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.
Thank you, as I sent to the poster that did not explain, my search brought me to the expounding upon that sin of 'pride', and it was committed against the Heavenly Father, described by Ezekiel 28:12-19 to the king of Tyrus.
Do you think that's why the Bible says "and there was evening and morning" for each of the 6 days of Creation?
So you would know that they're 24-hour days?
I have not read every post, do not have the time, but from what I have it seems that the Bible is objected to as credible source for discovery into the mind of the Heavenly Father.
Me personally after many years of searching and study have come to the conclusion that in this flesh body we can never fully comprehend the Glory the Power and Perfection that is the Heavenly Father.
But what would be the purpose of employing a transitional system. Philosophically speaking, the only benefit I can see is for man to understand the causality of nature. But this can be accomplished without the existence of evolution.
Tell, me, what, in your opinion, do you think would be beneficial for both God and man:
1)understanding the causality of nature through evolution
2)understanding the causality of God through creation
>What about the 'supposed' miracles performed by Jesus?
That's for someone else to care about, not me. Not interested.
>What did I 'interpret'?
By quoting the Bible, you have 'interpreted' that it is a valid means by which to discuss the existence of God. I reject this. Do I have to be any more blunt, or can we, as I have requested, leave it at that? There is nothing in that book that has any bearing on my Faith, and I see no productive reason to continue this line of discussion. If there is or was a Jesus, if he performed miracles or not, means nothing to me. My own feelings, belief, thoughts, and opinions on God are all I consider relevant, and since others sharing theirs with me is typically wasteful (and often obnoxious), my tendency is to keep it to myself. If that's wrong in the eyes of God, that's between him & me, not anyone else.
If you can't accept that my faith & belief doesn't hinge on Jesus, miracles, the Bible, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you're just going to have to get over it. And if this means I'm doomed to Hell, then that's my problem, not yours. If you're determined to discuss miracles, Jesus, & Scripture, take it up with someone who cares.
I don't understand why the two have to be mutually exclusive.
If you are referring to Mohamed, from what I've read about the history of Islam, he was illiterate. His followers wrote down what he said.
Who is a 'type' of Satan.
Ok then.
Oh; this is definitely true!
But, if GOD does 'communicate' with His creation; how does HE do it?
"In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1. Jesus taught that God created the world and Adam and Eve. Jesus does not lie. There is no "theistic evolution" but only a sell-out of Biblical truth to accomodate this anti-God age.
I stand corrected.
I agree, and I also accept the theory of evolution. What makes you think the theory contradicts the above doctrine?
Ken Miller argues that it facilitates free will.
In order for free will to exist, the created order has to have some independence from God. That is, it must be the case that God does not directly cause everything that happens in the universe. Creatures have to be capable of willing things and causing things on their own, and it is only fitting that they themselves are made through a process that God does not directly control.
Of course, God is the ultimate cause of all things, for he created nature and all its laws, and the universe is not completely independent Him. He sustains it, after all. That is not the same thing, however, as God directly willing and causing all things that happen therein.
We still have the problem(?) of how to accept what is considered to be a 'holy book'.
Just in the 'christian' world there are groups that don't accept ALL the bible. Others that add TO the bible, others that IGNORE parts of it while ACCEPTING it (how does THAT work?) and still others that barely read it at all.
In order for free will to exist, the created order has to have some independence from God.
How does temporal distance (time) and physical transition facilitate free will.
By creation I mean man in his present form, which is incompatible with common descent.
Neither of those is important. What matters is secondary causation.
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.