Evangelicals divided over evolution

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 30 May 2005 | Paul Nussbaum

[PatrickHenry]

Can God and evolution coexist?

For many evangelical Christians, the debate over teaching evolution in public schools touches a vital spiritual nerve. Some see evolution as a path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's handiwork.

A legal battle in Dover, Pa., over the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design" has focused new attention on the issue, as have recent proposals in Kansas to change how evolution is taught there.

For David Wilcox, a biology professor at Eastern University, an evangelical college in St. Davids, the challenge is to teach students that it's possible to embrace evolution "without intellectual schizophrenia."

"Frequently, they've been taught that evolution is another way of saying atheism, and they just shut it out," said Wilcox, author of God and Evolution: A Faith-Based Understanding. "They say, 'Why do I have to learn this stuff - don't you know that God hates science?' "

"We have to make them wake up and smell the coffee. God doesn't hate science - he invented it. We try to get them to see that evolution happened and it's not so scary... that evolution is the way God did it."

"Evolutionary theists" such as Wilcox are part of a broader effort by the scientific establishment to defend evolution against advocates of creationism, "intelligent design," and other concepts that challenge all or parts of the theory of natural selection.

Evangelical Christians, sometimes portrayed as monolithic in their opposition to evolution, are as divided as much of the rest of the nation.

"No topic in the world of science and Christianity has created the intensity of discussion and disharmony with evangelicals as the source of biological diversity," says the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of scientists who are Christians. "Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist."

The nation's leading science organizations and the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the origin of all living things, but Americans in general are much less convinced.

Offered three explanations for the origin of humans in a CBS News/New York Times poll six months ago, 13 percent of respondents said they believed "we evolved from less-advanced life-forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process." Twenty-seven percent believed "we evolved from less-advanced life-forms over millions of years, but God guided this process." And 55 percent believed "God created us in our present form." The poll, which questioned 885 people, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Evangelicals who are "young Earth" fundamentalists dismiss evolution and subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, believing Earth is less than 10,000 years old. They often see the teaching of evolution as undermining Christianity and paving the way to immorality.

"What you believe about where you came from directly affects your worldview," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a fundamental creationist organization that is building a 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. "If you can use man's ideas to reinterpret the book of Genesis, then why not use man's ideas to reinterpret morality?"

One of the newest wrinkles in a debate that has percolated ever since Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859 is "intelligent design." That is the concept at the heart of the battle in Dover, 25 miles south of Harrisburg.

Eleven parents have filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Dover school board from requiring biology teachers to present "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. The parents say intelligent design is a religious argument and teaching it violates a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against teaching creationism as science. [Edwards vs Aguillard . ]

Intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot explain all of the complex developments observed in nature and that an unspecified intelligent designer must be involved. Its adherents say it is a scientific, not a religious, concept based on scientific observations, although they acknowledge its theological implications.

Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem and the author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, is an intelligent-design proponent and is scheduled to be one of the expert witnesses for the Dover school board when the case goes to trial in the fall.

He says religion is "clearly why [intelligent design] evokes such emotion... . People think it will support their religious views. It's not just another issue of science. If it were, no one would care."

Christian supporters of evolution say intelligent design, while rejecting "young Earth" beliefs, seems to require periodic intervention by the designer.

Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, is a Catholic and an ardent proponent of evolution and opponent of intelligent design. The author of Finding Darwin's God, he is to be an expert witness for the parents in the Dover case. [The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.]

"I think there is a God, and he is the creator of the universe," Miller said. "But the God of the intelligent-design movement is way too small... . In their view, he designed everything in the world and yet he repeatedly intervenes and violates the laws of his own creation.

"Their God is like a kid who is not a very good mechanic and has to keep lifting the hood and tinkering with the engine."

In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as in most states, school districts are required to teach evolution as part of the science curriculum.

In Pennsylvania, "school districts may inform students of the existence of particular religious viewpoints when the information in conveyed for a secular and educational purpose and is presented objectively," according to Bethany Yenner, an Education Department spokeswoman. "Under no circumstance may an educator or a school district offer opinions on religious viewpoints."

In New Jersey, students "could look at how a variety of religions view a scientific theory," noted Jon Zlock, an Education Department spokesman. "Obviously, more than one religious viewpoint should be explored. It should be done objectively. One religious point of view should not be stressed above others."

Many evangelical Protestants, like many Catholics and other Christians, argue that faith and science complement each other and need not collide over evolution.

The scientific establishment is stepping up its efforts to present evolution as something apart from, not a threat to, religion.

"It's not science vs. religion - that misses the point entirely," said Jay Labov, senior adviser for education and communication for the National Academy of Sciences. "Science cannot begin to look into the supernatural. That's beyond the realm of science."

The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, sent a letter in March to all members of the academy, urging them "to confront the increasing challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools; your help may be needed in your state soon." [Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. ]

The academy has gathered the signatures of more than 4,000 Christian clergy, including evangelicals, supporting evolution as "a foundational scientific truth." The clergy, in the letter, "ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

But more collisions between the two seem certain.

"If you think there are issues with school boards now, there are going to be a lot more," said Ham, of Answers in Genesis. "Wait till we get the museum finished - you haven't seen anything yet."

[wallcrawlr]

Blah, blah, blah.

You're also ignoring the fact...Once again, don't ever post something to my attention.
This will now be the 3rd or 4th time I've told you that.
Please don't ignore this request.

[WhiteKnight]

I disagree with narby on this point. Criticism is welcomed and encouraged, however thus far all criticisms to date have been founded in faulty premises and, in many cases, sheer ignorance (witness the countless attempts to "disprove" the theory of evolution by citing the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Of course, if someone does find a valid falsification of the theory, the end-result is that we no longer have an explanation for the diversity of life on earth. No alternative explanation will win by default (and many creationists don't seem to understand this).

As stated previously, evolution falls or stands by its own merit, thus far I see nothing in the "theory of evolution" (of course there are several) that passes the muster of the Scientific Method. IMHO

Supposed competing theories do not interest me either, because currently none have been proven to be scientifically based.

IMHO, W.K.

[atlaw]

"But not once has ANYONE demonstrated that a salamander's
descendents is selling shows in downtown Phoenix or
anyplace."

And you'd be wrong. I know for a fact that there at least two salamander's descendants selling shows on Bourbon Street (and I'm willing to bet that there are more than two selling shows in Tijuana).

[lifelongsoldier]

"And yet you still seem to think that evolution addresses the ultimate origin of life. How is it that you have listened to the argument for more than fifty years and you still demand from the theory an answer to a question that it does not address?"

Because way back in pre-History when I was a high school student evolution was taught as the origin of life. And in more recent years while in college I was presented with the same arguments by the learned professors.

OBTW, tain't generalizing, tis distillation of the verbiage to its essence. And that don't make this ole country boy wrong.

'Nuff said, further deponent sayeth not.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If you don't believe Genesis, what other books are you going to throw out?

Been done. How about, First and Second Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), Wisdom and Baruch.

[OB1kNOb]

Monkeys standing left of me
Humans to the right,
Here we are
Stuck in the middle again.

(With apologies to Stealer's Wheel....)

[nmh]

"Been done. How about, First and Second Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), Wisdom and Baruch."

Same here. They've contradict the other books and NEVER viewed as "inspired". So I don't waste my time on them.

[narby]

This is a strawman argument; if evolution was a good scientific theory, then criticism would be welcome and actually encouraged.

It is no strawman argument. Species exist. They came from somewhere. Evolution is the best explanation, and without a superior explanation for the observed data, then evolution stands.

Evolution is probably the most criticized scientific theory of all time and has withstood all attacks. You're late to the party.

I would also add, from a purely scientific point, your knowing what I believe is not required either; as that is not the issue.

Just as the prejudices of Dan Rather are relevant to evaluating what he says, your prejudices are relevant to this discussion as well. Deliberately withholding them automatically degrade your argument to virtual insignificance.

[WildHorseCrash]

" That "one aspect" states that God is an "ape". "

how does "we have a common ancestor with apes" become "god is an ape"?

If, as Christians assert, God became man, then God became an ape, for the simple reasons that human beings are apes, specifically African apes.

[Dimensio]

Because way back in pre-History when I was a high school student evolution was taught as the origin of life. And in more recent years while in college I was presented with the same arguments by the learned professors.

Well, I guess your anecodotal stories are compelling arguments to the contrary, thus my claim is obviously false. Clearly the theory of evolution addresses the origin of life because some unnamed "learned professors" presented some argument to you.

OBTW, tain't generalizing, tis distillation of the verbiage to its essence. And that don't make this ole country boy wrong.

'Tis explaining that the theory of evolution has a specific scope and that questions outside of its scope cannot be answered by the theory.

'Nuff said, further deponent sayeth not.

Running off so quickly now? And I notice that you ignored all of my other responses to focus specifically on this. No evidence for your allegations that the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways, no explanation for why evolution is a faulty conclusion, no explanation as to how C.S. Lewis makes a case against the theory of evolution.

[Dimensio]

As stated previously, evolution falls or stands by its own merit, thus far I see nothing in the "theory of evolution" (of course there are several) that passes the muster of the Scientific Method. IMHO

You keep saying that there are "several" theories of evolution, but when pressed you don't provide an example of different theories. You also don't explain how none of them pass the muster of the scientific method.

[WhiteKnight]

It is no strawman argument. Species exist. They came from somewhere. Evolution is the best explanation, and without a superior explanation for the observed data, then evolution stands.

I believe you will find yourself in the minority here. This is logically inconsistent. As per the Scientific Method, theories stand or fall based on their own merit. Not based on whether there is a competing theory. Surely you see this??

Species exist.

True

They came from somewhere.

Agreed

Evolution is the best explanation,

Here we disagree; the theories of evolution, so far as I can tell, do not explain the why; they simply repeat the observation. So in essence evolution doesn't really explain anything.

and without a superior explanation for the observed data, then evolution stands.

Once again, you are using faulty logic. For evolution to stand, it does so on its own merit, not based on whether or not a competing theory exists. I will add, this is not my idea, but based on the sound principles of the Scientific Method. You of course, are free to use whatever method you like, but I believe most scientists would agree with the procedures layed out in the Scientific Method.

Evolution is probably the most criticized scientific theory of all time and has withstood all attacks. You're late to the party.

First, it has not withstood criticism well, as seen by its still controversial nature. Unlike the theory of gravity, thermodymics, etc..., you don't see any controversy with these. Also, your stating it as true does not make it true. Additionally, if evolution was a good theory it may be possible for it to be true, but could never be proven as per the Scientific Method. As far as being late; hardly, been around for a good long time and have watched this cycle many times.

Just as the prejudices of Dan Rather are relevant to evaluating what he says, your prejudices are relevant to this discussion as well. Deliberately withholding them automatically degrade your argument to virtual insignificance.

Interesting, once again, I believe you to be incorrect; I haven't withheld anything. I stated upfront what I believe, ie evolution is bad science. Your analogy to Mr. Rather is also faulty; Mr. Rather's bias only influenced his decision making, the truth of his reporting fell on its own merit. As with all debates, it is the truth of the argument that is the essential element. Surely this makes sense to you?? Should not the validity of the argument be the most important aspect of the debate?? As in the Rather case, his reporting was doomed before he spoke a word; because the basis of his report was wrong, not because of who he was or what he believed. His beliefs only encouraged him to submit the false allegations, if the allegations had been true, I daresay we would be in a different situation.

At your service, W.K.

[biblewonk]

Can God and evolution coexist?

Only if God says that evolution is true in the bible, otherwise, no.

[Dimensio]

Here we disagree; the theories of evolution, so far as I can tell, do not explain the why; they simply repeat the observation. So in essence evolution doesn't really explain anything.

What do you mean they don't explain the "why"? What, exactly, remains unexplained?

First, it has not withstood criticism well, as seen by its still controversial nature. Unlike the theory of gravity, thermodymics, etc..., you don't see any controversy with these.

That's true. You don't have people with religious objections to gravity or thermodynamics. People have issues with evolution because of the belief that evolution contradicts what their religion says happened regarding the origin of species.

When there's a significant controversy regarding evolution that is actually grounded in science and not fueled by people who don't like the implications of reality not matching their religious beliefs, then you'll have a point.

[Dimensio]

Only if God says that evolution is true in the bible, otherwise, no.

Justify this claim.

[WildHorseCrash]

Can God and evolution coexist?

Only if God says that evolution is true in the bible, otherwise, no.

Then, by your logic, since we know that evolution is true, and we know that the Bible doesn't mention evolution, aren't you asserting that God doesn't exist?

[Lurking Libertarian]

This is the 300th thread I've posted,

Mazal tov!

[Dimensio]

I think that he's starting from an assumption that the bible is true and anything that it does not mention is not true. By that logic, gravity doesn't exist and relativity is false.

[narby]

Species exist. They came from somewhere. You have not offered any alternative to evolution, therefore it stands.

(you related to AndrewC? He had the same bogus idea that it was his prerogative to criticize evolution till he was blue in the face but never had to offer an alternative. Certainly he has such a "right", but I have a right to utterly reject a non explanation, explanation.)

[WildHorseCrash]

Exactly.