Episcopal Church: Resolution A129 Affirm Creation and Evolution

Looks like someone decided to reinforce that third leg. Bravo. And very well written statements too.

What's new Pussy Cat?

We Anglicans having been speaking like this since 1858, before Charlie got into print. (HB Tristram)
In the next year a good number of Anglicans accepted evolution eg F Temple, Hort, B Powell, and the others like Samuel Wilberforce Sedgwick etc all accepted an old earth.

And so it has continued and until,recently -1975 or so the Anglican church throughout the world has accepted evolution with few dissenters.

Sadly it is now changing and in England some 10% of Anglican clergy are now YEC, so a statement is needed from us.

I am trying to get one made in my diocese but at least one thinks we need to be careful for political reasons.

I am trying to get one made in my diocese but at least one thinks we need to be careful for political reasons.

Good old Anglicans!

Faith AND common sense...

We Anglicans having been speaking like this since 1858, before Charlie got into print. (HB Tristram)

I 'believe' that it was opposition by Anglican clerics that ended Darwin's knighthood effort. Will the 75th Genetral Convention advocate such knighthood to it's British brethren?

I am happy to see that there are still some churches left that support good science

Relatively old news. http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/19021_58393_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=58392 has been published for several years now.

Of course, it has the same authority even among church members, or even less, as a "statement from a vatican official". Really this was putting a rubber stamp on an agreement long established.

Certainly the athiests among the PT contributors and readers would consider the faith portions of the text and statement unnecessary, and I wouldn't blame them in the slightest, but there you go. ;-)

Hi,
As a Presby, I will add our denomination as supporting Evolution and science in general. As far as I know Presbys(USA)have always thought in this liberal manner.
Go to Voices for Evolution at www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/permit for statements from all of the mainline denominations in support of evolution.
Whit

and have no gripe whatsoever with evolution or any other area of science

I will point out once again that the vast majority of Christian denominations, worldwide, reject creationism, ID, and fundamentalism, and have no gripe whatsoever with evolution or any other area of science --- and have said so out loud even before the 1981 Arkansas case.

— Lenny

It's interesting that one of the most proactive ID advocates in Ohio - state school board member Michael Cochran - is a priest and rector of a parish of the breakaway Episcopal Missionary Church in Columbus, Ohio.

Cochran and the EMC felt that the (mainstream) Episcopal Church was getting too modern when they started ordaining women, and updated the Book of Common Prayer to post-Elizabethan English. I guess it's not surprising that accepting 19th century science in the 21st century strikes this crowd as moving way too fast.

Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth

RE: DragonScholar

I was thinking about the American Scientific Affiliation, an overarching Christian club for sciency types, but it seems that rather than have a single statement endorsing evolution, chemical abiogenesis, and/or deep time, they have instead resigned themselves to let the various factions speak for themselves within the group. Each one gets its own statement, from YEC to ID (which isn't a doctrine of Creation, of course) to Theistic Evolution.
They do have a page where it's asserted that creation doesn't necesarily mean "fiat creation," and that evolution and creation aren't supposed to be antithetical, which is good. It also, however, restates the old "evolutionary philosophy/religion" canard, which is bad. I was a bit disappointed with that.
The NCSE has a nice Links page where various religious+scientific organizations can be looked up.

Three legged stools are better than 2 legged stools. That's for sure. Oh crap, I just realized I have a one legged stool. ***aaaaaaaaaauuuuughhhhh thump****

So often I'm so proud to consider myself Episcopalian. Yay us!

In answer to 1975 , there has been little religious right in the UK.

Also remember that the Conferates were supported by Southern Presbyterians like Dabney et al who used a literal Genesis to support slavery.
In 1846 or so the Southern Baptists was formed becuase the Northern Baptists said slavery was wrong.

The foremost defender of Evolution up north was that Christian botanist Asa Gray, who taught a negro sunday school

Michael

This is a necessary statement for any church as the church would go out of business if it accepted anything that contradicted its purpose, and of course its self-proclaimed sacred texts, now wouldn't it?

For Dragon Scholar,
Read my post # 107598!!
Whit

For Dragon Scholar,
Read my post # 107598!!
Whit

Moses-

not only does Carol have a special Judah Landa edition OT, but she has a very interesting view on how animals are "cruel" to one another as well.

Did you catch that one?

funny as hell.

check out the Darwin/Hitler thread.

Why is Sean Hannity rich and on TV, not to mention Rush Limpballs?

How did Ann Coulter's "Godless" hit number one at Amazon the week it came out?

At least Fox makes an attempt to balance Hannity with Alan Colmes.

— Tony

That's a joke, right?

Oh yeah, no gripe with any part of science whatsoever --- except its method, which they reject.

would be better if "emergence" were changed to "diversity"?

Oh yeah, no gripe with any part of science whatsoever --- except its method, which they reject. Only problem is that's the only really important part of science. Everything else can change.

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

A-a-A-a-A! Righti-o! I think I can twice!

so one sect of the theists say something nice about evolution.

Maybe we should point out that a) there is no evidence for a diety and that if there is a diety there is no evidence it notices us and if there is a diety and it does notice us there is no evidence that it gives a rat's ass bit of caring about us.

other than that have fun playing with your "imaginary friend"

Kevin:

Your posts need to come with a Surgeon General's warning or something: Warning! Prepare to be intellectually-vitiated!

I need to go read some probability to recover.

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

If I might return the commentary to the original message: Let's remember that many (most?) of the plaintiffs in both McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard were religious groups or individuals with religious credentials (depending mostly on the structure of the particular denomination). At the time that repeal of the Louisiana law was attempted (the Senate voted to repeal on 24 June 1984 and the House voted against on 25 June 1984--how timely!), the other main lobbyist for repeal (I was there on behalf of the ACLU) was the Rev. Jimmy Stovall, a Methodist (I think) minister and executive director of the Louisiana Interchurch Council, which represented something like 20 denominations. The interchurch council voted to seek repeal in January of 1984, and the Roman Catholic dioceses in Louisiana handed out a specific statement in favor of science.

So: At the time it counted, when the National Academies were choosing not to take a stand (I just glanced over the letter from Frank Press that he sent me as he was morphing his feet into clay), it was a collection of religious groups and individuals who were acting on behalf of science. And this was no small deal at the time. I got a lot of nasty phone calls and I got a lot of nasty mail. And for all that I think I changed exactly one vote, cast by a house member I had known in high school.

This is a necessary statement for any church as the church would go out of business if it accepted anything that contradicted its purpose, and of course its self-proclaimed sacred texts, now wouldn't it?

Are there any pro-science, evolution-accepting Christian organizations out there? I'm curious. It struck me that there probably are, I just don't know it. Anyone have input on that?

Basically, about 80% of the world's Christian population belong to denominations that proactively support evolution (and science in general) or find no conflict with it.

Are there any pro-science, evolution-accepting Christian organizations out there? I'm curious. It struck me that there probably are, I just don't know it. Anyone have input on that?

The last four Popes have issued statements specifically supporting science and evolution.

Peters says neither intelligent design nor scientific creationism have fertile research programs that can match Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models of evolution. "The Darwinian models have led to progressive research and new knowledge," he says. "They also have proven themselves fertile for predicting what we would find in the fossil record, and for predicting random variation in genes that have led indirectly to research on new medicines. The Lutheran understanding of God's creation leads us to commit ourselves to the best science. ... Nothing less than hard-earned empirical truths about the natural world will measure up."

Not exactly what I would characterize as behavior that would be found in "friends of science".

Caledonian wrote:

They have also stated that the universe cannot be viewed as purposeless or random, that human beings could not have arisen from other kinds of life without the intervention of God, and that the concept of 'souls' is necessary to understand the distinction they make between humans and other creatures.

Not exactly what I would characterize as behavior that would be found in "friends of science".

***

Science studies the material, measurable world. By definition, therefore, it cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities, something that philosophy and religion deal with.

The opinion that it is the "most scientific view" that only something can exist which can be scientifically measured and observed, has nothing to do with science. Instead, it has everything to do with philosophy: with a view of how far science extends. It is a legimate philosophical view to assume that nothing exists beyond what can be studied by science --- just like it is a legitimate philosophical view to assume that things beyond the material world exist --- but it is not a scientific view.

The mandatory naturalistic operating principle of science --- investigating natural causes to natural effects --- does not necessarily imply a mandatory naturalistic philosophy.

You are gravely confusing science with philosophy. To claim that science implies more philosophically than, by its very nature, it is able to, does not do science any favor. Science needs to be pure science in order to function properly; ideological tainting can only destroy the purity and integrity of science.

A 1997 survey by the scientific magazine Nature found that 40 % of all American scientists believe in a personal, active God (a number unchanged from 1916). If you would go beyond this tight definition and include in the concept of God an impersonal first cause, like Einstein's concept was, for example, the number of 40 % would probably be far exceeded, to presumably more than half of all scientists, i.e. the majority. To claim that all these scientists who assume the existence of God --- or beyond that, are religious --- are less "scientific" than their atheistic colleagues would not just be preposterous, but outright silly.

By the way, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, prominent figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century, were all believers --- atheists were not the ones who founded modern science.

***

They have also stated that the universe cannot be viewed as purposeless or random

You misuse the concept of "random" in a manner that disguises as science but is not. The scientific concept of "random" means "uncorrelated" --- either totally or to a certain degree --- or "unpredictable". "Purposeless" is a philosophical or everyday use of the word, not a scientific one.

Al Moritz: And yet some philosophers (myself included) have repeatedly argued that to isolate science from philosophy is to both gut the science and make the philosophy worthless at best. As for the founders of modern science, they were almost to a man heterodox, too. Wonder why that is? Even if they weren't, so what? There are pulmonologists who smoke. Consistency is hard to obtain, especially with the Inquisition and other such entities breathing down your neck.

By definition, therefore, it science cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities, something that philosophy and religion deal with.

A 1997 survey by the scientific magazine Nature found that 40 % of all American scientists believe in a personal, active God (a number unchanged from 1916).

Al Moritz: And yet some philosophers (myself included) have repeatedly argued that to isolate science from philosophy is to both gut the science and make the philosophy worthless at best.

I thank your correspondent for his well written statement and commentary on this resolution of the Episcopal Church -- it certainly confirms my own understanding of what it means to be a responsible, thinking Anglican.
Now I am a retired geologist and the last time I came across fossils in my professional life they were 3.7 billion years old bacteria at North Pole, in the red-hot centre of Western Australia. A bit older than those pesky dinosaurs!
At school, in the UK, my chemistry teacher was a Congregationalist, biology was taught by a Scots Presbyterian and physics by an Anglican. Of my Maths teachers one was 'a bit of everything'and the other one a card carrying Communist (and a fine teacher). None of them thought there was any necessary dispute between religion and science -- it was just a few hot heads leading off at what they knew nothing about -- on both sides of the debate.
But funnily enough, it was from my Congregationist chemistry teacher that I first learnt of the thoughts of William Paley, ARchdeacon of Carlisle, and author in the late 18th cent of a best selling 'Natural Theology' (Google up the name and read the whole book) in which the good archdeacon developes his idea of the intelligent designer as a demonstration of the existence of God. Yes! The modern proponents of ID have left out any direct reference to God, but that is what the argument of the book is all about. (Watch out -- God is lurking round the corner!). With our biology teacher we read geat slabs of the Rev. Gilbert White's 'Natural History of Selbourne' (1798), and later, at London University we discussed a whole host of Rev gentlemen who made contributions to geology, from William Buckland to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
And why all this ancient literature in the study of science? Apart from the idea that Gilbert White was an 'old boy' of our school, our teachers though we would be better educated by knowing the history of our science, including the backwaters, and the unravelling of the ancient argument would get us little tikes reading good literature and getting our minds into gear for a career in science. In any event it did me no harm.
Oh! And by the way, if you are interested you might like to look up the first couple of pages of Paley's work where he points to the fallacy of the whole argument of 'intelligent design'. I first read it over fifty years ago, but I still remember it, Thanks to Messrs Lee, Mathieson, Jewell, Dauncy and Pearson!

k.e. wrote:

So it does not surprise me that 40%, 50% or even 90% of Americans say they believe they will be unreasonably harassed if the do not answer in the affirmative when interrogated whether they believe some nebulous idea no more provable than UFOs.

I doubt that this path of argumentation has any merit.

1. The survey of scientists was anonymous as far as I know, so I don't see how there could have been any pressure (certainly, lists of names were not published).

2. Science has the aura of being "rationalist" (not the same as rational, which of course it is), provoked by outspoken atheist scientists, so admitting belief in, or assumption of, God against this "rationalism" would seem the less conforming thing to do.

3. Nature magazine is one of the leading scientific magazines in the world; any religious interest or pressure coming from the interviewers themselves can be excluded. If anything, the editorial board of Nature appears to lean toward bias against religion.

Science studies the material, measurable world. By definition, therefore, it cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities, something that philosophy and religion deal with.

The opinion that it is the "most scientific view" that only something can exist which can be scientifically measured and observed, has nothing to do with science.

just like it is a legitimate philosophical view to assume that things beyond the material world exist

You are gravely confusing science with philosophy.

To claim that all these scientists who assume the existence of God --- or beyond that, are religious --- are less "scientific" than their atheistic colleagues would not just be preposterous, but outright silly.

By the way, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, prominent figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century, were all believers --- atheists were not the ones who founded modern science.

"Purposeless" is a philosophical or everyday use of the word, not a scientific one.

And of course philosophy and religion or god(s) cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities; psychology, identity politics and neuroscience ......maybe.

— k.e.

And yet some philosophers (myself included) have repeatedly argued that to isolate science from philosophy is to both gut the science and make the philosophy worthless at best.

Well spoken, Chiefley.

Science studies the material, measurable world. By definition, therefore, it cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities, something that philosophy and religion deal with.

"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as do masturbation and sexual intercourse".

-- K Marx

The mere fact that you have to "argue" for your case gives away the fact that the connection is not self-evident.

The practice of science is universally recognized as being that of "methodological naturalism". Which is, in other words, a voluntary restriction of subject matter and method to only natural phenomenon.

People are quite good at being unable to see trivial logical truths, even tautologies, that require only a modicum of thought to recognize. You are in fact arguing that because someone is willing and able to explicitly state the reasons why he is correct, he is wrong. Everyone, take a step back and think about that for a moment.

By which you mean (because you had to know that Nader had no chance of being elected) that you believe the symbolism of your vote was more important than the consequences of it.

That would be, of course, people other than YOU. Right?

This is a very common misconception. Science does not put a priori restrictions on what the natural world might contain. Rather, it leaves its understanding of what 'the natural world' encompasses open to revision pending new evidence. We cannot even begin to think about supernatural causes unless we are first willing to proscriptively define what we will consider nature to be. Science refuses to do that, and remains open to any new phenomena. The consequence of this stance is that the definition of nature is expanded to include new stuff, which in turn means that the new stuff is necessarily considered natural, not supernatural. Because science remains open to change, it rejects the very concept of 'supernatural'. We do not voluntarily restrict ourselves to studying a pre-defined set of phenomena that is itself restricted by a concept. We define a concept, then discover what that concept includes by examining reality. By the definitions of science, there are no supernatural phenomena which we would voluntarily refrain from studying.

— Caledonian

To which I pointed out that neither philosophy and religion can say anything about the existence of the non-material nor spiritual entities.

— Caledonian

If a phenomenom that we thought was supernatural is finally discovered to be measurable

Stick to the topic of discuss on the Bathroom wall

Cleanup cycle initiated

would be better if "emergence" were changed to "diversity"?

— Jim

Of course Chiefly, I'm all for religious tolerance, of any sort.

I'm totally intolerant of intolerance.

I encourage the Pope to consider ordinating atheists, heck I'd be first in line.

I was saying that when an 'ology starts considering everything and anything in any permutation, it ends up saying nothing about anything.

Religion as practice, no matter what it claims, is a purely cultural phenomenon, and as long as there are priests/pastors etc and political masters they will work hand in glove to promote their hegemony of the brain cells.

We are programmed to accept the most ridiculous ideas (e.g. Santa), as a survival mechanism, plus a big brain with spare capacity ...oh and a fear of death.

History is full of forgotten god's and religions which is a nagging nuisance for their modern brethren, but very useful for Anthropological comparison, and guess what? The same old ideas surface, including the idea that they all know "The one true word of ***"
*** Osiris, Baal, Jehovah, Allah, Apollo etc,etc

Theology in *my opinion* achieves nothing more than expressing untestable personal opinions and is more a means of social engineering, and its success can be measured only by *sales*.

Conceded, our scientific conceptual models are limited by our current understanding, nothing in theology/religion/mysticism etc is NEW and continues to be just the same old software version X.X running on 100,000 year old hardware, which in my opinion will be better understood by the emergence of neuroscience for those curious enough to find out e.g. the mechanisms in the brain responsible for mimicking and trust(and possibly torture :)

Although some lucky people with a basic knowledge of the human condition and folk psychology have known that basic premise for thousands of years. Just ask any Televangelist, Politician or Car salesman.

Or read Freud. Remember him? Almost totally forgotten, since the history washers expunged him. People today say 'Oh him? He was totally debunked' without having any knowledge of his dangerous idea's.

Anyway I don't think we diverge too much, just call me a radical (irreligious) moderate.

The third and final RESOLVED in the heading gives the final authority to the biggest noise. Pontius Pilate might be wondering for the last 2,000 yrs whether that was the best policy. As for scientific advance, RESOLVED 3 would possibly have stopped us before we got the wheel up and running, and certainly would never have advanced beyond a flat earth. With these policies towards truth and freedom of expression, the Episcopals might try for more disciples at TalkOrigins?

Pontius Pilate might be wondering for the last 2,000 yrs whether that was the best policy

It is important to point out that Disco's deep pockets, Howard Ahmanson, in addition to being a Christian Reconstructionist, is also an extremely conservative Episcopalian, who had also been bankrolling efforts to create a split among the American branch of the Anglican Communion years before the consecration of a gay bishop in 2003.

First, they elect a woman to be presiding bishop (horror!), who had been an evolutionary biologist in an earlier career (double horror!). Then, they refuse to defrock the aforementioned gay bishop (apostasy!). Finally, they pass a resolution supporting mainstream science (heresy!). Hyper-conservative American Episcopalians are recoiling in disgust!

Accident? I doubt it. Ahmanson and his paid shills have been a thorn in the side of the denomination for at least the past decade, if not longer. I believe the upshot of all these procedings has been to invite the separatists to get on with the process of separation, already.

But gee, since ID has nothing to do with religion (coughcoughcough) one wonders why a religious kook like Ahmanson would care about ID at all . . . .?

Bill? Sal? Donald? Anyone want to explain that to me?

Nay, Nay, Nay, I can't raise Pontius nor his horse. (Sorry about the dreadful humor)

Hey Heywood, you're, uh, blithering again.

Keith Douglas wrote: And yet some philosophers (myself included) have repeatedly argued that to isolate science from philosophy is to both gut the science and make the philosophy worthless at best.

Caledonian responded about philosophy and science: They're the same thing! (At least, competent philosophy is the same as science. There's loads of incompetent philosophy.)

This, on the other hand, is an extremist statement.

I really can't think of any working definition of science being the 'same thing' as philosophy.

care to elaborate, Cale?

From my point of view, while philosophy can make good use of scientific argument and evidence when needed, it shouldn't be limited in doing so either.

philosophy can and does go beyond the physically testable to make points.

the first thing that comes to mind is the old "tree falls in the forest" conundrum.

but i digress.

Cale, maybe you can clarify what you meant then?

Ah yes, the old Cartesian duality ..falling trees and such.

Descartes walks into a bar and the barman asks if he wants a drink, he answers "I don't think so" and disappears.

The beauty is that science can say "god may be dead" but can't prove one way or the other, if ever it/they were alive, let alone dead.

Philosophy however, can say it categorically.

God is dead.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 108

I take it your a big fan of Nietzsche, KE?

Hey even Pope Benny XVI quoted him, god of erotic love and all that.

That's the last time I'll use two of his quotes in a row :>

The nice thing about Philosophers, Theologians and broken clocks is they are sometimes right, on the other hand most of the time no one gives a ...whatever.

Just asking; thought maybe there was a reason you were favoring quotes from Nietzsche recently.

I take it your a big fan of Nietzsche, KE?

HEY, I've been to a bar like that in TEXAS.

AND SURVIVED.

LOL!!!!!!!

Best come back yet!!!

ahhh the good old days.

No place is too good to have been thrown out of in my books.

philosophy can and does go beyond the physically testable to make points.

aren't readily tangible to humans in a state of nature.

No, I'm saying that its arguments are physical - its calculations are physical - and that the concept of 'metaphysical' as it is traditionally used is incoherent.

and that the concept of 'metaphysical' as it is traditionally used is incoherent.

It requires preconceptions about what constitutes the physical world, preconceptions that cannot be rationally justified.

That is precisely why scientific thought does not include the concept of 'supernatural'. 'Metaphysical' has the same problems.

Put simply, there are no metaphysical things. They do not exist. Nor can they be coherently reasoned about other than to observe that they are impossibilities.

What can we conclude about the properties of a four-sided triangle?

Hey, I'm no philosophy major, but as far as I recal the naturalists are only one school of philosophical thought. You might consider the no-naturalists useless, but I don't think I would go so far as to call them irrational.

... Pardons, but I'm not going to be able to pursue this again for a few days.