).

We're at a stalemate, Junior. My sources are from Christian scholars, and you won't believe anything they say just because they are Christians (even though you claim to be a Catholic yourself).

Your sources are atheists, so I won't believe that they are genuinely looking for the truth. How can you trust an atheist to come up with the truth when he has thrown out the Author of ALL Truth before he asked any questions?

In the end, the only thing that matters is whether the Gospels actually ARE authentic. If you're right and they're not, no big loss for me. If I'm right and Jesus is who He says He is, you're in big trouble.

So........end of conversation. Thanks for coming back.

[pgyanke]

Thanks for pinging an audience from the other thread. It was enjoyable.

[Junior]

No. I won't accept anything they say automatically simply because they are Christian. There is a difference between that and not accepting them because they are Christian. Carrier may be an atheist, but he has done his research, so he is credible. Pulling stuff off Christian sites because it sounds good and supports your views does not necessarily make your particular positions valid.

Your sources are atheists, so I won't believe that they are genuinely looking for the truth.

Why not? Would it not be possible for an atheist to be objective? Would you consider that Christian apologists might be a bit biased too? Research can always be double checked regardless of the leanings of the researcher (that's what peer review is all about). This is the reason I linked my sources.

[ohioWfan]

Don't twist my words, Junior. I said nothing about accepting anything someone says just because they are a Christian.

Carrier has done research as an atheist, with a point to prove. You can say the same thing about the Christian sources I have (also scholars who have done extensive research).

That was the whole point of my last post. Both sides will have bias.

You believe the bias of the atheists for whatever your reasons are, and I believe the bias of the Christians, because they will have more of a moral compunction to tell the truth. (It's a commandment that atheists can and do, freely ignore).

As I said previously. We are at a stalemate. You are free to believe your atheist sources as to the authenticity of Scripture.

[ohioWfan]

Hey........no problem. :o)

[ohioWfan]

Pulling stuff off Christian sites because it sounds good and supports your views does not necessarily make your particular positions valid.

Oh.......I missed this little gem.

My sources, as I said previously, are books, not websites. Since Christian websites are a point of ridicule for you religious evolutionists, why would I use them as a source of information?

I have also told you that my daughter has extensive written verification of the authenticity of ancient texts. She is a scholar, as are her professors. But she is also a Christian, so you won't believe her either.

[ohioWfan]

In case anyone is lurking and wondering if I actually have sources, here is a list........

History and Christianity, by John Warwick Montgomery.

Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed., MacMillan

Companion to Classical Texts, "MS. Authorities for the Text of the Chief Classical Writers," by F.W. Hall, Oxford.

The Bible and Archaeology, Harper publ.

Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Broadman press.

Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell (just found out he actually has a website).

Junior won't believe any of these scholars because they're Christians, but perhaps someone else might find the references useful in studying Christian apologetics, and the authenticity of the New Testament.

[ohioWfan]

.

[ohioWfan]

So am I to assume from your lack of response, that you agree that since you choose to believe only atheistic sources, and dismiss Christian ones, no matter how scholarly, that we have no common ground?

Is that how this discussion will end? If so, it will prove much about your so-called faith.