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.
Sorry, incorrect again.
I have actually studied the evidence, for a number of years in grad school. That means handling casts of a lot of the major specimens and reading the professional literature. Since then, a lot more evidence has come from the genetics research, and it has confirmed what the fossils revealed.
Your religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it qualify you to enter into scientific debates. You may have opinions, but they are just that.
Colts @ Giants placemark
Okay. Is that because you don't like evolution and are calling it names, or because you have objective criteria by which you can distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis?
However, one does not have to believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible to be a Christian. Evolution is entirely compatible there.
It's in the Bible. He doesn't give us a complete run down of the human body in all it's detail either but there are parts there that aren't mentioned. And who's to say it's physical. It could be the same form, as in shape, just not the same substance.
What evidence do you have that He IS speaking allegorically when referring to Himself?
Why is it such an issue that God's shape, or form, is like ours? On what basis do you presume that it isn't? There's Scriptural reference to His form being like ours? What evidence, Scriptural or not, is there that it isn't? How can someone make claims with nothing to back themselves up?
And you know this how? How and where did you acquire such wisdom and knowledge to definitively state this as fact?
If you don't believe the Bible is God's Word, then there is nothing left on which to base any concept of God except imagination and speculation.
That was a question, not a declarative statement.
If you don't believe the Bible is God's Word, then there is nothing left on which to base any concept of God except imagination and speculation.
Gnostics disagree with you.
"DARWINIANISM IS AN ATTACK AGAINST THE ATONING SACRIFICE OF JESUS. SOUNDS DRASTIC, BUT IT REALLY IS.
CHOOSE: JESUS, OR DARWIN.
You're right, Theo.
But compromisers can't stand truth.
It's so.... arrogant!
So? Just because he died a physical death does not mean there was no physical death prior to the fall.
In fact, if you believe humans and animals weren't susceptible to physical death before the fall, what is the purpose of the Tree of Life in the garden?
Do theistic evolutionist believe he did not die a physical death?
Christian theistic evolutionists believe he died physically and suffered both spiritually and physically.
My biggest "hang up" is with the human beings though because that affects the rest of the story of the Bible.
Well, there must have been animal death before the fall. We know from the fossil record that billions of animal organisms had been dying for hundreds of millions of years before humans even existed. I don't see why this is a problem, because the relevent passage on death and sin in Romans 5 refers specifically to human death.
Now I think it is possibe to postulate that God gave the first two fully human individuals the supernatural grace of immortality, as symbolized by the tree of life, and that he withdrew it when they sinned. There's no way science could ever disprove that, and it is consistent with the Bible.
I think it's also plausible to postulate that with the fall came spiritual death (that humans always were subject to physical death), and that is consistent with Romans 5 as well. I'm inclined to think this is the more likely interpretation, but either one is plausible.
I believe the Tree of Life gave man & woman some miraculous ability to live forever.
I think it's also plausible to postulate that with the fall came spiritual death (that humans always were subject to physical death), and that is consistent with Romans 5 as well..
How is it consistent with Romans 5 when it says "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin."? This says to me that there was no death until man sinned. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Is your belief that all these Scriptures and others should have the word spiritual in front of the word death? Am I interpreting your thoughts correctly on this?
Bah!
Yeah, it's possible. I didn't say it wasn't. But because so much Scripture refers to God having parts of a body as if it were fact, it lends weight to it being true, not allegorical, so I'm inclined to accept it as true. If it makes sense as it is, and doesn't contradict the rest of the Bible, then it's generally recognised as safe to conclude that it means what it says. If what's plainly presented doesn't make sense as it is, then it's reasonable to look for other interpretations, but unless there's a good reason to conclude that a particular passage is allegorical, it doesn't make sense to assume it is from the start.
We also have to realize that the description of Creation presented in Genesis is nearly identical to the descriptions of Creation by many other religions of the time.
The Old Testament is part storytelling, part historical recording of the lineage of the tribes of Israel.
"There is NO objective evidence to support evolution, hence it is a hypothesis.
That's what I always thought and continue to believe. It certainly ain't no theory.
>> Let me ask you this: isn't is possible that the body parts are allegorical?
> Yeah, it's possible.
If it's possible, then using God's physical resemblance to man as an argument against evolution falls flat.
So, thanks... and have a great evening.
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.