Evolution Sunday This Weekend
Some American Christians have decided to make a stand against science, especially against the science of Biology and the theory that ties it all together. Because the theory of evolution is hard to understand, and because it is easy to frame it in an unflattering way, a majority of Americans are confused about it and afraid of it. Luckily, science isn't conducted by taking polls, and research is largely unaffected by public opinion, but some things like public education do force a negotiation between facts and the sentiments of the public.
From The Clergy Letter Project:
This project has been going on for a little more than a year, it looks like. Michael Zimmerman, the Dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, has been collecting signatures from clergy for this letter:
This letter has ten thousand signatures.
Ten thousand.
It looks like about fifteen Maryland churches are planning Evolution Sunday activities. It will be interesting to see how it gets played in the press (I imagine they'll have to interview Michelle Turner for her views on it). It will be also be interesting to see if there is a snowball effect, as other groups rise to the challenge. It is not in religion's best interest to try to deny scientific findings -- it becomes one of those "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes" situations.
From The Clergy Letter Project:
On 12 February 2006 hundreds of Christian churches from all portions of the country and a host of denominations will come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. Now, on the 197th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries. And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic.
If your church would like to join this national event, please send a note to mz@uwosh.edu. We welcome your participation.
To examine some of the sermons members of The Clergy Letter Project have delivered on this topic and to view some of the resources they have found useful, click here.
412 Congregations from 49 states are participating as of 3 February 2006
This project has been going on for a little more than a year, it looks like. Michael Zimmerman, the Dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, has been collecting signatures from clergy for this letter:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
This letter has ten thousand signatures.
Ten thousand.
It looks like about fifteen Maryland churches are planning Evolution Sunday activities. It will be interesting to see how it gets played in the press (I imagine they'll have to interview Michelle Turner for her views on it). It will be also be interesting to see if there is a snowball effect, as other groups rise to the challenge. It is not in religion's best interest to try to deny scientific findings -- it becomes one of those "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes" situations.
posted by JimK at 11:25 AM
15 Comments:
"Some American Christians have decided to make a stand against science, especially against the science of Biology and the theory that ties it all together."
This post starts out with this lie. No one is taking a stand against science. Those who support intelligent design have pointed out that the theory of evolution has not been scientifically validated, contrary to the impression being created by some. When the evolutionsts start to talk about proof, they are referring to the adaption of microscopic organisms. No one has any idea how large anatomical structures might have developed or new species would have come about or, even, how life began at all. The fossil record doesn't support evolution either but looks closer to the Genesis account.
Historically, religion and science have not been at odds. Galileo's story is so often referred to because it's so rare. In general, most of history's greatest scientists were motivated by a desire to study God's handiwork.
"Because the theory of evolution is hard to understand,"
It's not really all that hard to understand. It's just hard to justify as it's apologists struggle to do. This is why students from Christian schools which actually critique the theory while teaching it rather than blindly accept it tend to fare better on stanardized testing.
Anon,
You are such a hypocrite. You benefit from all the advances made in molecular biology over the past century while you spout your ridiculous tripe.
Give up modern western medicine and I'll begin to take you seriously.
The theory of evolution is far more plausible than Intelligent Design will ever be. Even if the theory of evolution hasn't been scientifically validated -- although there is plenty of evidence to support the theory -- Intelligent Design is unable to stand against scrutiny, simply because it's not an actual theory at all, and can't be tested against any criteria.
Imagining a greater power for anything that can't be explained is just the easy way out; before religion super powerful gods were made up to explain the inexplainable.
"The theory of evolution is far more plausible than Intelligent Design will ever be. Even if the theory of evolution hasn't been scientifically validated -- although there is plenty of evidence to support the theory -- Intelligent Design is unable to stand against scrutiny, simply because it's not an actual theory at all, and can't be tested against any criteria.
Imagining a greater power for anything that can't be explained is just the easy way out; before religion super powerful gods were made up to explain the inexplainable"
I don't think anyone claims that IT can be proved. But it will always be the most plausible explanation for what we see, not just in biology, but in the entire physical universe. The mystery of why things seem to be designed will always have as it's most likely explanation that they were.`Remember, whether you believe that or not, you can still study the function of living things with the same precision and insight. This whole notion that evolution is the unifying theory of biology is a bunch of bombast.
As evolution has been examined over the years, however, discoveries seem to make it a less and less likely candidate for an explanation for the diverse world of nature. Atheist scientist cling to it because of the history. The molecular explanations for changes in DNA is all very interesting and exciting but not the same as macro-evolution or plausible as an explanation of species diversification.
If the scientfifc establishment wanted to make peace, they could simply support stating in biology classes that nothing in any scientific theory proves that there wasn't a Creator. Unfortunately, this they will never do because their purpose is that kids will not believe in a living God.
they could simply support stating in biology classes that nothing in any scientific theory proves that there wasn't a Creator.
Anon, they say this all the time -- it is the main statement that any scientist makes about religion. Evolution doesn't say anything one way or the other -- science itself doesn't provide any evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. Certainly you don't believe that scientists themselves take evolution as proof that there is no God -- each person makes up his own mind about that, and there may be atheist scientists just as there are religious ones, but evolution is only opposed to religion in the minds of some small number of fundamentalists/evangelicals.
JimK
"Anon, they say this all the time -- it is the main statement that any scientist makes about religion. Evolution doesn't say anything one way or the other -- science itself doesn't provide any evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. Certainly you don't believe that scientists themselves take evolution as proof that there is no God -- each person makes up his own mind about that, and there may be atheist scientists just as there are religious ones, but evolution is only opposed to religion in the minds of some small number of fundamentalists/evangelicals."
That's all they said in Dover, Jim. Atheist parents objected.
That's all they said in Dover, Jim. Atheist parents objected.
I don't know which is worse, your misrepresentation of the Dover curriculum, or your misrepresentation of the parents. But the fact is, the two fit together into a general disregard for the truth in favor of slander of anything and anyone you disagree with.
JimK
I guess you didn't pay attention to the whole thing. The schools read a statement that evolution is not proven that lasted, maybe, ten seconds and then taught weeks of evolutionary theory. There was no IT "curriculum" taught in the schools. The whole thing centered around the blasphemy against Darwinism- that it, gasp, might not be true.
Here's the shocking statement read to students in Dover. After hearing this, they were taught weeks of evolutionary theory.
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
Anon ... that's not what you said it said. This statement implies that Intelligent Design is a theory -- they're careful in one place, sloppy in the other, about their use of the word -- that is somehow equivalent to Darwin's well-supported scientific theory of the adaptation of species through natural selection. The fact is, ID does not meet any of the criteria for presentation in a science class, is not studied or promoted by biologists, and does not deserve to be introduced in a science class any more than astrology or "How the Leopard Got Its Spots" belongs there.
Oh, and hey, Anon, does this ring a bell" They don't know me. They don't know that I'm the co-director of the children's choir at church, or that I run the music at the second service, or that my wife and I run Vacation Bible School. Yet they have no problem going around calling me an atheist because my particular religious viewpoint doesn't agree with that of the school board, which is a public entity and not a religious one.: Bryan Rehm, Dover parent and plaintiff.
Or this -- this one does seem familiar: It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.: Judge Judge John E. Jones III.
Was he talking about you, Anon?
JimK
"Anon ... that's not what you said it said. This statement implies that Intelligent Design is a theory -- they're careful in one place, sloppy in the other, about their use of the word -- that is somehow equivalent to Darwin's well-supported scientific theory of the adaptation of species through natural selection. The fact is, ID does not meet any of the criteria for presentation in a science class, is not studied or promoted by biologists, and does not deserve to be introduced in a science class any more than astrology or "How the Leopard Got Its Spots" belongs there."
Intelligent design is a theory. It can never be proven, but there are things which can lead you to think that it is the most probable explanation for what we see. That's exactly the same sitaution as Darwinism is in. These things are historical and can't be proven. No one observes macroevolution taking place any more than they see creation taking place. It's all speculative.
Look at some of this "well-supported scientific evidence". Like this nonsense Jim spouted out just yesterday about how similar DNA is among different living things. Evolutionists have the nerve to say this proves evolution is true. But long before DNA, philosophers noted the similarity between living things and thought it proof of a creator. DNA adds to their deduction, it deducts from evolution. If random forces created life, why did they only create one kind?
As for Jim's contention that the Dover board implied IT is a theory equal to evolution- the truth is they should have, but didn't. How does a one paragraph statement about the possibility of IT not being ruled out equalize a multi-week, detailed examination of evolution. It only would in the mind of a hardened, partisan pusher of materialism.
"They don't know me. They don't know that I'm the co-director of the children's choir at church, or that I run the music at the second service, or that my wife and I run Vacation Bible School. Yet they have no problem going around calling me an atheist because my particular religious viewpoint doesn't agree with that of the school board, which is a public entity and not a religious one.: Bryan Rehm, Dover parent and plaintiff."
This poor guy. Someone, in the heat of all this national controversy, called him a name. He should try moving down here. That's standard operating procedure for TTF's GLAAD-designed PR approach.
Now, who exactly, called him this? Is there any documentation of this incident? Or was this just part of the rhetoric?
While we're on the topic, it's not only possible to run a choir and a vacation Bible school and still be an atheist, it's actually more common than you might think.
What's intersting is that he says his religious viewpoint doesn't agree with the Board's. Did he sue to get the state to endorse his religious viewpoint? He seems to be conceding that Darwinism is, in fact, a religious viewpoint.
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.: Judge Judge John E. Jones III."
This guy was obviously trying to impress the national press. We've seen this before. Anybody remember Charles Moose?
The purpose of a policy is irrelevant. The effect is what matters and the effect of the Dover policy was to teach evolution without implying that it precluded a Creator. Where was the harm?
Anon said, "Intelligent design is a theory."
No it isn't. Intelligent design is creationism with a few key words changed. Creationism is an ancient myth believed by followers of certain religions and not believed by followers of other religions.
"It can never be proven, but there are things which can lead you to think that it is the most probable explanation for what we see. That's exactly the same sitaution as Darwinism is in."
ID can never be proven because it rests on the premise of a supernatural force which cannot be observed or measured. Darwin's theory of evolution is in no way in the same situation because it does not rely on the premise of an unobservable and unmeasurable supernatural force.
"...long before DNA, philosophers noted the similarity between living things and thought it proof of a creator. DNA adds to their deduction, it deducts from evolution. If random forces created life, why did they only create one kind?"
Life developed in a specific place (on Earth only, so far as we yet know) and under certain conditions with whatever materials the primordial ooze might have contained. Those factors limited the possible outcomes. The better question is if some Intelligent Designer with limitless power and capability created the universe with its stars, planets, black holes, etc., why did the designer "only create one kind?" If man was made in God's image, then why do we share so much of our DNA and physical appearance with chimps?
"What's intersting is that he says his religious viewpoint doesn't agree with the Board's. Did he sue to get the state to endorse his religious viewpoint?"
No, he sued to stop the school board from imposing one religious view on his children in their science classes against his wishes. He appears to keep his religious activities outside of the public school system and inside private religious institutions where they belong.
"He seems to be conceding that Darwinism is, in fact, a religious viewpoint."
He doesn't seem to be conceding anything to anyone but you.
First you implied ID is scientific by saying it is a "theory" and now you say a Dover parent "seems" to concede evolution is a religion. You are working really hard to confound and confuse religion with science.
As the Clergy Letter Project noted, "For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy."
You take it even further when you imply ID is science and the scientific theory of evolution is a religion. You are wrong on both counts.
Christine
"No it isn't. Intelligent design is creationism with a few key words changed. Creationism is an ancient myth believed by followers of certain religions and not believed by followers of other religions."
The majority of the world's population believes the universe was created by God. Could you tell us which ones don't and what they do believe?
Although all these people are understandably excited that science has observed things that tend to confirm this, the theory was first created by a secular scientist in the 1970s who noted in a peer-reviewed paper that the various physical forces of the universe seem to have been intentionly fine-turned to create a certain balance. Time magazine recently called this observation the most profound paradox in modern science. Why shouldn't kids be made aware of this exciting development?
"ID can never be proven because it rests on the premise of a supernatural force which cannot be observed or measured."
I'm not sure this is true. The Catholic Church regularly investigates whether miracles have actually happened or if there is a natural explanation. I guess there could always be alternative explanations but you could probably say you got as close to proving it as you could with some natural events. As our good friend Jim has reminded us often, nothing can ever be proven absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt.
"Darwin's theory of evolution is in no way in the same situation because it does not rely on the premise of an unobservable and unmeasurable supernatural force."
Actually, Darwin's theory has been proven incorrect many times but its adherents always come up with corollary theories to cover the inconsistencies, much like pagans desperately clinging to some false nature god. Chaos theory, punctionated equilibrium, preprogrammed evolution- it never ends.
"Life developed in a specific place (on Earth only, so far as we yet know) and under certain conditions with whatever materials the primordial ooze might have contained."
Well, Darwin never said that. Scientists have tried and failed many times to prove this and duplicate it. Failure.
"No, he sued to stop the school board from imposing one religious view on his children in their science classes against his wishes."
They didn't impose anything on anyone and mentioning it briefly and then teaching in detail about the Darwinist point of view is hardly doing anything with "one religious view".
"As the Clergy Letter Project noted, "For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy.""
Most of the signers are from churches that long ago abandoned the idea of a living God instead reducing scripture to a bunch of fables with some good morals. Did you know that the Unitarian church not too long ago voted at their annual meeting to forbid the mention of God in their services because it was patriarchal?
"You take it even further when you imply ID is science and the scientific theory of evolution is a religion. You are wrong on both counts"
You can understand Darwin. He was from a time without as much knowledge as we have and he hesitated to publish his theory for twenty years because he knew the implications. His theory was a brilliant feat of ideation.
But what to make of the Cillys, Jims and Davids who, at this late date, when we have so much knowledge about the complexity and interdependency of living organisms that evolution looks rather silly, nevertheless still desperately want to believe, in the face of all logic, in this evil theory that has brought so much suffering to our world. Unbelievable.
Post a Comment
<< Home