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 will admit:
a) that evolution is a theory, as the term is used in its scientific sense, namely a coherent explanation of phenomena that has been tested and found to be consistent with all known data. I will also willingly admit that evolution is unproven, but that is also the status of EVERY theory, law, and hypothesis in science. Nothing is ever completely proven in science, so to single evolution out as being unproven is misleading.
b) That it has been incorrectly taught that evolution explains the origin of life. However, incompetent teachers do not and cannot extend the scope of the theory of evolution beyond the explanation of what happened in the biosphere AFTER the formation of the first life forms.
and c) That there is a small, but vocal, group of people who believe that evolution is a valid scientific theory and have also used that theory as a bludgeon to ridicule religious believers. I completely and utterly disavow anyone who makes the claim that evolution is proof that God doesn't exist or in any way disparage people for their religious beliefs. However, when creationists begin to use dishonest tactics such as quote mining, strawmen, etc. to push their argument, I will disparage them for that practice. I will also disparage people who make specific arguements from ignorance and then continue to make those arguements after it has been pointed out to them that these arguments are based on incorrect information. I have no problem with people who point out that creationists' arguements are based on fallacies, are riddled with inaccuracies or contain downright lies.
Should read "...but the theory would NOT fall apart..."
Why, then, do you not object when some "learned pundit", especially one on PBS pontificates that the universe came about by a massive explosion that set everything in motion and in the primordial hydrogen based soup a single cell came into being from which all life has since evolved over the ensuing billions of years; and that Creation is nonsense? This is done complete with artist renderings of the Earth of that time and some fish crawling out of the slime to start the evolution of life to its ultimate form, mankind. How is this not a claim that evolution accounts for the origin of life? And these "science" shows are acclaimed (allegedly) by the scientific community as factual. How is this different from what you accuse creationists of doing?
Most of the fundamental dicta of Psychology falls into the category of Theory. Some of the most reasonable conclusions concerning behavior are based on rational explanations of anecdotal evidence. And the experimentalists claim that the results they find in their laboratories are legitimate predictors of the behavior of individuals. (I pick on psychologists because that is my major field of study.) I fault their conclusions for the same reason I fault the conclusions of evolutionists. Neither group of conclusions is sufficiently well supported by the evidence available to state with certainty that it fully explains the evidence.
Belief in an intelligent Creator and accepting the account written in the Bible requires a great leap of faith. But the only One not explained by Creation is the Creator. For the ex nihilo, then random convergence theorists, we first have to explain the origin of the universe in which that random convergence occurs. And that is a greater leap of faith than I can manage.
We all begin with certain presuppositions based on out experience of the world surrounding us and the events which shape our lives. We evaluate all new data in light of those presuppositions. If you have a bias toward science and against faith, you will see everything as explainable by scientific theory if only enough data can be obtained. If, on the other hand, your bias is toward an intelligent Creator who will someday reveal Himself, then you have an explanation which allows for full understanding at some future date to be determined by that Creator. I have chosen the latter. If the former is your choice, please seek the evidence you need. I only ask that you have the courtesy to refrain from ridiculing me for my choice, and to accept that some of those who do believe along the same lines as me are not fully mature in their reasoning and will not understand that you have the right to your choice just as did they have the right to theirs. (Or in simple terms: I respect your opinion, please respect mine and forgive the immature individuals on my side for their boorishness.
Or do you add books you like as the Catholics did AFTER Luther? The apocrypha was never part of the canon officially until after Luther.
People also have issues with evolution because it stinks as a theory. It isn't science.
I didn't know this thread was still alive.
The Vetus Itala dates from the 2nd century and includes the apocryphal books.
Included in, but not considered a part of the canon officially until the 1500s during the Tridentine council. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
This is a brief outline http://www.cathochic.com/bible.html
The Laodicean canon is highly disputed. Jerome, who wrote the vulgate had this to say:
Jerome's views are as follows:
These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...
I'm actually not Catholic and am not tryng to defend one version of the Bible over another. I was trying to point out to the other poster the inconsistency of maintaining the superiority of his Biblical interpretation while using a fairly new Jewish-Anglican canon.
I find the history of the Bible fascinating generally and although I'm just a layman, I appreciate the difficulty we Christians face when trying to dissect scripture.
All of the world's Bibles are controversial to some group of Christians somewhere but I believe that this is part of God's plan. I don't know what the plan is, but no one can argue against the sheer growth in the number of Christians. Someone posted the numbers on another thread, so I don't remember all the details, but there are already more Christians than any other religion and it won't be long before there are more Christians than the next two largest religions combined.
Something is obviously going on here.
Wrong.
Have you ever asked that of an Orthodox rabbi?
Yes, that is WHO pointed it out to me.
I've since studied it else where. He is correct!
Oh really? What, specifically, did he tell you?
Because you are certainly wrong about both yom and elohim.
I doubt the Orthodox rabbi you consulted would appreciate your misattributing his words.
The Orthodox Rabbi would have to admit that the term is plural.
nmh is not wrong about yom. It the most literal sense, in the Genesis creation, yom means a literal 24 hour day. It includes qualifiers such as evening and morning and in NO instance where such qualifiers are included does it mean anything other than a literal day. Of course, yom means other things than 24 hour day elsewhere in Scripture. But in the first chapters of Genesis, it is 24 hours and if it weren't for the evolutionary hoax we wouldn't be trying to fit millions of years into the first two chapters anyway.
No, he wouldn't. The word elohim superficially appears to be plural, but in usage it is singular. Just as in English, Hebrew requires plural verb forms to go with plural noun forms, and singular verb forms to go with singular noun forms. elohim, when referring to God, is paired with singular verbs.
Further evidence: in Exodus 7:1, God says to Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"(KJV translation). The word used here for "god" is elohim. Unless you wish to posit a multiplicity of Moseses, it is clear that elohim is singular.
elohim is not the only singular Hebrew word which ends in -im. The Hebrew word for "life" -- chaim -- is likewise singular.
You admit, then, that yom has more than one meaning; it is only your interpretation which insists that -- in this particular usage -- it must be understood to refer to a period of 24 hours.
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.