Darwin Goes to Church

Washington Post ^ | 9/18/2005 | Rev. Henry G. Brinton

[curiosity]

Most adult Sunday school classes don't raise eyebrows, but my church is planning to hold one that's sure to. It's called "Evolution for Christians," and it will be taught this winter by David Bush, a member of the church I lead, Fairfax Presbyterian. David is an articulate government retiree who has been interested in this topic for nearly two decades, teaches a class on theories of the origins of life every five years or so, and once again has really done his homework. His view is that science and religion answer two different sets of questions about creation, with science answering the "how" questions, and religion answering the "why" ones. "With a little bit of wisdom and tolerance on each side," he tells me, "I think they can complement rather than contradict each other."

[swmobuffalo]

" No, it's based on physical and verifiable evidence."

It is? Then what is that evidence and where is is located?

[curiosity]

I was just clarifying that reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and birds are all part of the same phylum, but in different classes.

I'm perfectly aware that these classes split hundreds of millions of years ago, though at different times. The bird-reptile split is the most recent, I believe.

[PatrickHenry]

Just look around. Any living thing you see [is a current, living, intermediate biological form].

Especially, among mammals, the wulrus, seal, otter, etc. Among others there's the walking catfish, penguin, ostritch ...

[RadioAstronomer]

List is pretty long isn't it. :-)

[curiosity]

Do you believe God is the author of Truth?

Actually, it depends on what you mean by it.

If you mean that everything God says is true, then yes. I do believe it.

On the other hand, I do not believe that the act of God saying something makes it true. That would be the heresy of nominalism.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"If you mean that everything God says is true, then yes. I do believe it."

OK, and what God "says" includes His works, correct?

[curiosity]

Then what is that evidence and where is is located?

Everywhere. Try a natural history museum for starters. Your genes are another place.

Here's a good article that explains a lot of the evidence for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

[curiosity]

OK, and what God "says" includes His works, correct?

Of course.

[keithtoo]

I wouldn't hang my hat on Archaeopteryx if I were you.

This is an example of the wishful thinking and confirmation of prejudices scenario. Archaeopteryx is either a fraud (probably) or a bird, not a reptile-bird.

[swmobuffalo]

sorry what's in a natural history museum only reinforces the idea of a Higher Being being in charge. I've already been to talkorigins and have just a bit of a problem with some of their "science".

[VadeRetro]

Some of it is here.

[curiosity]

So, we did not evolve from single-celled organisms into our current state?

Of course we did, but many, if not most single-celled species stayed single-celled species. Evolution, while it can give rise to increasing complexity, doesn't always do that.

[DeweyCA]

some conservative pastors will call me naive, insisting that Darwinism is a godless belief system that encourages people to reject the supernatural and embrace the idea that randomness rules the universe.

I would agree with those conservative pastors, and also the two people quoted from his congregation that also think that he is naive. He must be a PC-USA Presbyterian. BTW, that UCC pastor friend of his sounds like a total loon. No surprise there. VERY few UCC pastors take the Bible seriously.

[ml1954]

First of all, it is a postulation, not a a proven, or even provable belief.

In this context, what's a 'proven' belief and what's a 'provable belief'? Also, please give examples?

[curiosity]

sorry what's in a natural history museum only reinforces the idea of a Higher Being being in charge.

I agree! It does the same thing for me. What does this have to do with evolution?

I've already been to talkorigins and have just a bit of a problem with some of their "science".

Care to elaborate?

[VadeRetro]

I wouldn't hang my hat on Archaeopteryx if I were you. This is an example of the wishful thinking and confirmation of prejudices scenario. Archaeopteryx is either a fraud (probably) or a bird, not a reptile-bird.

I wouldn't hang my hat on a counter-story until I could find one that held water. I notice you haven't even picked one yet. Fraud is out. Bird is out.

[ml1954]

The problem with Evolution in church is that Evolution is a religion.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

OK.

So, one of God's most visible works (the Earth), when examined by one of God's works (us), using the gift of reason that He saw fit to gave us, "says" that He took billions of years to create the Earth. The rest of God's visible works (the Universe) tells us, by the evidence of observation and reasoning through those observations, billions of years older than that.

[VadeRetro]

And what's this? If it's "Just a bird," why is it classified as a dinosaur? If it's "Just a dinosaur," why is it "a close relative" of Archaeopteryx?

You just made a great, chest-thumping, drama-queen show of demanding a bunch of broomsticks. The idea is that I shouldn't have been able to bring them. I was easily able to do so.

You need a new act.

[curiosity]

OK. So God, by definition, cannot lie, correct?

Incorrect. God cannot lie because it is not in his nature to lie. To say everything God says is true by definition is nominalism.