Posted on 05/30/2005 7:54:26 AM PDT by 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."
I hope you noticed in Millers explanation of the
bacterial flagellum argument of Behe he cites of the
work which has described part of the protein structure of
the flagellum as a homology of some bacterias TISS.
Miller does not describe if the TISS is the exact structure as
is found in the flagellum. He cites work by Aziwa(sp?) which
purports and recommends that the proteins are homologous.
I believe homology assumes a relationship. These are not
from what I could gather exact duplicate biochemical entites
, but rather are similar. If they are not exact, how could they be
considered as pertinent to the argument. Miller states
the argument of intelligent design fails because there is
evidence of one of the "irreducible" parts found in nature
which is actually functional. Yet the "irreducible" part
cited is not really the same as the flagellums part, but
a "homology"....and I would guess the next line is....
since evolution is TRUE, the non-exact part(TISS) would
eventually become part of the flagellum parts which of course
proves that intelligent design is false.
I would have liked to have seen a better piece of evidence
than a proposed "homologous" biochemical structure.
Of course, there still is assembly, functional need for
such a flagellum, other "homologous" flagelli analysis, genetic
control of sysnthesis of these structures etc, questions
needed to be done, but if they are interpreted by the "homology" test
then it is applying a biased point of view.
I was glad Miller at least acknowledged that life indeed
is marvelous. I got tired of hearing that life was
based on a "bag of gels, and solutions", that somehow
(and we still don't know how) got to where we are.
P.S. --Test your bias here folks:
If God created life very quickly, would that be considered
evolution on a very fast scale? Or if God used sloooooooowww
mindless chemical reations would that be slow creation?
OK! OK! "May you post 33 more!"
Wow. You've really only posted 300 threads (or something thereabouts)? I've posted 456 and I surely would've guessed that you'd posted more than I had.
Happy tricentad!
That's how I look at it.
It certainly seems like more than 300 to me. I'm guessing that there were at least 20, possibly more, pulled during the insanity of late 2003, but we'll never know.
You've posted 456? Where, in the Hobbit Hole?
It does not matter if one believes that Noah built an ark and put animals in there two by two. Some believe that is more like a myth. Also the flood etc. One day God isn't going to ask you "do you believe everything in the Bible is absolute truth?" He is going to ask you, " Do you believe that Jesus is My Son and that he died for you and was resurrected from the dead.
That is the bottom line on eternal life, not did a real whale swallow Jonah.
God is not the deceiver, I believe that was Satan. And just what PROOF of evolution would that be that is deceiving.
If you don't believe Genesis, what other books are you going to throw out?
No, if you don't believe what He says in Genesis, then you are NOT following His teachings. You're following your OWN teachings.
Sometimes the truth isn't pretty.
Excellent post! Bravo!
What's the difference between creationism and intelligent design? What hypothesis does intelligent design make that, when tested, would give a result different from what evolutionary theory would expect? Thanks.
A couple years ago I was a prolific poster of threads regarding foreign affairs (esp. Iraq) and economic issues, so that probably accounts for most of them. The rest are an assortment of random breaking news that strikes my interest, with legal rulings and technology the most likely items that I would post a thread about. Last year I posted quite a number of election related threads, although I took a sabbatical from FR between May and Sept (I kept posting, but very, very rarely).
ID, like creationism, makes no testable predictions. For that reason, neither is scientific. In my opinion, ID is creationism, but its advocates pretend that it's not, in the hope of slipping it past the 1st Amendment and into the government schools.
One Nation, Under the Designer. The true goals of the ID movement.
Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Replacing science with theism.
The Wedge at Work. The Discovery Institute's war against reason.
The "Wedge Document": "So What?" The Discovery Institute defends the Wedge document.
What nonsense. Of course humans are not biologically equal. That is impossible to deny. But humans also evolved a sense of altruism, cooperation, and ethics.
A person's value is a subjective judgment and is not contingent on religiousity. Not all religions are good. Christianity is a good one because it teaches universal love, peace, redemption, and that all are equal in the eyes of God. The religions that do not follow the Golden Rule ought to be shelved.
Are you saying that if you believe in Jesus Christ and that He is the Son of God but you don't take everything in the Bible literally, you can't go to heaven?
LOL! I confess, I have wondered about this ever since I noticed your tendency to say "Everyone be nice."
Anyway, put me down as grateful for your dedication. And always remember, this issue is too important to be left to the scholars.
I can see that discussing this issue is pointless with you. 1. you are not a believer and 2. you are starting to put me down because of my beliefs. (like this is way over your head etc.) And by the way my God has no limitations and from the things I said , I don't get where you got that. I'm sure you will do fine in life but in the afterlife, pray that your "evolution" will take good care of you.
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.