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."
Hoo hoo hoo!
Are you sure this thread wasn't moved into the religion forum? ;)
There is no "tradition" involved. It was written in Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people.
If you're interested in that, check out the dead sea scrolls. It's interesting.
I was just thinking about Moses ... he was actually the first "adoption" mentioned in the Bible. I believe God looks favorably upon adoption.
Thank you!
You have far more patience than I.
I appreciate it very much ... I just get weary of ... .
You will find several references to adoption in the New Testament, which I don't have in front of me. Basically, our relationship with God through Christ is analogized to adoption.
I was referring the Old Testament but if you want to e-mail me privately when you have time, I'd love to see the New Testament adoptions pointed out. It's easy to miss things ... there is so MUCH in "what is written".
Thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate it.
I am aware of this. Since nmh was demanding that everybody follow Genesis to the letter (which is Old Testament), I was curious to see if he understood the difference between Old and New Testaments as well. My reasons were that nmh was taking it upon himself to decide who is a "good Christian" and who is not. I found that offensive, at best.
You would know this if you made any attempt at reading even part of Holy Scriptures.
I have read the King James version cover to cover several times, the New American Standard once, and have taken extensive bible study classes in several churches that I used to attend. (Personally, I prefer the King James version, but that may be because that is what I was raised on). I am well aware that the New Testament (God sacrificing his Son) replaces the Old Testament (Abraham sacrificing his son).
If nmh is Jewish, then Leviticus applies. Otherwise, for Gentiles (the rest of the world, including arabs, etc.) the New Testament applies.
I have repeated quoting this statement of yours because there is another aspect of it that I feel needs to be addressed. Actually, the New Testament applies to Jews and Gentiles alike. Most non-Christian Jews do not agree with this, but there it is.
nmh was insisting that "good Christians" follow biblical teachings to the letter, and if they do not then they are not "good Christians". Since I am unaware of any church currently in existence that follows the doctrine of the New Testament to the letter, I was also curious to see how nmh stood on that as well.
And, yes, I was attempting to bait nmh into a discussion where, by the content of his posts (and previous posts in similar threads), he would wind up making some serious errors. ;-)
I understand your confusion in the matter, but this discussion was going on some time ago, and I had assumed that nmh had lost interest.
In the future, it would be wise for you to not assume that one side of a discussion doesn't know what they are talking about, just because the other side abandoned the discussion.
At least 100 years before Darwin ever published the theory of evolution, geologists recognized that the earth had to be millions of years old.
It's morphing in that direction. Time for me to abandon thread.
Thanks. I followed the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy in Biblical Archaeology Review. Too bad they weren't available sooner.
you no doubt use hermeneutic principles such as historical usage in your determination?to be suggesting a reliance upon an historical-critical hermeneutic on my part.
Of course I agree that "historical context is a key for interpretation of any text." If you are going to consider history, you should then consider historical interpretations of the text. And, as I indicated above, there have been sages even in ancient times who interpreted Genesis 1 figuratively. IIRC, there is even a passage in the Zohar where the age of creation is given as around 15 billion years.
There is no reason not to take it literally as it is a historical account
You are assuming that it is an historical account.
However, if Moses was raised as a prince of Egypt, he wouldn't have learned Hebrew, the slaves' language.
And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go." So the girl went and called the child's mother.
And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this child away, and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages." So the woman took the child and nursed him. (Exodus 2:8-9)
According to the Exodus account, Moses was actually cared for in his earliest years by his biological mother. It is reasonable to believe that she would have taught him Hebrew.
I apologize if my posts steered it in that direction. nmh made two posts concerning the Hebrew text of Genesis which were factually incorrect, and I didn't want to leave them stand unchallenged.
YEC advocates fail to acknowledge that figurative interpretations of Genesis go back at least two millennia. The notion that Genesis has always been understood literally is simply incorrect. As I noted above, the Zohar reckons the age of the universe at a little over 15 billion years.
One last note. Maimonides denounced mindless literalism, and held that, in the event of a conflict between the findings of natural philosophy and the interpretation of scripture, the failure lies in our understanding of scripture, and we must modify our interpretations of scripture to accord with observable reality.
In its most natural sense, it is. Only through distortion does it become otherwise. As a Christian, I see Jesus looking at it LITERALLY. As a Jew, you should see the same as it portrays itself as such. Who is God, YHWH or Science?
This is your opinion. Many other people, even in ancient times, understood it differently.
Who is God, YHWH or Science?
Do you envision some sort of conflict between God and science? I don't.
That's really unfortunate, because it shows that a lot of "Christians" have not read their Bibles very carefully. There is a passage from which it can be inferred that there was at least one creation that included men that existed before Adam. Therefore, it would seem unnecessary to countenance evolution at all to answer the "scientists."
If Christians would just study more and indulge in pointless arguments less, they would be stronger in their faith and better off.
I'm not familiar with Maimonides. Sounds like a very sensible fellow. A quick Google indicates that he died more than 4 centuries before Galileo's heresy conviction. That opinion of literalism was also the view of Galileo (for all the good it did him) and it is currently the belief of the Catholic Church -- although it obviously wasn't when the Church persecuted Galileo:
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Galileo's opinion about science/scripture conflicts.
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:
For my part, when I received those taking part in your Academy's plenary assembly on 31 October 1992, I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [Pope Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis], fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
Possibly, but the next verse, 2:10, could mean that he was returned before he learned to read or write if his mom only nursed him.
"And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water."
Thanks.
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.