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.
My cat thinks I go to work at completely random times. He doesn't understand my schedule.
Undetected patterns != randomness
Thank you for your post to me...my take on Murray is much the same as you state...what I find interesting about him, is that he has a completely different take on many things, so different from traditional Biblical views...
Yes, I have seen him take that dinosaur fossil out of his desk drawer, and he does say, that folks who say the earth is only 6 thousand years old, are an embarrassment to their faith...what I find different about him is the two different days of creation of man...not saying I agree with him, or not, just saying he is really quite different...I also find him very different about the 'rapture'...stating that folks who think they are going to fly up into the sky with Jesus, are completely deceived and that they will fly away all right, will fly away with the Devil...this is not the usual thing we hear...its the complete opposite...Its interesting...
Yes, I would appreciate anything you would like to Freepmail me...I do find Murray interesting...and agree, with much of how you perceive him, perceiving him that way as well...
Thanks for your very courteous reply...its a refreshing change..
Consider the word "really" to mean "Actual". Not "made up."
Some creationists attacked me for stating that belief.
So the soul, the ETERNAL UNCHANGING part of you, isn't created in God's image, but your freaky, always changing, always decaying, monkey-looking body does.
Horrific is the word that comes to mind.
It's quite amazing to me that people who believe as you do and the rest of the world's Christians actually belong to the same religion.
This is often pointed out in the evolution threads. It never bothers the most stridently persistent of the anti-evolution posters. It therefore seems appropriate to use terms broader than "creationist" when speaking of such people. Although they often claim otherwise, they are actually science-deniers, and all that this implies.
Yes, you are incorrect, and this further proves it.
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?
No.
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
No.
God made the world in seven days. No one knows how long God's days are.
Also, stands2reason, what do you mean by posting "theist!=Christian". It's my understanding that a theistic evolutionist believes that God worked through evolution to bring about the world as we know it. Is that a correct definition?
Did plant death happen before the Fall? How about cell death?
If life now is exactly like it was for Adam and Eve, there would have to be cell death, but isn't cell replacement a requirement to keep a human living, not to have them die. Our dead cells aren't replaced as we age, so perhaps there was no need for replacement for Adam and Eve because they were not heading toward an ultimate death (before the Curse).
Plant decay...Like my answer above, if life now is exactly the same for Adam and Eve, then there would be decay if several days go by between their creation and when they are trampled on, or however they meet their end. But there is no way to know the conditions in the Garden of Eden, except that it was "very good".
My biggest "hang up" is with the human beings though because that affects the rest of the story of the Bible.
Just observed auto with the "Darwin" fish and bumper sticker that read: "He died in 33 A.D. GET OVER IT"
As a searching, humble agnostic I was disgusted and offended. Then I pondered the irony of this ignorant jerk apparently unaware that A.D. is the Year of the Lord... Anno Dominus.
What a neanderthal!!! LOL The Lord of Laughter - and what a sense of humor.
Kindly,
sp
Philosophy and theology can and should be separated. So thought Aquinas and he was as theological as they come.
How many times in these threads have I heard people say things like, "you can't be a Christian if you believe in evolution?" In this very thread we are told that evolutionary theory devalues the Lord, and that evolutionary theory makes Christianity a lie, that evolutionary theory attacks the sacrifice Yeshua of Nazareth made on the cross.
Is it possible there is another theological position? Of course. Here are some examples:
This one is taken from the article above: “By understanding the mechanics of this world, what one is really doing is praising and glorifying God,” Miller said. Kenneth Miller is not alone. This is indeed the theological position of many within science, including the biological sciences. In fact, this sentiment is much more common than is portrayed on these threads.
For another example, the director of the Human Genome Project at the NIH, a man by the name of Francis Collins, has said "I find my appreciation of science is greatly enriched by religion. When I discover something about the human genome, I experience a sense of awe at the mystery of life, and say to myself, 'Wow, only God knew before.' It is a profoundly beautiful and moving sensation, which helps me appreciate God and makes science even more rewarding for me."
Here is another one: G-d the Creator and Lord of the Universe, which is the work of his goodness and wisdom; and Man, made in His image, who is to hallow his week-day labors by the blessedness of Sabbath-rest -- such are the teachings of the Creation chapter. It's purpose is to reveal these teachings to the children of man -- and not to serve as a text book of astronomy, geology, or anthropology. Its object is not to teach scientific facts; but to proclaim highest religious truths respecting G-d, Man, and the Universe. The "conflict" between the fundamental realities of Religion and the established facts of Science, is seen to be unreal as the soon as Religion and Science each recognizes the true border of its domain. This was written by the famous British Rabbi J. H. Hertz (1872-1946).
Anecdotally, most of the people that I have personally known from working in biology and geosciences fields are not atheists. Contrary to popular notions on these threads, many of them are church (or synagogue) going people, and most of them have some measure of religious faith. None of them believes that evolutionary theory, or other scientific theories such as plate tectonic theory, is necessarily in conflict with their religion.
Why all the fighting? What we are seeing in these threads, then, is not a conflict between science and religion. For most people, including most religious people, science and faith are not opposed to one another. What we are experiencing is a sectarian conflict. This conflict exists between those with a certain highly literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter and people who hold more mainstream viewpoints. The theological position of mainstream Judaism and Christianity (including conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists) is that the Lord exists beyond scientific scrutiny. The creationism/intelligent design movement, on the other hand, seeks to validate the existence of the Creator by discovering forensic evidence that supports their theology. When the physical evidence does not square with their theological positions, it is the evidence and scientific method that become suspect. The result is the hostility demonstrated on these threads towards modern biology and science in general.
What we are seeing on these threads is a sectarian conflict. It is not "atheist science" versus Christianity at all. In actuality, this conflict is about the creationist/intelligent design movement seeking to elevate their theological position above the theological positions of others.
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.