Faithful can accept both Darwin and God, pastors say

[Bozita]

Source: Detroit Free Press

Faithful can accept both Darwin and God, pastors say
BY NIRAJ WARIKOO • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • FEBRUARY 15, 2009


Praise Darwin.

That notion may seem sacrilegious to traditional churchgoers, but dozens of clergy across metro Detroit plan today to celebrate the virtues and ideas of Charles Darwin, the English naturalist whose theory of evolution is being remembered this month on the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Their efforts are part of a growing movement to help congregations both believe in God and accept evolution at the same time.

Some fear the United States will lose ground as a world leader in education and technology if the public rejects the basics of science. So to them, it makes moral sense to honor Darwin, who laid the foundation of modern biology and parts of other sciences.

"It's important for people of faith to go on record as saying we have no conflict with science," said the Rev. James Rhodenhiser, rector of St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church in Ann Arbor. "Otherwise, people may get an impression that religious people are dumb, ignorant and hostile to science."

St. Clare is one of about 25 Michigan congregations that are participating in Evolution Weekend, a project started in 2005 at Butler University in Indiana to encourage pastors to discuss Darwin annually around his Feb. 12 birthday.

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20090215/NEWS05/902150406

[dmallind]

1. We MAY get the impression?

How the hell can we not get that impression when ALL attempts to contest evolution and natural selection in anything but details are religious rationalizations?

Sure it's undeniably true (but some apologetist will doubtless huffily remind me anyway) that not ALL religious people are anti-science morons, but I can't say I've ever seen an exception to the reverse claim - that all anti-science (evolution anyway)morons are religious.

[Javaman]

128. isn't this just another version of "intelligent design"? nt

[AlbertCat]

2. The amazing thing about Evolution deniers...

....is their complete ignorance of the subject. If they explored the science and saw how Darwin's theory predicted and supports things even Darwin knew nothing about (genetics...plate tectonics)they might "get" it.

Then of course if they follow the science to its logical conclusions, they'd reject ancient superstitions altogether! That, alas, is just too scary for most who need some parental spook in the sky to look after them even better than Mommy did, and of course, to ensure them they won't really die.

[angrycarpenter]

3. I am a atheist but

were I to go looking for god like acts in this universe the big bang fits the bill. A single dramatic event with time scales we cannot conceive that led to everything we know. The concept that any perfect omnipotent being would create something so flawed that it would require continual input and tweaking, creation and destruction, rewarding saints and smiting sinners, does not give god a lot of credit.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. To many believers,you concept is far closer to theirs than

the God concept of the evolution deniers. A couple of things that we would add is that the Big Bang was made out of God--the Only Being. Thus, everything is God (you may say everything is matter and energy, and that is fine; it is simply using different terms). As for "perfect" and "omnipotent"--well, let's look at a slightly different definition. Wouldn't you say that the laws of physics always work? Therefore they are perfect and omnipotent.

The other thing that believers who have this God concept have is a thought about consciousness and the nature of such--that all things have consciousness to varying degrees--and thus this also shows that everything is God.

No "guy in the sky"--no separation between God and humankind. The point of existence is for God to experience God. In other words, to simply Be.

[acmavm]

20. You are absolutely correct. My 'God' is not some cheesy Amazing Kreskin.

[Doctor_J]

21. As a nun friend of mine says,

"My God is all powerful, so she was clever enough to create evolution. Why is that hard to reconcile?"

Edit: she's also a PhD scientist

[SomeGuyInEagan]

49. That's an interesting resume/CV, I'm sure ...

... she must be an amazing dinner guest!

[SoxFan]

55. Nuns are some of the most fascinating people

Overwhelmingly progressive, by the way, deeply committed to issues of social justice.

My high school psychology/sociology teacher, Sr. Judy, sent me on a mission to get her some Mondale/Ferraro and John Kerry for Senate buttons back in 1984...

[JerseygirlCT]

57. They surely can be, though

I ran into a few particularly mean ones in my 12 years of Catholic school as well.

Which only taught me that they're people, too - some are great, some are not.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. That's basically how I was taught, too.

Good for her.

[CRF450]

65. We need more of this kind of teaching!!

So some people like my fundy aunt can lay off with that "the earth is 6000 years old" bullshit.

[Zhade]

89. No, we need LESS religion in schools, not more.

Even though I understand your point... no.

[rpannier]

117. I know a priest from years back who has a PhD in Biology

Evolutionist and will argue the point with anyone.

He told me it gets boring arguing with deniers because their...ahem...logic is fairly circular

[MindMatter]

26. There is a horizon where we can't be certain

But 99% of what religions worship is bullshit superstition perpetuated by stupid, scared people.

We can know to a certainty the processes that created the continents, the volcanoes, the planets, and the evolution of species. There simply isn't any major unknown in any of that. Science is still in pursuit of finer and finer details, but the basic concepts cannot be disputed. Any religion that wants to go up against that stuff should be judged for what it is.

Now, there is the question of what happened beyond our ability to measure and observe. Is there a god or gods involved in the original creation of the universe? Could be, but if there is, I doubt there is much resemblance to the mythical personas created by the various religions through the ages.

[MindMatter]

27. And regarding the Bible, Quran, and all the other "holy books"

Even today, lots of people believe is crazy, ignorant shit. So why would we expect people of 2000-3000 years ago to be any more accurate in their writing?

[LanternWaste]

61. As are all of the imaginary human constructs

"But 99% of what religions worship is bullshit superstition perpetuated by stupid, scared people..."

As do all of the imaginary human constructs that exist no where but our own minds-- religion, philosophy, the arts, politics, economics, etc.

And as we all believe that one or more of these particular constructs holds more truth than the others (e.g. pragmatism v. cynicism v. skepticism, or in the arts, constructivism v. neo-classicism, or labor v. capital disputes in economics, etc.), and as we tend to invest ourselves into these beliefs, it seems that conflict will inevitably occur from that.

Yet I believe that most of them have both times and places of relevance-- that each is another cobble on the greater road to self-realization and a more complete awareness in who we are as individuals and people.

So rather than saying they are all 99% garbage, I'd lean more towards the approximate number of 80% truth v. 20% bias, interpretation and self-investment.

[MindMatter]

100. I don't follow the connection

Art is a matter of opinion, for sure. Denying evolution, for example, is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of stupidity.

To the extent that people invest their time and energy considering the supernatural, I have no problem with that. I can't prove that one way or another. But when they start buttressing those beliefs with nonsensical, unverifiable anecdotes and coincidences, that's where the problem lies.

[LanternWaste]

106. Much as we do with politics and philosophies.

"start buttressing those beliefs with nonsensical, unverifiable anecdotes and coincidences..."

Much as we all do with politics and philosophies. The canonical figures of skepticism (Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, etc.) could never illustrate an empirical proof for their beliefs, but many, many people still hold true to those philosophies regardless-- and for myself, I find them to be no better nor no worse than people who don't subscribe to them.

My point being, we *all* adhere (sometimes almost dogmatically) to non-verifiable, unmeasurable, unknown quantities that shape and guide our lives.

So I find it almost absurd that we will automatically downgrade the intelligence of Joe because Joe is a follower of Philosophy A, making fun of Joe because he lives his life in accordance with that, berating him for following the tenets of something not measurable, while at the very same time, we ourselves are guilty of the very same thing, but rather than Skepticism, we may live our lives in accordance with another make-believe construct-- Progressivism or Empiricism for example. We are in effect saying no more than "my make-believe construct is better than yours..." And that (to me) is rather silly...

[MindMatter]

134. I see your point. Don't entirely agree

In politics, we are generally considering multiple policy options. Are tax cuts more effective than spending to stimulate the economy, for example? I agree there can be a dogmatic adherence to a position in direct contradiction to the available facts. And in that cases, it is religion.

In the case of god-worship, there are simply NO facts to support any of that. There are no measurements that show a god helping a football player score a touchdown. There are no facts that support a god protecting some people at the expense of others. Indeed, the god-worshipers have exactly the same mortality as the rest of us. I bet there were both atheists and god-worshipers on the plan that crashed last week, for example.

In religion, there are no facts. That's why they call it faith.

Sometimes, facts actually come into play in our political discussions.

[LanternWaste]

142. Same with philosophies

"In religion, there are no facts. That's why they call it faith...."

Same with philosophies and politics-- upon which the vast majority of people base the course and the actions of their lives-- without ever being presented with empirical proofs, as they ALL are imginary, human constructs that exist nowhere but in our minds and in our actions.

By the way-- faith is simply trust in that of which we do not hold an absolute knowledge. E.g., I have faith in science because I trust it, yet do not have an absolute knowledge of it.

[MindMatter]

146. So you are saying that beliefs = facts?

An interesting argument but at the end, faith is not the same thing as facts.

[Zhade]

150. HAHAHAHA! Indeed!

NT!

[Zhade]

81. Of course, that brings up the question - who designed the designer, ad infinitum?

Gods are utterly unnecessary when it comes to how our universe came about.

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. Recent research supports the theory that the universe is essentially a hologram...

... because they can detect the universe's 'resolution' - the minimum granularity of the universe, at a scale which is much, much larger than the Planck length.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F16%2F1446238&from=rss

This seems to give credibility to those who suggest that we are living in a computer simulation.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

So, God may be sitting in an office chair eating Pizza and drinking Mountain Dew.

That would explain a great deal.

[Zhade]

147. I think my brain just exploded.

NT!

[qwertyMike]

111. At least the Catholic Church has no problem with the Big Bang and the theory of Evolution

"Last month, the Vatican said the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but there was no need for a posthumous apology to Charles Darwin, who, in the 19th century, was attacked by the Church of England for theories which contradicted the Biblical account of the Creation.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution, but sees it as part of the divine plan. Pope Benedict has been described as a "theistic evolutionist" who believes that God created life through evolution, and thus that there is no inherent clash between religion and science.

The Catholic Church does not take the Genesis story that God created the world in six days literally, regarding it instead as an allegory. However some Christians - not least in the United States - do take the Genesis account literally and object to evolution being taught in school."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5054745.ece

[bitchkitty]

143. Well, there's that free will thing.

When I was religious, I could perfectly combine creationism and evolution, by taking into account the theory of relativity. 7 days on earth is 7 days - 7 days in wherever God is in the universe could be 7000 years.

Just a fancy, I'm certainly no scientist. Since I started getting into programming though, I realize that our brains are software, very sophisticated software.

[scytherius]

4. What this means

Religion is starting to see the handwriting on the wall. Scient and reason are winning and it is losing. Oh they aren't about to change overnight, but you sure wouldn't have heard this even a year ago.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Funny, I heard this 45 years ago

That was when I went through training to decide if I wished to become a member of the Methodist Church. We did a thorough study of differing beliefs from differing churches and within the Methodist Church itself. I was taught at the time that Methodists saw the Bible as a book full of figurative language, not one to be taken literally. In my own family, this was brought home as being the way of viewing things--and I can say that the concept goes back to the time of my great-grandparents, who were born around the time of Darwin.

I think it depends upon what church or religion you are investigating. Many Christian churches don't teach the literal belief in the Bible--Methodists, Congregationalists, and Unity are three I can think of off the top of my head. And the Unitarian Church, which evolved from the church of the Pilgrims, sure has no problem with evolution. Sufis have always embraced science and still do.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

99. When Ray-Gun started kissing up to the fundies...

Christianity was set back 100 years.

For some reason...or perhaps several reasons, moderate Christians were not heard when they protested the likes of Jerry Foulwell.

[JerseygirlCT]

58. That's funny, because there were no conflicts for me

and I heard this many years ago, as part of my (Catholic) education.

The Christian denominations that stick to a literalist view are fairly new. And yes, thinking for yourself is usually frowned on in their world.

[Zhade]

82. Thank goodness. The sooner people drop unsupported superstitious belief, the better for the world.

NT!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. It seems odd to me that this is even a topic

When I grew up in the Methodist Church, the idea of Darwin and the Bible were compatible-- maybe because I was taught to take the Bible figuratively and not literally.

[Lorien]

12. Yep, my friend Marty grew up in the same sort of church and never

questioned the reality of evolution. My Mennonite grandparents never saw any conflict either-but in both cases they were taking the Bible figuratively.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. It wasn't until I was in my 20s that I lived in a place

where there were a lot of "born-agains", and, frankly, I thought they were a bit strange. For one thing, they seemed to have the quaint notion that only people from their church would go to heaven. They were very difficult to talk to--their minds were closed on matters of faith. Frankly, I avoided them.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. Yup same here. nt

[justgamma]

6. I believe in both.

The religious believe that man came from dust. So does evolution. They believe God created man. If there is a God, why couldn't evolution just be God molding man into what He wanted?

[adnelson60087]

15. What is more likely? That God

(pick any version you like...) made man in his image, or Man makes Gods in his?? I think the latter is much more likely since we know that Man exists.

[immoderate]

28. That poses no problem.

Belief in religion requires no logic or consistency. Therefore it is easy to believe in both religion and science.

--imm

[Dappleganger]

40. Same here.

What's the problem, evolution isn't miraculous enough?
I know a lot of people who believe in God and evolution.

[Zhade]

83. No, evolution does NOT posit what you claim.

Evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis.

It addresses the proven changes in living creatures throughout history. It doesn't pretend to explain how life formed, unlike religion -- which asserts unsupported mythology with no evidence to back it up.

[FreakinDJ]

7. That is what they taught in Catholic High School 30 yrs ago

Glad to see the "Born Again Crowd" is coming into a little "Reality"

[CatholicEdHead]

22. They still do in most Catholic circles

there are a few random Catholic nuts (and archbishops/cardinals at the Vatican) who follow the anti-evolution line :crazy: but Evolution is still given.

[JerseygirlCT]

60. LOL... exactly! nt

[ronnie624]

8. "On the other extreme

is the new crop of vocal atheists, most notably British scientist Richard Dawkins"


As if Dawkins is the equivalent of a creationist kook with nothing to offer but beliefs and an uninformed opinion.

[Zhade]

85. Indeed. Having actual facts on your side isn't "extreme".

NT!

[cambie]

11. If the born again people would read the Bible

they would notice that it doesn't say anything about the Earth being 4000 years old. There is no mention of the age of the Earth, nothing at all. This is why Catholics and the rest of the planet don't have a problem with Darwin. Only the American fundies have been misled by some quacks. Read the Book and there is no issue.

[undeterred]

14. This is the position of most Christians

and has been for quite a long time.

[immoderate]

30. I wouldn't say most.

Since most polls show that only about 35-40% of Americans believe in evolution, do the math.

--imm

[JerseygirlCT]

75. Most Christians in the world are not of the

fundamentalist, "born-again" types so often thought of as "Christian" here in the US.

[Zhade]

86. You wish.

(So do I...)

[JerseygirlCT]

91. Why would you doubt that?

Orthodox, Catholic... toss in the Anglicans and other more mainstream Protestant denominations... put that up against some LDS, and all the fundamentalist group, and I'm pretty sure the older traditions (who tend not to see literalism as a tenet of belief) and just there you're ahead.

[Zhade]

148. It's been explained elsewhere in the thread. I will clarify and contain it to Americans.

NT!

[rpannier]

118. Christians in Europe for the most part are evolutionists

Korean and Japanese Christians are for the most part evolutionists.

[LanternWaste]

101. however they are the loudest and the most well funded...

"Most Christians in the world are not of the fundamentalist..."

I think you're right, however they are the loudest and the most well funded within the world of mainstream Christiandom, giving them a de-facto appearance of both legitimacy and popularity to the average person looking in.

To a person, all of the lay people I personally know allow credibility to science, to religion, to philosophy, to the arts and even to politics-- each one when relevant, each one when topical, and each one when necessary.




For what it's worth, last summer my pastor invited me into a very in-depth conversation as to why he believes the apex of the Moral Majority was reached in 1996, and has been losing both credibility and popularity since (albeit slowly). He had made a rather nice PowerPoint presentation (a "miracle" in itself if you consider that he used a computer for the very first time that previous Christmas... lol) illustrating all the churches and quasi-political organizations that he believed were in the forefront of the Moral Majority movement, and their declining revenue and membership rolls, contrasted against "moderate" churches (those that don't involve themselves in macro-politics) which showed a slight increase in both revenue and membership.

Fingers crossed.... :)

[JerseygirlCT]

104. There have been a few articles in the last couple of years

about numbers of these younger evangelicals peeling off from the all-conservative political messaging their parents held to - on issues like poverty and the environment. So there's some hope in the political sense there.

And that's what things like the moral majority really are - it's politics using religion as a vehicle, right?

Theologically, I'd have to agree that just from a logical and historical point of view, their time is limited. I think there's only so long that large numbers of people are going to hold their intellect in check like that - or maybe I'm just an eternal optimist. I've certainly never been satisfied with "Because" as an answer!

[laconicsax]

63. Not in this country it isn't.

Polling consistently shows that Christians (all varieties) make up about 75-80% of the population and that creationists and Biblical literalists make up about 40% of the population.

If you take the reasonable position that of the 20-25% of the population that isn't Christian is highly unlikely to hold creationist views or ascribe to Biblical literalism, you find that over 50% of Christians are likely to be creationists/Biblical literalists.

[scytherius]

69. With 37% of the population, only, believing in evolution . . . I don't think so

Maybe the reasonable Christians are cowed into silence like in Islam. Because I have never, ever in my life met a regular "church going" Christian who believed in both. Ever. And, anecdotally, that is tens of thousands.

[JerseygirlCT]

92. I wonder - where have you lived?

Because, truly, the only place that I've encountered the creationist types is online.

[NoodleyAppendage]

16. The "majority" of religious people are dumb, ignorant and hostile to science.

Sorry, sad but true statement...primarly for those following Judeo-Christian religions. Since the invention of the early Roman Catholic church, Christianity has been in conflict with science, which is rightfully perceived as a threat to the dogma thrown about by organized religion.

J

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

68. Have you data to back up your contention?

Just wondering.

[Zhade]

88. See the recent poll that shows only one in four accept the fact of evolution.

That's pretty damn ignorant!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

97. But does the same poll say

that those people are all church goers? I know some rather ignorant people who never set foot inside a church and say they don't care whether there is a god or not.

[Zhade]

149. Well, it's fair to include those in the data.

NT!

[JerseygirlCT]

105. And your scientific findings to back up that statement?

We'll be eagerly awaiting them.

Or maybe you were just taking an opportunity to be insulting because you enjoy that?

[NoodleyAppendage]

129. How about the empirical observation that Christianity has been used to kill/control for CENTURIES

Hmmmm...let's see. Where to begin? Let's name a few instances of religion-caused ignornance and strife:

Crusades
Spanish Inquisition
Protestant Reformation
Mountain Meadows Massacre
Northern Ireland (ongoing)
Central Asian conflicts (ongoing)
Israel vs. their neighbors
etc.

I could go on-and-on. If religion lends to its followers intelligent thought and a love for logic, then why is it the underpinning for most of the world's woes since the inception of Western European monothesism?

J

[JerseygirlCT]

132. Nope, not near good enough

You're comfortable broad-brush writing off an entire group of people based on one part of them. You're comfortable making huge assumptions and then picking through history to attempt to support them.

I'd really rather think that people on DU are smarter than that, but I suppose it's easier to take the easy way out here, and ignore the complexity of the issue entirely.

Easier to be insulting than to understand something has a great deal more nuance.

"If religion lends to its followers intelligent thought and a love for logic, then why is it the underpinning for most of the world's woes since the inception of Western European monothesism?"

Because it has. Because your selective choices also simply show the ability of all humans to be horrible. Because religion and politics was even more deeply intertwined than it is now. Because you leave out all the great minds and wonderful acts - recognized and not - that have been undertaken by those whose minds were shaped by their religious searches. And finally, because logic is not the be-all and end-all of human thought or existence. And your statement is pretty hyberbolic, to boot.

[NoodleyAppendage]

135. Please provide some counter-evidence where organized religion has benefitted society.

And, I'm not talking micro-scale benefits, like Habitat for Humanity. I'm talking about big, civilization-changing benefits. Just give me a few where Christianity has moved civilization in a positive direction.

And, as for feeling insulted, well...I can't help that. If you choose to believe that everything in the Bible is literal truth; that the world is 6000 years old; that good people will go to Hell if not baptized; or that your religion is correct while all others are wrong...then YOU ARE AN IDIOT. No longer should we have to put up with such idiocy. If we are to advance as a species and evolve, rather than devolve, then stupid dogma and ideologies promulgated by organized religion must fade into history.

J

[JerseygirlCT]

136. You are aware that all those things with which you like to associate

religion are not in the least shared by a great many religious people the world over, right?

Once again, while I know that fundamentalists of any stripe make such a nice strawman, they do not represent the majority of religious people in the world - or even in this country.

You are stereotyping. Something I'm sure you wouldn't be happy with were it directed your way. So why do you insist on doing it?

[NoodleyAppendage]

137. O.K., fair point. Now, can you answer my question? Big, civilization-improving events? Any?

I guess I should just take it on "faith" that Christianity has been good for our species, right?

J

[NutmegYankee]

17. I believe in both - not that hard to reconcile.

Science and religion should never conflict. As is said: Science can never answer the really interesting questions.

[immoderate]

31. Does religion answer "the really interesting questions?" What might those be?

???

--imm

[NutmegYankee]

44. Questions llike:

Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? What happens to me when I die?

You know, philosophy questions that hard raw data can't answer definitely. I'm not trying to start anything with the atheists on the board, I just get comfort in my belief that this miserable existence isn't all there is. I have nothing against secular humanists, and consider them to be just as good and moral as anyone else. I'm not a fundamentalist, and I belong to a protestant branch that is very liberal in their views. I can completely back evolution without fear of public shame from fellow church goers.

[immoderate]

51. First, please forgive me my snark. I mean you no ill. I'm being playful.

Having said that, I am playing with the notion that what you call the most interesting questions are the ones with no answers. Maybe "where did people come from?" used to be an interesting question. But then along came Darwin, with an answer, so it's no longer an interesting question? Answers may vary.

Everybody knows the purpose of life is to get into arguments on DU. You got a better one? And you are there because of certain actions of your parents, but no one wants to think about that. And finally, burial or cremation are most likely.

I know, I'm terrible. :spank:

--imm

[NutmegYankee]

52. Sorry for the defensive stance.

I still sport a few bruises from less pleasant encounters on this subject. After Prop Hate won in Ca, anyone who even showed a little faith, even if they fully supported gay marriage, caught hell in the aftermath. I really want to avoid getting ripped to shreds by friendly fire due to emotional distress again.

I was basically noting that the questions without answers were the ones that faith tries to answer. Science answers the rest.

[immoderate]

67. My apologies as well.

I sometimes forget, in the joust here, that you are my friend. :hi:

In real life I acknowledge that we all live in our own world view, and each of us will believe something, and no one can have the complete truth. But I live in Florida, and the fact is that there is a creationist lurking around every corner, trying to hijack the science curriculum. So I guess I get defensive myself.

Ironically, while I am active in a local atheist group, we have been working on our own ecumenical campaign, seeking common ground with religious groups, and I am an original proponent. But then there is the ongoing debate here, and I like that too. I can say though, that I never broad brushed people of faith on the Prop 8 issue. I know that many are allies.

--imm

[Psephos]

80. Actually, Darwin didn't come along with an answer...he came along with a question

...and left us with a new question: where did the dust that gave rise to us come from?

You can kick that can all the way back to the First Singularity/Big Bang...and then you can wonder what it means to ask if something came before that, when time itself had not yet been created.

[immoderate]

125. I'm pretty well satisfied with going back to the Big Bang.

:)

--imm

[Psephos]

138. :) that does have a sense of completion to it

otoh, it's tempting to wonder if there has been a series of Big Bangs...the universe begins in a singularity, expands into what we see around us, becomes decrepit through entropy, then after uncounted eons collapses back into a singularity. Perhaps there's enough dark matter to make that happen, after all.

And then, after a timeless interval, a single point of light wills itself into existence, and the saga begins anew.

Physics and religion have more in common than some realize.

:crazy:

[immoderate]

139. I won't say I'm not curious...

Sure, I'd like to know what it was like before the big bang, and whether the universe oscillates, or if there are parallel multiverses. But I'm afraid it might be beyond my ability to conceptualize. I think I can deal with no space, but no time presents a problem, as thought processes are so temporal. And I'm sure there are those who, whatever was there before, will call it god, even though it represents nothing like the common concepts of god, except maybe to some Buddhists.

I think I would say that there are analogies you can draw between physics and religion. I can't think of anything they have in common though. I think the main difference between science and relion is the way of knowing, which is all important in science, and irrelevant in religion.

--imm

[Psephos]

140. good points :)

You strike me as someone who might like this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Clock-Long-Now-Responsibility-Computer/dp/0465007805/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234815506&sr=8-1

It's not about what you might think from our discussion. It's an extremely readable, provocative look at the relatively few things that preserve their meaning and importance across human time and generations. There are some very smart people involved in this project. BTW, Stewart Brand is the author of The Whole Earth Catalog.

[immoderate]

144. Thanks. I'll keep an eye out.

--imm

[Zhade]

90. You assume there's a purpose and a reason.

Just because we WANT there to be one, it doesn't follow that there is one.

I feel the only meaning is what we imbue our existence with ourselves. The closer to reality-based that is, the better overall for one's mental health.

[mwooldri]

36. Exactly... I reconcile it quite easily...

... Big Bang - created the universe.
... Evolution - progress of development of life.

What started all of this? I say God did.

I guess to a lot of Christians, especially the fundamentalist sort, I'm probably deviant in saying that the Bible is not the absolute divine Word of God in the literal sense. What it is now I don't know for sure, because for the last 2-3 years I've been having a real faith struggle. Eventually I'll work it out but for now the above works just fine for me, because Big Bang Theory can be compatible with pretty much all faiths because it can still call on a creator, or for atheism doesn't have that problem, it "just happens".

[Zhade]

87. The funny thing is, religion doesn't answer any. It only pretends to do so.

NT!

[Aristus]

18. I don't need their permission. I've believed both nearly all my life.

O8)

[Doctor_J]

19. But not abstinence AND birth control, I guess

:eyes:

[Dollface]

23. "God did it, Darwin described it," - Lincoln, Darwin change history, religious thought -

http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/02/lincoln_darwin_change_history.html

"But America's trials shaped his (Lincoln's) religious views. Though he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus -- his wife, Mary, said he was religious but "not a technical Christian" -- Lincoln used political speech that was "deeply saturated with religious language," Bratt says."

Don't tell the GOP!

[prostock69]

24. "Otherwise, people may get an impression that religious people are dumb, ignorant and hostile to sci

Just the fundamentalists.

[crikkett]

25. This is news?

[Still Sensible]

29. Other than fundamentalist evangelicals

and people like GWB who pretended to be one (he claims to be a Methodist, but adopted a hard Baptist belief for political purposes), most Christians have no problem reconciling science and faith. Through much of history, the most rabid fundamentalists have attacked science. This was as true in the dark ages as it is today.

Organized religion is more about acquiring power and influence and raising money and building church wealth as it is anything about faith. It has always been so. It is just in this age of mass communication and the internet, the fundamentalist movement is on a scale that has not previously been possible.

While there were many failings of the Bush administration, the coordinated war on science for the sake of pleasing the intolerant and ignorant fundamentalists of the right wing ranks right up there with the worst of them.

[immoderate]

33. I question your numbers.

Polls show that only 35-40% of Americans believe in evolution. It's hard to believe that the remaining 60% are not almost all Christian.

--imm

[Still Sensible]

38. I suspect the way the question was asked

has a lot to do with the resulting numbers. If you ask "Do you believe in evolution?" the question implies that the science of evolution is akin to a religion. It also implies that the current knowledge of evolution is somehow absolute.

I remember seeing the poll I think you are referring to, but I don't recall the breakdown of the responses. I certainly don't think it indicated that 60% believed as fundamentalists do that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and than humans coexisted with dinosaurs. So it is as much pure ignorance as anything else.

[immoderate]

45. I expressed the question in the most convenient way for me.

There have been several of these polls and the results are fairly consistent. Generally there are three groups, the evolutionists, the theists, and the "no opinions." The questions may be worded differently in each, but the breakdowns are similar. It is hard to formulate any case where a majority of Christians accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of species.

Nothing in science is absolute, but evolution is as well developed as any theory can get, and no more questionable than gravity, electricity, germs, atoms, thermodynamics, etc. It is curious that these other theories don't provoke such controversy. (My friend's daughter professes a disbelief in atoms, but she is a rare case.)

--imm

[fascisthunter]

32. why is it so hard to accept... evolution could be god's creation

why is it so hard for right wingers to accept that? Oh... because they were told so...

[immoderate]

34. then they would have to accept that the Bible is a collection of stories and myths.

That would conflict with the notion that the bible is "true." That's what's so hard for them.

--imm

[Divine Discontent]

37. I agree. some don't want to believe that on their side, and others think it's folly to believe that

and be a believer also. We know there is some form of evolutionary changes in animals. I believe in that, and believe that God made man specifically as we are, at some point along the way - but of course, we'll all figure it out when we're gone. Glad to see this guy speak this view, though, it's refreshing!

[Zhade]

93. Equally, why is it so hard to accept that gods are irrelevant to evolution?

That they don't even exist, as the lack of evidence for them shows?

[TroubleMan]

35. Genesis and evolution don't conflict.

What's a day to God? The Bible has been translated at least two or three times before it hits English. A "day" doesn't have to be a 24 hour period. There's a lot of words that have more than one meaning when you translate them from one language to the next, and that's not even taking into account local and periodic colloquialisms. If you read it with an open mind, Genesis and evolution go right along with each other.

[KamaAina]

42. The usage of "day" meaning "era" still exists in modern English

"In my day, we had to walk ten miles through the snow to get to school -- uphill both ways!"

[immoderate]

47. What do you mean by open mind?

If you read genesis with an open mind you could conclude that it is a story that somebody made up. There are actually two different creation stories in genesis and they contradict each other significantly. How open minded does one have to be to construe that a "day" can be anything you want it to be, but everything else must be historically accurate?

What is the "open minded" view on where the wives of Cain and Abel came from? BTW, I have seen the bible in it's original language, and while I'm not a scholar, the word for day is clear. This is cafeteria religion, where one is willing to throw out what is necessary to preserve as much of the story as possible.

Do you really think that god doesn't know what a day is?

--imm

[LanternWaste]

64. I was under the impression that the Hebrew word 'yom'

I was under the impression that although the Mishnaic Hebrew word 'yom' can mean a twenty-four hour solar day, and also may also refer to an indefinitely long period of time.



"but everything else must be historically accurate?"
I imagine that recension, context, and metaphor would allow all but the most esoteric of phrases to become somewhat more clear. As far as I know, there are very few people of faith who read the passage, "Whosoever drinketh of this water that I shall give him shall never thirst" would interpret it to mean that particular individuals who drank water would have have need of water again... but maybe there are some people who indeed would.

However, I do realize that most people will bring to a translation (of any text) their own biases and world-views... regardless of whether one reads for textual criticism or simple enjoyment-- and I would hazard that applies to almost any written work we read.

[immoderate]

66. Well, like I said I'm no scholar.

I'm taking it from context that a day is a day. It does not follow from the story that you can replace day with "indefinitely long time." At least it doesn't to me. If that is what is meant, I think it would be worded differently. I'm sure that the people who wrote the bible understood metaphor, but that is the point. In many ways, the story reflects the emergence of mankind. But so many stories do. Also, I don't see anything in there that resembles the origin of species by natural selection, which is the reality.

--imm

[LanternWaste]

72. It seems to me a perfectly applicable metaphor to me.

It seems to me a perfectly applicable metaphor to me.




"If that is what is meant, I think it would be worded differently..."

When translating a text, in many cases it's very difficult to convey both the actual meaning of a phrase whilst maintaining the integrity of word for word translations-- as many colloquialisms simply don't exist in one language or another. For a contemporary example, the phrase "baker's dozen" cannot be translated word for word into Ratuman (a pacific language) as there's no specific word in that language for "baker" (the nearest approximation is 'cook' and 'daughter'). So the translator has to make a decision-- translate word for word, translate the phrase as a whole, or a combination of the two. A cook's dozen? A daughter's dozen? Probably not as it does not convey the same meaning. So he's almost forced to use the specific definition of the phrase as we know it-- limited generosity.

And once he has decided on a course of action, writes the translation, and is then finally read in Ratuman, I imagine a lot of his Polynesian readers would take exception to the way he had written it-- stating that there were other more effective and more valid ways to write that. But if his original intent was to stay as close as possible to both phraseology and specific wording, his readers would be faulting something that was, while not wholly irrelevant, at least irrelevant to the stemmatic method he used.

If you at all interested in the topic, "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism" by A.E. Housman (written in the teens or twenties I believe) is considered to be one of the fundamentals of the discipline and is also a very eye-opening read in and of itself...

[TroubleMan]

113. Also, take your example and then translate that into another language

from that translation. That's what we have with the current Bible. That's why I believe you can't take every word in it literally.

[immoderate]

124. My point is the whole thing is a metaphor.

You're not saying that there really were an Adam and Eve, but a day means an eon, are you. This is a mythology. One of many mythologies, none of which resembles a fact.

--imm

[LanternWaste]

141. I though your entire point was as stated...

I though your entire point was as stated-- merely that you would have worded the text better.... :shrug:

[immoderate]

145. It was and I did.

--imm

[JerseygirlCT]

77. Think of this, perhaps

Jewish tradition has never been to read scripture "literally" as some newer Christian denominations seem to think is required. There is a huge amount of commentary- created, changed, shared over the centuries - about what each part of scripture means, is meant to teach us, etc.

Because a story is not meant to be taken as "fact", does not mean is ceases to hold "truth". Those two words are not necessarily interchangeable.

[JerseygirlCT]

76. Well said. nt

[dustbunnie]

70. The "day" aspect isn't what troubles the Fundies.

It's that God created the Heavens and Earth, then all the creatures that inhabit it, and finally his masterpiece, Man. If they were to embrace evolution it would mean that the ancestors of modern man were around at the same time as other creatures, thereby negating the dramatic entrance of our kind, last, along with the content of Genesis.

[Zhade]

94. Um, Genesis conflicts with ITSELF. There are two different stories in it!

NT!

[JerseygirlCT]

107. That's correct

And, again, unless one is assuming that the only way to read the scripture is literally, that's not a problem.

We're not dealing with a textbook, we're dealing with literature and scripture - things that usually require a more thoughtful and nuanced approach in order to get anything from them.

[TroubleMan]

114. Exactly. That's why it shouldn't be taken literally.

The only way Genesis conflicts with evolution is if you take it literally word for word. That's fundies' viewpoint - word for word. It's a flawed viewpoint, though, because of multiple translations and colloquialisms it doesn't make any sense to take it literally.

[Marrah_G]

126. That was exactly my father's response when I questioned that as a child.

[BadGimp]

39. But that would require holding two contradicting thoughts in thier heads at the same time..

I really do not see how people who's entire sense of
themselves is wrapped up in a theology like Born Again or hard
line Christianity can make that break.

I fear a masss outbreak of that scene in Scanners...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/

Link to immage: Caution it's kinda graphic but only a special
effect: 
http://www.epix.de/images/scanners4.jpg

[mitchum]

41. Yes, it's just like accepting your parents and Santa Claus

[Zhade]

95. LOL! Best reply in the thread!

Nailed it.

[Riverman]

43. The Converse is Not True of the Reality Knowers!

[Piewhacket]

46. Personal religious belief is protected. Church property isn't. TAX!!!

[treestar]

48. They aren't incompatible unless one takes the Old Testament literally

[New Earth]

50. check out

http://thankgodforevolution.com

This guy is really helping this cause. He came to our church once (New Thought) and he was awesome. We already accept all explanations for creation, metaphysical and scientific, but it was nice to see how he explains this to fundamental Christians and they actually start to open up to it.

[RedCloud]

53. Evolution is universal, whereas religion is not.

So many branches of science confirm evolution that it would take about 10 minutes just to list them despite the Big Bucks available to those who could show this was hocus pocus.

Religion on the other hand basically depends where you live. I am sure most of you are not considering Buddhism and other faiths as you type. They do not confirm each others beliefs.

[Psephos]

84. Actually, religion is universal among human cultures; science is not

I'm speaking about the prevalence of religion. Anthropologists have never found a culture that didn't practice religion. Plenty of cultures did not develop science. Technology, yes...but science as it exists today was largely an invention of the Enlightenment. Specifically, the process of gathering data, making observations, formulating a hypothesis, then trying to disprove the hypothesis through experimentation focused on permutations of a single variable. The effort to disprove, to be always skeptical, to look beyond the seemingly-easy answer, is what drives science. Only after many unsuccessful attempts to disprove a hypothesis can it begin to develop some credibility. It takes many, many more such attempts before it can be elevated to a "theory." Even then, new evidence and new thinking may cause wholesale abandonment of an established theory. (Quantum physics' displacement of Newtonian physics is a ready example.)

[Zhade]

96. Evolution is based on proven fact. Religion isn't.

NT!

[Psephos]

151. Beware the Black Swan Fallacy

Theories that fit ‘exactly’ and are believed without ‘doubt’ can by definition not be taken seriously. It is a hallmark of a scientific theory that it can be wrong.

Karl Popper, the pre-eminent historian of science, discusses the critical importance of falsifiability in empirical statements that we intend to be rigorously scientific. Here's an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference

The second paragraph, discussing the problems of inductive reasoning, are especially relevant to the statements made in your post.

I firmly and unequivocally support Darwinian evolution as the explanation of the history of life, and I don't see any other explanation even coming close. But I don't "believe" in it. As Bertrand Russell said, "The central problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Not painting myself as one of the wise ones, by the way. ;-)

Also, you may find this interesting, in the context of problematic inductive reasoning:

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Good. This has always seemed a no-brainer to me

No conflict unless you're conflicted about thinking. And I'm not surprised to see an Episcopalian being quoted, either!

[MrsBrady]

62. duh?

just because others had a problem with science and religion, doesn't mean I do.

They are not so different to me.

[and-justice-for-all]

71. Evolution is the law..period....end of discussion..nt

[Psephos]

98. It's not a law, it's a theory. Saying discussion is over is the exact opposite of science.

Personally, I find it an utterly compelling theory, and I accept it as having no competition for explaining natural history. I'm sure you feel the same way.

However, it could be overturned at any time by better insights and new evidence. Such turning point moments are the mileposts in the history of science, and there have been many of them. No real scientist would forfeit a skeptical habit in favor of an authoritarian proclamation, although that seems quite in vogue on political websites. The will to believe, even a scientific theory, is the exact opposite of the wish to find out.

But then who said politics is scientific... :evilgrin:

[and-justice-for-all]

116. It should be the Law Of Evolution...

The evidence is overwhelmingly in it favor and we all know there is no such thing a magic. The notion that something could 'over turn' Evolution is asinine and will never happen.

Evolution, is a hard fact based on the evidence. There is nothing left to discuss, there is no invisible man in the sky and there is no such thing as magic. The law of relativity and thermodynamics, as should be evolution.

The Law Of Evolution.

[rpannier]

119. The difference is...

With thermodynamics and relativity we understand the inner workings of the system

With Evolution the process is understood, but there is still much we are learning about how it works. There are changes to it as we understand the process better.

Evolution is not a scientific law, it is a process

[immoderate]

122. A scientific theory is the explanation of all observed phenomena.

If any observation contradicts it, it is thrown out. A law is usually the part of a theory that can be expressed mathematically, such as the laws of motion or thermodynamics, or Ohm's law, or the law of gravitation.

In 150 years, no discovery in biology has contradicted Evolution.

--imm

[Cato the Younger]

73. I thought main stream churches did this decades ago?

Seriously, don't most non-loony churches already accept the idea of the Big Bang and Evolution and simply explain Genesis as a "story" to explain the origins of the universe to a group of wondering nomadic people thousands of years ago? I remember one Presbyterian minister say" What was God going to do? Hand out a text on Quantum Mechanics to the Israelites?"

But I am glad I aborted my belief in God. I now only believe in the power of the Easter Bunny!! PRAISE the Mighty Cute and Fluffy Easter Bunny!!! Giver of chocolate and marshmallow peeps!!

[alarimer]

74. No, they can't.

The Bible says that man was created in God's image. Is God an amoeba? Because whatever developed out of the primordial ooze was nothing like human, and we are all ultimately descended from that. So Evolution and religion are incompatible.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Only if one insists that "religion" requires a literal reading

of the bible. It surely does not.

[alarimer]

130. Why not?

If the use the Bible as their Holy Book (or the Koran or whatever) then surely it has to be taken literally or they are simply hypocrites, accepting only what they want to and ignoring the rest.

I heard many times as a Catholic growing up about the whole "man in God's image" thing. I am pretty sure they meant it literally.

In any case, I am an atheist now. That was largely due to growing up Catholic and then learning a thing or two about science. I realized that they are wholly incompatible. I simply don't buy the "non-overlapping magisteria" of Gould. He was simply weaseling out.

[JerseygirlCT]

131. That's nonsense

Because religion isn't about a textbook. It's about relationship - with God, with others. The text or scripture - call it what you will - is a useful guidepost of the relationships before. Most traditions do not take it literally. In fact, doing so reduces it to a mere rulebook, which is not what it is.

Religion is not about adhering to a set of rules or you're out. It's about aa way of living your life. And since each person is different, there are bound to be different ways of seeing things. There is much to be learned from those who've gone before, but their experience isn't there to limit yours.

I was never taught to read the bible literally, growing up Catholic as you did. And perhaps it's my love for literature that leads me away from that sort of one-dimensional way of seeing it, but truly, those who reduce it to a rule book, or a text book are missing the heart of it all. And the point of it.

There's no one who will find the answers in religious texts. They're kidding themselves if they do - but they might find good questions. And if they use their brains as well as their hearts, they might find those questions lead to a better understanding. As one of my rectors used to say, doubt is not the opposite of faith; doubt is the leading edge of faith. Those who take things at face value miss that.

[Zhade]

79. Sure, no conflict with science, except for that whole corroborating evidence thing.

Science has it all, religion has none.

Still, this is better than retreating from the proven fact of evolution!

[MindMatter]

102. There is always the "God planted all this evidence 6000 years ago" argument

Indeed, it could have happened that way. And if a religion wants to take that as their central thesis and be honest with all their parishioners about that, no problem.

Basically the problem with religion is that they don't have to meet even the most basic truth-in-advertising disclosure requirements that govern the sleaziest of the 3AM infomercials.

At least Scientology and the Mormons put their stories right out there: space travelers, seer stones, and all.

[Bill McBlueState]

103. Faithful can accept just about anything, I say

When you're unconstrained by evidence, there are a lot of things you can believe.

[dysfunctional press]

109. i have more than enough faith in darwin...god(s)?- not so much.

nt

[robinlynne]

110. Darwin accepted both Darwin and god.

[ronnie624]

112. For those who might find Origin of Species dry and intimidating,

I highly recommend The Voyage of the Beagle. It offers some wonderful insight into the type of person Darwin was. He loathed slavery and regarded the institution with tremendous contempt, which was a rather radical position at that time. He had a running and heated debate on the subject with Capt. FitzRoy that almost got him booted off the ship, halfway through the voyage.

Darwin was a good and decent soul, and it really irritates me when I hear fundamentalists denigrating him.

[No Elephants]

115. Believing in both God and evolution has NEVER been the issue. The issue is whether you can

believe in both evolution and a certain interpretation nof the timelines in the Bible, those timelines being (a) six 24 hour days to creatte the universe and (b) the "begats" making it from Adam to Jesus within four or five thousand years, plus the approximately 20000 years since the birth of Jesus, or a universe that is about only 6000 years old. And no, you cannot reconcile those two timelines. However, even if you believe the Bible literally, you do not need to believe in 6 days of 24 hours each. (Genesis also says that the evening and the morning were the first day, but, again, it does not specify the length of the evening or the morning.)

There is also wording in Genesis about God creating each species "after its own kind" that people pick on, but that, too, can be harmonized.

I believe you can indeed believe in evolution and a fairly literal interpretation of the Bible, but many pastors are simply not interested in reconciling the two. JMO

[Blandocyte]

120. Science & Religion: 2 Different Games

With two different sets of rules. I wish the fundies would stop trying to make it about "The Truth" when it's really all about the rules for determining what we agree to call truth. Like the word, "theory," the word "truth" has different meanings in scientific activity and in religious and non-scientific activity. I have no patience for people who insist we play our various games with only one set of rules. Sorta like having a baseball team and a soccer team, then insisting the soccer team plays baseball rules because those rules were written down in a favorite book.

[Marrah_G]

121. My father is a devout Catholic who was almost a priest as a young man

He went on to be a math and science teacher and never had a problem melting his beliefs in God and science together.

[JerseygirlCT]

123. As I think on it, at least two of the nuns who

taught me were math or science teachers. So absolutely.

[GeorgeGist]

127. Sanity makes sense ...

and religions make nonsense.

[Dinger]

133. What If God Created Evolution? (nt)