I bumped into this while tracking coverage of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Seems traditional churches are getting more than a little tired of fundamentalist cookbooks. This may be the biggest covered up story in history! Ask yourself why?
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.
“Evolution Sunday” was celebrated on the 197th anniversary of Darwin’s birthday. The call was to a dialogue on compatibility between religion and science — not the false dichotomy called for by those who are pushing “intelligent Design”.
I’m certain you read about it in your local newspaper, right? Yeah, right.
Because nobody except flaming religious types and flaming scientific types really care.
Right, cj. Much better (and safer, of course) to have no opinion, no information and no discussion. It’s the New Amerika.
The media is more interested in a fight. Even if the major sects of Christianity and all scientists don’t care, the media will still go out and find some dingbats who want to bang their head into the wall.
Ha ha, not the explosion Wayne had in mind…
Wayne: Anything can be portrayed as dumb if one is willing to be glib enough.
“Evil” is right. The media doesn’t care about reasonable people getting together to calmly discuss a topic. Perhaps if there were a riot first…
Wayne: Anything can be portrayed as dumb if one is willing to be glib enough.
Like when Matt Lauer made Tom Cruise look dumb by being glib? That was awesome.
Just because somebodies pet issue isn’t in the front page of every newspaper in the country doesn’t mean that all discussion of the issue is not allowed. There are multiple places for it to occur (there is this place on the internet called dvorak.org/blog, that tracks stories about the evolution/intelligent design hoopla — Shhh don’t tell anyone)
Wayne,
With sufficient ignorance, everything is “just dumb” conjecture. “It’s just dumb to believe that people can communicate without any sort of connection or wire between them” “It’s just dumb to believe that man can go to the moon.”
These Christians are showing that not all Christians have their head in their tokus with respect to science. “Intelligent” design is not science and apparently many Christians recognize that.
Well, I knew about the letter but that’s because I am a minister who has signed it. I’ve got no problem with Christians who believe in a face value understanding of the creation stories in Genesis. But I’ve got a big problem when religion is taught as science.
One of the arguments against evolution says that complex things don’t arise on their own from simple things – aka the watch argument that Wayne shared. There needs to be a watchmaker or an Intelligent Designer. The problem with that is using this same principle where did this incredibly complex Intelligent Designer come from? Science doesn’t have an answer – only religion does, which is why ID is a religous theory not a scientific one.
science is largely a study of how things happen, and when interesting enough, how to make it happen again. science really doesn’t care about why, or when applicable, by whom things happen; which religion seems to care about. so why should the two be in conflict?
For the sake of argument, if and Intelligent Designer did exist, and he did touch the physical world in a way that can be observed, (and moreover this intelligent designer wanted someone to observe this fact), who would speak about it? The operational definition of “everyone retreat to their corners and don’t touch each other” doesn’t allow for an advocate to speak to this possible world. And as someone who is interested in finding truth, this is troublesome. It is an incomplete paradigm that keeps out the ability to speak to possible events.
The idea that disciplines shouldn’t overlap, and especially that science operates without the input of other disciplines, is simply inaccurate, in theory and in practice.
Being religious is not an excuse for ignorance. Just because you are too dumb to understand science doesn’t mean its wrong. You can’t go around saying that science is wrong while at the same time enjoying the benefits of science. If you don’t believe in science (big bang, evolution, gravity, etc.) stop using computers and go back to making scratch marks in mud.
Wow. Can you imagine what would happen if we had “Mohammed Monday”? Evolution Sunday is obviously on Sunday just to try to poke Christians in the eye as hard as possible. But look at the different responses. Christians don’t issue fatwahs or kill people in riots over imagined insults. Instead we cherish the freedom of speech, press and assembly just as much as other Americans. (I’m sure someone will respond with Bush-bashing, but look at Christian textbooks. Every one of them trumpets these values. The point is the different responses.)
Evolution Sunday was probably held on Sunday since that’s when the clergy can address their congregations about the relationship of science and religion.
“The call was to a dialogue on compatibility between religion and science — not the false dichotomy called for by those who are pushing “intelligent Design”.”
Uh, duh there is no “compatibility” at all, Dvorak you know better, you no doubt believe Darwin’s thesis which completely disproves the existance of any God. Please don’t even talk about compatibility with what you know to be a fairy tale.
bob – explain how Natural Selection “completely disproves the existance of any God.” also explain why Natural Selection manages this, but no other scientific theories/laws do so.
the existence of God is not subject to proof or disproof. that’s why they call it Faith and not Science.
being relatively young and not very science minded, (i can’t work a cell phone most times), answer this for me…..I recently read somewhere, and not in church, that many top scientists are religious. Something to do with their awe at what they see on a daily basis, and the *devine* spark. And it said that they also know the difference between scientific fact and religious faith.
As to Darwin, his theory’s don’t always hold up under scientific analysis. Natural selection isn’t the difinative answer to why we are here and not the Neanderthals. It’s just what it says….a theory. Most science is just a theory until it can be proven without a doubt.
What it comes down to is this…..you can believe in science, and also have religious faith. Apparently man needs to have some feeling that he’s here and bright enough to think and that it is on purpose, not just random chance.
Ed,
Are you trying to start a religious fight?
As for not seeing it reported in the Main Stream Media. Dog bites man isn’t news, man bites dog is news. Black is black. White is white.
Evolution is a given. Those who argue different is the same as arguing black is a different shade of white. That is news.
Thank you for running this article. I’ve said it here before and got criticized for it but I’ll sa it again::. LOT’S of people believe in intelligent design AND they believe in evolution. Not just clergy.
This includes lots of smart, well-educated scientists. I mean lots. Those of you who doubt this, probably have your eyes and ears closed to it.
For them, ID is a way of looking at the world they expertly observe.
I have a BS degree, so I mostly studied under science faculty at university. When they found out I was theologically trained, we sometimes got talking. Lot’s of them see God’s hand when they look through a microscope or a telescope.
Lots? Who? I’ve never met a scientist who believed in ID. Especially a couple geneticists I know who, of all people, would be the FIRST to see the glory of god in a petri dish.
I hate it when people say “Lots” or “They said” or “everyone knows.” Show us who.
joshua said, “Most science is just a theory until it can be proven without a doubt.”
There is little, if anything, that science has proven “without a doubt.” That’s part of the beauty of it. People can spend years observing and experimenting before finally using all their research to draw a conclusion that may come to be considered generally true. Later on, someone else might find a flaw, perform their own observations and experiments, and then draw a new conclusion that advances or displaces the old one. The body of knowledge is constantly being improved.
Joshua
As to Darwin, his theory’s don’t always hold up under scientific analysis. Natural selection isn’t the difinative answer to why we are here and not the Neanderthals. It’s just what it says….a theory. Most science is just a theory until it can be proven without a doubt.
Can you point out what part of the Theory of Evolution doesn’t hold up under scientific scrutiny? Then can you point out something in Unintelligent Design that DOES hold up to scientific scrutiny?
Anyone else want to take a shot at it?
evolution changes almost daily. I read newspapers and articles from all over the world and hardly a day goes by without an article about some new find that has scientists re-evaluating what they knew before.
What babaganoosh said is correct, he/she just said it much better than I could.
And no where did I espouse intelligent design. I personally can’t believe anyone actually believes it, but if they do, thats there right to do so. And I don’t need to insult them by calling it *unintelligent design*.
Science and religion are not incompatable in my mind. While I have no religious affiliation, I do have beliefs. Has anyone ever noticed that in the ancient civilisations, Egypt, Babalyonia, India, China, the Aztec, the Maya, the Priests were also the scientists of their time. They studied and were quite good at astronomy, physics and mathmatics. While they also were the upholders of whatever religious beliefs their people held.
I guess I just believe that a person should have an open mind about a lot of things that so many take as a given. As the old saying goes, the only things that are for sure are death and taxes.
I just was reading Alex’s comment, number 15.
Why is it that if someone is religious, then they are ignornat, or stupid, or to dumb to understand something??? Not being religious dosen’t make you right either Alex. Can you build a Saturn rocket???? I doubt you can, but that dosen’t make you ignorant, or dumb or stupid, it just means you can’t build a Saturn rocket.
And you comment about *if you don’t believe in science then stop using computors*….that stikes me as a *if you don’t like this country, then go back to where you came from* type of comment. It adds nothing to the debate, except animosity. Oh, and of the 3 examples you gave….big bang, evolution, gravity…..only 1 of those has been proven to exist. We prove that one every time we put our foot into our mouths and we fall on our *gravity’s*
What really impresses me is the complete lack of knowlege most people have about Evolution, Natural Selection, and the basic principles of both.
Especially if they are arguing for “the other side” as it were.
For example – the watch example (Paley’s Watch as it is called) has been destroyed now for years. Darwin himself dealt with it in Origin.
Also, fo gods sake, Evololution is not the same as Natural Selection. Darwin didn’t propose Evolution, he proposed the method of Natural Selection as the way Evolution works. He also didn’t answer everything and acknowleged that – later work has filled in almost all the the missing pieces. The parts that aren’t filled in are usually filled in by various competing ideas, they aren’t holes as much as competing theories that need to be tested.
Evolution, both macro and micro, has been shown to exist… it’s there, there is no (accurate or sensible) argument over the fact that species change. Fossil records and oberservational evidence is overwhelming. However it is the process by which this evolution happens that is the controversy – and it was this question that Darwin was trying to answer. Arguing against “Evolution” is like arguing against gravity, but if you want to argue against Natural Selection please do! There are many scientists out there that would love some genuine discussion.
The common Inteligent Design/Creationism arguments (like the Watch, the ‘half an eye’ question, the parasitic wasp, and even bacterial flagellum) have been destroyed so totally that anyone that uses them only shows their ignorance on the subject.
Also – and I should say that I’m not religious – Evolution and Natural Selection don’t disprove, deny, or generally insult, anything but a literal view of the Bible/Torah/Quoran. If like the priests in the article this post was about you take the view that the bible is a story designed to carry ideas, not literal truth, into the minds of people – then there is no reason why a God/Johovah/Allah couldn’t have set in motion the mechanisms for Evolution (and science has shown that mechanism is almost certainly Natural Selection). Basically you are saying that G/J/A is a bloody good engineer.
In fact… anything less is not really giving a supreme being credit for being, well, supreme.
True Science doesn’t conflict with what the Bible says. The fact is that most “religious” leaders don’t understand the Bible fully or won’t admit to what the Bible really says in regards to science.
I won’t get into evolution. Different argument for a different time.
What gregory said in 29 works for me. I’m sure as heck no expert, I’m not even a novice when it comes to this stuff. And I have to admit I get mixed up when someone talks about *evolution and natural selection*.
I don’t know how it works but I’m sure happy it does, otherwise I might not be the goodlooking, charming fella that I am.
All this arguing is giving me a headache. If I want you to know, I’ll tell you. In the meantime, I’m going down to the gate to have beer with St. Peter. Knock it off and let me have some peace and quiet.
Gregory, post #29
You did pretty good up until your last paragraph. Then you missed it.
Either the bible is correct, as any true Christian will tell you, or it is a book of stories, which any good Christian will tell you it is NOT. Either the stories about wandering around a desert for 40 years with manna falling from the heavens each day, Jonah living inside a whale for three days, the entire earth was flooded killing everyone except for Noah, God impregnated a virgin, or Lazerath rose from the dead are true or they are not true.
Also God created Man in his image, Genesis didn’t say anything about evolving from another life form. God created all the animals, not he created life forms that evolved into life forms we know today as animals.
The only people pushing and accepting the concept of (Un)Intelligent Design are the same people that believe the bible is true.
My earlier question still stands, Can you point out what part of the Theory of Evolution doesn’t hold up under scientific scrutiny? Then can you point out something in Unintelligent Design that DOES hold up to scientific scrutiny?
I’m thinking of doing a blog JUST on this debate and letting it go for the fences with never-ending comments!