[/caption] Posted on 05/11/2012 10:56:54 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
[dc]O[/dc]n May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree. But there is a problem. In recent weeks Emory faculty and students have asked the University to disinvite Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science’” poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”
The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”
In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years. Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.
That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts.
Earlier this week, Forbes magazine staff writer Alex Knapp wrote an essay entitled, “Why Some Christians Reject Evolution,” arguing that many Christians reject evolutionary theory because it conflicts with the Protestant view of the doctrines of original sin and salvation.
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="347" caption="Photo credit - iStockPhoto.com"][/caption]
Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950). Pius XII writes, "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”
In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided pre-existing, pre-created souls to those He designated and that these souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments.
In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life. There was no death before the fall of humanity. The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.
Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.
Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”
There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.
Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.
Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.
The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.
###
In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.” Click here to view the Petition.
The Bible is factual, not relative.
For some reason when I re-posted the article here it missed this paragraph:
Original sin is the idea that God created an absolutely perfect “good” world and a single sin against God committed by one person marred the purity of creation and implicated all of humanity in the act. The Christian gospel teaches that the pre-existing penalty for act of separation from God was eternal death. Being that humanity could not save itself from this penalty, Jesus Christ, a member of the Holy Trinity, personally came to earth, lived a pure life, died, and was resurrected, reconciling fallen humanity to God, thus closing the sin-caused gap between humans and God. Human beings who accept this death as substitution for their own prospective penalty will be given eternal life in a new earth.
(This is compromised by evolutionary thought.)
Tell me how and why an eyeball evolved. What came first, our immune systems or our need for an immune system? Could someone direct me to evidence of a single transitional fossil? No, not evidence of slight changes within a species, transitional fossils from one species to another. After all, there should be countless numbers of them. Please, someone give me the best 5 examples we see in nature today of something from one species that’s in the middle of turning into another. I’m not greedy, the top 5 will do. How about 1? Don’t tell me we just happen to be in a time in all the supposed billions of years of history that we can’t witness macroevolution happening. Lol.
Next time someone tells you you believe in fairy tales because you believe in the Bible tell them you’re not the one who believes a frog turns into a prince. Only evolutionists and 3-6 yr old girls believe that. :)
Man goes up to God and asks, “What’s a million years to you?”
God says, “a second”
Man asks, “What’s a million dollars to you?’
God says, “a penny”
Man then asks, “Can I have a penny?”
God says, “Sure, in a second.”
Good one!
Prove that.
Again, prove that assumption
From an august 2007 article by Scott Richert:
Almost 11 years ago, Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, caused quite a stir by declaring that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Some Catholics, particularly traditionalists, believed that the Holy Father was stepping outside of his competence in making judgments on scientific matters. Others, including Catholic scientists, welcomed Pope John Paul's reaffirmation of the traditional Catholic principle that "Truth cannot contradict truth." In other words, to the extent that the theory of evolution has a solid scientific basis, it must be compatible with Catholic doctrine.
A decade before, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered a series of homilies that were published in 1990 under the title In the Beginning . . . : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. In those homilies, he made a similar argument: The creation story in Genesis is a spiritual history. It simply doesn't matter what physical means God used to create the world and all living creatures therein; what matters is that man is both body and soul, and his creation is not complete until God has breathed the breath of life into him. And about the creation of the soul (and, thus, of the complete man), science can tell us nothing.
The probability of occurrence of the utterly improbable is extremely low, to the poinit of being unbelievable.
On this basis alone respected, highly accomplished, peer reviewed and published university faculty scientists of my acquaintance have declined to accept the evolutionary model. However, considering who it is that controls the gateways to advancement and tenure, they keep their doubts pretty much to themselves.
I don’t have much of a science background, but the problem I have with evolution generally is that it is hard for me to understand that genetics is that unstable and even if it is, why would a living thing mutate into something more complex rather than just breaking down.
Can you answer the question? Is general relativity a fraud?
I find evo hard to grasp after a close examination of the five senses. The more you learn the more the realize that thatwe were created by God.
I have more respect for those who believe ET seeded the planet then those who believe life evolved by chance
yeah, right.
If secularists can reduce us to mere animals they can do anything to us.
The probability of occurrence of the utterly improbable is extremely low, to the point of unbelievability.
On this basis alone respected, highly accomplished, peer reviewed and published university faculty scientists of my acquaintance have declined to accept the evolutionary model. However, considering who it is that controls the gateways to advancement and tenure, they keep their doubts pretty much to themselves.
Right on. Mutations [like the 2nd thermodynamic law] cause disorder, chaos, & extinctions. For evolution to be true it would be like DNA code providing the ‘intelligence’ thru random changes to rewrite itself but never causing any harm to the life forms.
Here’s a couple of links providing all the science one needs to know.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
The fact that we are alive is a sin, move on to Grace, something that is really important.
I don’t think you’re supposed to consider “old Earth” theories separately. It interferes with the conflation.
Yeah, like NONE!
“the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”
Strongly supported? What does that mean? That a lot of Godless leftists support it, then I guess that is a true statement though meant to deceive.
“....fact of science” .....”mythos of their faith”.????
More like the mythos of their science” .....” fact of our faith.
The trouble here is as with everything else, THE MEDIA. They report leftist views as scientific fact (when they are anything but scientific) and report religious views as crazy.
I have no trouble accepting the idea of an earth millions of years old but that cannot be equated with accepting the notions of evolution.
“In the beginning” has no time associated with it.
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.