Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biologist says evolution, religion can coexist
Lawrence Journal World ^ | 9/8/06 | Kenneth Miller

Posted on 09/09/2006 8:39:07 PM PDT by curiosity

“In the final analysis (God) used evolution to set us free.”

Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller used this quote from his book “Finding Darwin’s God” as a central point in his speech about simultaneously believing in evolution and religion.

Miller spoke to more than 500 people Thursday evening in the Kansas Union Ballroom.

He testified for the pro-evolution side in the recent lawsuit against the Dover, Pa., school district, where a federal judge ruled against the district’s teaching of intelligent design in biology classrooms. He said it was creationism in disguise.

Conservatives on the Kansas State Board of Education approved science standards last year that criticized evolution, but after the August primary election, it appears moderates will regain control of the board and eventually reinstate the former standards.

Miller gained several laughs from the audience during his speech as he described the Dover trial, including a scene when intelligent design proponent Michael Behe asked the judge if he could “move the evidence to the side.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild had stacked 58 scientific papers, nine books and other textbook chapters on evolutionary evidence supporting development of the human immune system in front of Behe on the witness stand.

Miller said religion and evolution are too often played as opposing forces and incorrectly identified as mutually exclusive. At Brown, a student once told him he could not worship at the university chapel and cited a book that places evolution as the fruit in the serpent’s mouth or a “tool of Satan.”

But Miller said the root of the portrayal of religion and evolution as opposites may come from scientists who have an “anti-theistic interpretation of evolution,” a stance he disagrees with.

“People of faith are shooting at the wrong target. They should not be shooting at evolution itself,” he said.

Miller, a Catholic, said evolution has been remarkably robust in answering criticism through fossil records, the fusing of human chromosomes and other examples.

Instead of attacking evolutionary theory, the argument should be against the anti-theistic interpretation of evolution, he said.

He quoted several scientists, philosophers and religious leaders, including Pope Benedict XVI, who has written: “Even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.”

“By understanding the mechanics of this world, what one is really doing is praising and glorifying God,” Miller said.

Miller will answer questions from the public at 10 a.m. today at the Hall Center for the Humanities.

The lecture was the first in the “Difficult Dialogues” series on “Knowledge: Faith & Reason,” presented by the Hall Center and the Biodiversity Institute.

Federal Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled in favor of the Dover plaintiffs, will speak Sept. 26.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: christianity; creation; creationism; crevo; crevolist; darwin; darwinism; evolution; id; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign; pavlovian; theism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-348 next last
To: 43north

>I believe that God established the rules and regulations for evolution by His creation of DNA. He knew that this would eventually lead to the development of a being that would achieve a high enough level of consciousness to appreciate that "somebody" had set all of this up. It was at this time that He blessed Man with a soul and gave us Free Will to accept or reject Him.

>I do not believe that God directs all things that happen. He establishes the conditions and then allows most things to progress according to His natural laws. The study of His natural laws is called Science and one of these laws is called evolution.

>Darwin did not invent evolution; he recognized it as one of God's laws. He knew nothing of DNA. We do. Study DNA and you will find that it is so beautiful that only God could have created it.

I can't believe I'm jumping into one of these useless crevo threads, but here I am. I well appreciate the efforts of some on the evo side, although sometimes it seems like a believe in God is not something they spend much time on. Whether that's for the reason of retaining a divide between 'us and them,' I don't know. Regardless, they make a lot more sense to me than Creationists do who yammer on about how evolution is a religion, that's for sure.

Your post is one of the most sensible I've seen in many months of lurking on these threads. I don't agree with it entirely, but it's probably as close to my own personal belief system as anything else I've seen. Speaking of which, I may define my own in the course of this thread, or post, depending on whether I care enough to or whether I'm asked, but it's not my intent. These threads are far too entertaining, and occasionally informative and even thought-provoking (sometimes on both sides) for me to want to make it about me in any way, shape, or form. If I do go in that direction, my apologies. I'm not looking to clobber the forum with my way, though I think it's best for me, because I'm not interested in imposing it on anyone else, all the more so since those who typically do that feel the need to pull quotes from this or that version of this book that's apparently very important to them, that I frankly just don't give a rat's tail about. If it's important to you, fine. You'd be wasting your time trying to shape my own spirituality with anything like that, so, for both of our sake's, please, don't bother. If I ever change my mind, I'll be the first to humbly admit I was wrong, but for now, I will say that the less I see of that, the more willing I am to take a person seriously. Most folks I know who are deeply religious have the decency to refrain from quoting Scripture to people who don't want to hear it. It's downright rude.

The seemingly endless quoting of Scripture to support a point about the worthlessness, evil, or outright fraud of Darwin, usually on the basis that is involves views not compatible with Christianity? We simply don't all care about the Bible, nor do we have to, last I looked. We don't all believe in Jesus, either.

Some of us do, however, believe in God, and have respect for Darwin's work. Not because it's necessarily correct beyond a reasonable doubt, for damn sure; but clouding a rational evaluation in some quarters is the inexplicable insistence by some folks that it's hardly impossible to believe that one can assign validity to the theory based on the evidence without being some sort of Godless heathen. Oh, and, for Pete's sakes, looking at it as something that might actually hold great truth is too often dismissed as invalid because of the absurd canard that too many have turned it into the religion-of-sorts some of you seem to think characterizes some large percentage of people who've actually learned about the subject.

It's NOT a religion, even if a very small percentage of those introduced to it go on to view it in the terms you most vehemently complain about, ala Ann Coulter, that it's some sort of offshoot of liberalism, one to be thought of as any other movement that most folks should consider laughable if examined within the context of religion per se. Which I find to be highly insulting towards those intelligent and thoughtful posters who enrich this board with enormous volumes of information, much easily understood by the layman, which helps to make and illustrate some points that are apparently quite relevant, even to those of us who are not scientists & don't have a working knowledge of the subject...but, perhaps, just enough to figure that a scientific theory laid out as this one is just might carry an ounce or two more weight than the notion that the Creation Scientists are on the mark with their findings that the planet is 10,000 years old or less (because of course that's the most obvious time frame that can be arrived at with their approved interpretation of the relevant portions of Scripture).

Now, I'm sure you guys have ready-made retorts, perhaps even rewritten by the folks--who sport no agendas, of course, how could anyone look at it any other way?--who helm such reputable organizations as Answers in (that band Peter Gabriel used to play in, whatever the heck that is). But, hey...I'm not looking to offend anyone. The nastiness on these threads is unfortunate, mostly because it doesn't do too much, at least in my eyes, to strike a blow for the cause of conservatism. And I do remember last year, the likes of George Will & Charles Krauthammer, writing clear, specific pieces on why teaching ID in the public schools was simply a bad idea. Oh, yeah, and the folks who I'll just say are more religious, for whom ID simply was not God-like enough, let alone evolution. What was the thread? God said it, that settles it? Something like that. The more deeply religious among us don't have much use for ID, anyway. Hey, maybe they have a point. Who really knows?

We can spin our wheels all we want. For those for us for whom the Bible is merely a book, we can believe that God & evolution can co-exist, we can feel that there's no easy answer as to how much of a role God plays in Creation, since none of us were actually there to see it, and we can look at these threads as unfortunate but inevitable name-calling that may not do much good, but apparently lets off a lot of steam.

Heather McDonald's piece from a few weeks ago was excellent. I don't know that she's an atheist, but she found it curious that God is worth thanking when good things happen, or when bad things don't, but strangely absent from the equation is any criticism when bad things do actually happen. But, hey, she's just one of those Northeasterners, what the heck do they know, anyway.

Me, I'll accept that my belief in God is secure enough that I can withstand anyone who wants to tell me anything they like about my refusal to believe in their God, to not offer much significance to what Jesus represents to a lot of people, and even less to a Bible I have no use for. And if my choice of God is wrong, I'll have to face up to that, and It's not something I fear in the least. Hit me with all the hellfire & brimstone you feel is appropriate, and I'll take it under consideration; and I'll continue to leave pamphlets I'm handed that I have no use for, conspicuously near Islamic Cultural Centers. If there's anyone who needs your ideas of God, it's probably those sadly misguided malcontents.

But while I won't speculate on how much of a role the God I believe in may have played in creation AND/OR evolution, I will say that it'll take a heck of a lot more than a consistently nasty flame war on a message board to shake my faith in my interpretation of who and/or what God is.

In the meantime, I keep an open mind about evolution. If there's something out there that appears to make more sense, I'm all for it. I haven't seen it, or anything like it. The evos on this board do what I consider to be a tremendous job with their posts, the info in those posts, and not being afraid to answer admittedly tough questions that might just be beyond my ability to form a decent answer...if I cared enough to. Believe whatever you want to believe. The anti-evolutionist stuff is foolish & counterproductive so far as I can see; that it's not good enough for some people that the Pope can see no conflict is something that leads me to believe that he's just not considered what I grew up thinking he was looked upon as--a religious leader with at least a modicum of wisdom, and one worthy of some measure of respect. Oh, well, have fun.

I'll keep my faith & my spirituality to myself, and I'll live with whatever consequences that entails. And if someone comes along with a better view on things than evolution, I'll certainly take an open-minded look at it, but I suspect I shouldn't hold my breath.


101 posted on 09/09/2006 11:29:26 PM PDT by One-Four-Five
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: One-Four-Five
...my belief in God ...

I'm curious. Since you don't subscribe to the Judeo/Christian God...then what God do you believe in.

102 posted on 09/09/2006 11:39:38 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: balch3
he's wrong.

Thanks for your opinion.

103 posted on 09/09/2006 11:40:14 PM PDT by AtomicBuffaloWings (Still not hot enough, A few of my tastebuds are still alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Torie; VictoryGal; andysandmikesmom; PatrickHenry; jwalsh07; Just mythoughts; Miss Marple
There is a difference between "Evolution" and "Evolutionism." The former is no threat to religious belief whatsoever, unless one's model of divine causality is so restricted as to permit the intervention of God only as a primary cause of the material creation of the form of man, a viewpoint which simultaneously denies that God can act as the secondary cause, working through material processes he created which, by definition, means that these material causes are contingent upon his creative impulse. Denial of God's ability to act through contingent material processes or denial that their results are still from God and according to God's plan represents a limitation placed upon God's omniscience, which in the opinion of many who are both religiously inclined and see no conflict between evolution and religion, is a theological error.

The real conflict is between "Evolutionism" -- the argument made by some scientists that the evidence for evolution disproves the existence of God -- and religious belief. Those scientists who advance this supposition make the opposite epistemological error of Creationists and the same one as Intelligent Design advocates. Whereas Creationists begin with the primacy of the metaphysical arguments of translated scripture interpreted in its literal sense and cross into the scientific; ID supporters and "Evolutionists" begin with the physical evidence and cross into metaphysics. Since materialistic and metaphysical inquiry are both entirely distinct from each other in the rational methods they apply to reach logical conclusions, any such crossovers must be rejected as methodologically unsound.

And as a final comment, anyone who rejects the Theory of Evolution for religious reasons should understand that they are rejecting much more than a scientific explanation for the origins of the material form of man. The sciences of Geology, Biology, Nuclear Physics, Astrophysics (yes, Astrophysics), Paleontology, Botany, Taxonomy, Zoology, Physics, and their many subdisciplines have all produced findings which converge in the Theory of Evolution in its modern form. To reject the Theory of Evolution is to reject so much of science that the problems created in the process are insurmountable by any standard of rationality worth the name.
104 posted on 09/09/2006 11:42:05 PM PDT by StJacques ( Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: One-Four-Five
I just want to comment that your extensive reflections in your post #101 contain a lot of food for thought. It's a little late right now and I haven't had time to digest it all on one quick read-through, but I'm going to come back to it later.

But my first conclusion about what you have written is that it is definitely an honest, serious, and deeply-pondered reflection One-Four-Five, so I congratulate you on that. You may be hearing from me later, as I am definitely of a mind to encourage you to continue.
105 posted on 09/09/2006 11:47:16 PM PDT by StJacques ( Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

As always, excellent observations, clearly and beautifully presented...


106 posted on 09/09/2006 11:47:32 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
And as a final comment, anyone who rejects the Theory of Evolution for religious reasons should understand that they are rejecting much more than a scientific explanation for the origins of the material form of man.

You seem to be saying that evolutionary science is incapable of positing a mechanism for human intellect. If true, I'd like to know on what basis you make this supposition.

107 posted on 09/09/2006 11:52:35 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

You've always been very kind to me in your comments. I hope you remember that I have congratulated you in the past on some of your postings, because if you don't then I'm going to start getting embarrased here. :-)


108 posted on 09/09/2006 11:54:28 PM PDT by StJacques ( Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: 43north; csense

"randomness"

Is there really that much randomness out there in biology? If there WAS true randomness in evolution, wouldn't we see some animals with three eyes, five legs, a mouth on its chest, unsymmetrical bodies, etc?

Instead, nature is incredibly uniform: virtually every creature has a head at the front of its body, with 2 eyes, a mouth and nose close-by, an even number of limbs, symmetrical bodies, proteins that all have a "right-handed twist", etc.

Sounds like patterns, not randomness, to me.


109 posted on 09/09/2006 11:55:40 PM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: csense
"You seem to be saying that evolutionary science is incapable of positing a mechanism for human intellect."

I don't want to make the mistake of misunderstanding your post, but I am assuming that you take my comment on the "creation of the material form of man" as something separate from human intellect. I'm going to proceed on that basis and if I am wrong in what I assume you may feel free to correct me.

I was not maintaining that evolutionary science is incapable of "positing a mechanism for human intellect." I was separating the creation of the "material form of man," which I believe the Theory of Evolution does quite well, from the creation of man's spiritual soul. I see the material history and the spiritual history of mankind as distinctly separate and I do not mix the two together.

And yes; I do believe that God alone is responsible for the creation of the spiritual soul of man. I will not explain that in scientific terms or put the event within a timeline or present it within an overall chronology because I view the nature of God as something beyond mortal comprehension. But I do believe it passionately nonetheless.
110 posted on 09/10/2006 12:01:04 AM PDT by StJacques ( Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

I do remember, and thank you....


111 posted on 09/10/2006 12:01:24 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: csense

If it bothers you that I'm not interested in being more specific, then I'm sorry. My faith does not require such specifics. Even if it did, I will say I find it a bit spiritually counterproductive when people define themselves on the basis of their chosen God in a way that suggests that it may be a crutch of sorts.

But that may sound judgmental, and that's not something I really want to be. If it makes anyone feel any better, I'm not going to insist that it's not what they perceive to be the Judeo-Christian God, although I tend to view the entire issue differently than most folks. I will say that I can't see Buddhism or Hinduism or Paganism or a whole bunch of others as making any more sense, and I do think there's something to the idea of this country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, so that bothers me less than a lot of other aspects of the relationships others have, or claim to have, with whatever God it is that they believe in.

It ain't Allah, I can and will say that with no small certainty.

But I have no use for rituals, dogma, Scripture, Sunday School, or spiritual pursuits in the name of religion that simply make no sense to me. And while there are exceptions, most religious 'leaders' I've come into contact with were sanctimonious boors from whom I could never imagine receiving spiritual guidance. So I leave them & their followers to whatever it is they wish to do, think, pray, and think of folks like me who inevitably make judgments even though I do my best to live and let live.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster don't work for me (but then I was only agnostic for a short period of time, and was never looking to wear atheism as a badge), and the issue of how Christmas is treated in public vis-a-vis the ACLU, atheists, and major retailers is a pathetic episode that I don't pay much attention to, except to lament that I don't really care if the atheists were pissed about it in decades past. I think we all managed to deal with it okay, and we have bigger fish to fry. That said, I try not to be overly sensitive to feeling as though I'm having religion pushed on me, but during times when one feels uncomfortable in such a scenario, I will say it's not the nicest, warmest, pleasantest feeling. But moving on, in this country, anyway, shouldn't be too difficult.

Mostly to confound people, I do make it a point to use Kwanzaa stamps every December. I sometimes derive pleasure from immature chuckles, and if someone wants to hold that against me, that's their affair.

If anything like that interferes with someone's faith, then I'd say they're still searching. I don't need a name or an identity for the God I believe in. For me it's a matter of Faith that just doesn't seem to fit anything I'm familiar with, and I don't consider it necessary to seek out the pigeonhole that best describes & informs my experience. I just don't need the security blanket it looks like some folks cling to in their relentless pursuit of applying Scripture to each & every possible argument one can put forth. Maybe someday I'll find it, or it'll find me. I won't lose faith without it, or at least I don't think so. What's important is what I feel, and that's all that matters so far as I'm concerned.

Sorry for the long-winded response. It's just not the sort of thing I feel capable of answering properly in two sentences.


112 posted on 09/10/2006 12:08:22 AM PDT by One-Four-Five
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

Thank you for the kind words. My time may be limited over the next few days, but I would look forward to spending some more time on this as well. As I indicated, I have to this point mostly refrained because the general level of discourse on these topics just isn't something I'm comfortable with even though I lean far to the evo side in the debate. But people like to trip their opponents up in words, vague interpreations of meanings, sometimes spelling skills, other times absolutes based on information that may only be perceived as accurate, by the poster trying to present it as such. If these weren't redeemed by some info I consider well worth reading and investigating, they would make for very depressing reads, as the humorous insults are far outweighed by the nasty ones.

Until next time...


113 posted on 09/10/2006 12:16:30 AM PDT by One-Four-Five
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: 43north
Oddly enough, I'm about as agnostic as it gets but:
"Study the processes of DNA and one will aprreciate the genius of God's solution to the problem of how to move life forward in an orderly manner."
Seems very much on the mark.

I'm sometimes OK with coincidence, but nothing in what I've seen so far supports an accident.

114 posted on 09/10/2006 12:16:59 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
The sciences of Geology, Biology, Nuclear Physics, Astrophysics (yes, Astrophysics), Paleontology, Botany, Taxonomy, Zoology, Physics, and their many subdisciplines have all produced findings which converge in the Theory of Evolution in its modern form. To reject the Theory of Evolution is to reject so much of science that the problems created in the process are insurmountable by any standard of rationality worth the name.

Horse manure

Evolution is susceptible to falsification just like any other scientific theory, and and it shares no special privilege that should insulate it from criticism...nor should it.

If evolution falls, then so be it and let the chips fall where they may.

Physics right now is becoming increasingly subject to a similar problem, in that, most physicists are drawn to string theory, and If it turns out to be incorrect, then that will have a great impact as to the progression of knowledge in classical/particle physics.

That wouldn't be the fault of science though, but rather scientists.

Rhetoric like yours does no true service to science.

115 posted on 09/10/2006 12:18:07 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

I do agree that TOE is a system of thinking and belief which encompasses modern scientific disciplines. Problem is that by its design the system models what God is and how His creation took place.

TOE is the ultimate restriction upon the Creator, their model sits in a fenced higher estate and some allow for the attachment of a creator by their definition.

The created ones have designed their own system of creation.


116 posted on 09/10/2006 12:19:30 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
There is no scientific evidence of guidance in the process. This does not mean that the process is unguided, it means only that any guidance that may have been involved is thus far undetectable. Thus, an accurate representation is that the process is "apparently" unguided, not that it is without question unguided.

Great explanation. Thanks.
117 posted on 09/10/2006 12:26:12 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
I was not maintaining that evolutionary science is incapable of "positing a mechanism for human intellect." I was separating the creation of the "material form of man," which I believe the Theory of Evolution does quite well, from the creation of man's spiritual soul.

But if man's soul is not inextricably connected to man's intellect...then what observations can we make that would differentiate an intelligent, evolved being, from one that also has a soul.

118 posted on 09/10/2006 12:33:10 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Of course evolution and religion can co-exist.

However, dogma and ignorance tend to not co exist with common sence and logic.


119 posted on 09/10/2006 12:38:49 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (I was in the house when the house burnt down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csense
"Horse manure"

No, csense, all of those disciplines I listed do have findings which contribute to the Theory of Evolution. A lot of people who criticize the Theory of Evolution fail to recognize what it really is, which is an attempt to synthesize the findings of many scientific disciplines together in one larger theory which explains the origins of species. To reject the Theory of Evolution requires that its constituent pieces be dealth with in some fashion. This in a necessity in any scientific theory which represents a synthesis of findings, as is the case with the Theory of Evolution.

"Evolution is susceptible to falsification just like any other scientific theory, and and it shares no special privilege that should insulate it from criticism...nor should it.

If evolution falls, then so be it and let the chips fall where they may.
"

That is true of all scientific theories, since they must be disprovable. The problem with the expression of your viewpoint is that you seem to be arguing that somewhere out there is observed evidence presented scientifically which suggests the Theory of Evolution is flawed. That tactic surfaces again and again on these crevo threads but, in spite of all attempts to the contrary, no other scientific argument has been advanced to this date which undermines the basics of the theory. There are, of course, lively debates within evolutionary science and within the various the scientific disciplines whose findings contribute to our understanding of evolution, which could impact the way in which we view it. But there is no debate within any scientific discipline as of now which would tend to undermine the broad outlines of the theory. There has been no falsification of evolution. Is it ever possible that there could be? Yes. But then it's also possible that the Law of Gravity could be falsified too.

"Physics right now is becoming increasingly subject to a similar problem, in that, most physicists are drawn to string theory, and If it turns out to be incorrect, then that will have a great impact as to the progression of knowledge in classical/particle physics."

Yes; string theory is becoming ever more attractive because the indeterminate science of sub-atomic particle physics just leaves too many scientists unsatisfied that the truth of the material world cannot be known, which is one of the basic underpinnings of science. But as an example offered to undermine the validity of the Theory of Evolution, reference to string theory really fails because its solution will dramatically reduce our view of "randomness," which will go a long way to explaining dynamic models of change in many scientific disciplines whose findings contribute to our understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

"Rhetoric like yours does no true service to science."

I submit I have been most respectful of science.
120 posted on 09/10/2006 12:43:31 AM PDT by StJacques ( Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-348 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson