Charles Darwin in 1816. Detail of a painting by Ellen Sharples. Public domain.
And the Center for Inquiry provides a short list of resources for campus organizations or anyone else who wants to sponsor an event. In particular, you may contact their speakers bureau to find speakers on evolution, creationism, and intelligent-design creationism (it is a complete mystery why hardly anyone from Panda's Thumb is on that list, but we will not go into that now). Additionally, Center for Inquiry directs you to the International Darwin Day Foundation, where you may find a list of activities near you, and, of course, the National Center for Science Education.
CFI recommends that you try to teach someone about evolution or other scientific principles and notes that the Public Broadcasting System has a wealth of material on evolution, science, and Darwin. The Understanding Evolution Web page is likewise an excellent resource.
Finally, not mentioned by CFI, the Clergy Letter Project lists 400-odd religious congregations that plan Evolution Weekend activities, February 10-12. Indeed, it may be of interest to some that Science can help church keep its young folk.
61 Comments
Frank J · 15 January 2012
Indeed, it may be of interest to some that Science can help church keep its young folk.
— Matt Young
It ought to be interesting to all. No one would like to see organized religion go away more than I, but that ain’t gonna happen in this geologic period. So the best we can do is reach the millions who are neither hopelessly compartmentalized nor in on the scam. Most of them are religious, and their only “sin” is uncritically repeating misleading sound bites like “I hear the jury’s still out about evolution.”
By no means should we despise or ridicule the hopelessly compartmentalized either. It’s one thing to believe “in their hearts” that the FSM created the Universe 5 minutes ago. But to repeatedly deny that evolution is supported by what Pope John Paul II called a “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated” of evidence is tantamount to bearing false witness. If they’re too compartmentalized to understand that, the least they need to do is admit that those who do the work “probably” know better than they do.
In retrospect, the “evolution” of anti-evolution activism is just what one expects when there’s a burning desire for an alternate “theory” but no evidence. First they – and here I’m talking about the scam artists, not their clueless followers - try to force-fit sought and fabricated evidence. Then, when they can’t agree on what to force-fit it to (geocentric YEC? Heliocentric YEC, day-age OEC? etc.) they just take that sought and fabricated evidence to pretend that evolution is “weak” and let the audience infer the rest. And if that doesn’t work they pretend that the “Darwinists” are conspiring to replace God with Hitler.
Mike Elzinga · 15 January 2012
It is difficult to imagine that such discussions within the churches can actually help young people to stay with the churches or that such an objective is even desirable. Just looking at the number of denominations within Christianity alone (something over 30,000) gives some hint of the strains and disagreements that are hidden beneath the façade that is the public face of most churches.
Young people who get a broader perspective as they continue to grow and explore a wider world of knowledge and experience become quite disillusioned by the seeming cozy comforts of a sectarian community that turns out to be not what it seems.
If you scroll down in that link to the United Methodist Church that Matt provided, you will find this comment by a Charles A. Rodenberger, Ph.D..
This is the resolution that I am submitting to the General Conference:
WHEREAS the United Methodist
Church believes the Bible as a basic tenet, and
WHEREAS,
we join in the Apostle's Creed that states that God is the creator, and
WHEREAS,
we believe that God sent His Son to redeem us from sin and Jesus Christ stated
that he was present at creation and gave us no teachings that would support
evolution, and
WHEREAS,
the laws of physics and chemistry and many scientists deny evolution, and
WHEREAS,
creation scientists have published many research findings since 2000 that
support creation and deny evolution, and
WHEREAS,
Methodists do not want to stifle open discussion of all theories
Therefore,
be it resolved that the United Methodist Church reaffirm the 2000 General
Conference resolution that directs the General Board of Discipleship, working
within its own structure, to develop study materials for all levels of the
church which will bring all the theories of evolution and creation to the
churches in a manner which will compare emerging areas of compatibility and
areas yet unresolved in a reconciling approach to the relationship involved.
Rationale:
We,
as Christians, believe that God sent His Son to redeem us from sin. Jesus
Christ stated that he was present at creation and gave us no teachings that
would support evolution.
As
a scientist, I have studied the Creation/Evolution argument for 60 years and am
convinced that Evolution is a nonscientific teaching based on faith because the
laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of living molecules from the
random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible. Because it
violates the basic laws of science, evolution must be accepted on faith and
becomes a religion. If evolution is impossible the other possibilities are that
of Creation or the current concept that life came from aliens from outer space.
Because we believe in the Bible and state in our creed that God is the creator,
then we should support the teaching and research of creation scientists and ask
that such research be given as much consideration in school as the questionable
doctrine of evolution.
The
argument that young people are leaving the Methodist church because it didn't
support evolution is not true. A Central Texas Conference resolution supporting
the teaching of creation along with evolution received most of the votes of the
youth in attendance.
Charles
A. Rodenberger, PhD
Professor
Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering
Texas
A&M University
8377
FM 2228
Baird,
TX 79504
254
725 6816
Member
Cross Plains, TX First United Methodist Church
Supported by other members of the church
There is a large diversity within just this denomination alone; and some of the members buy into ID/creationism as strongly as do many of the evangelical fundamentalists and people like Ken Ham. And many such members are pushy and controlling in their demands and behaviors. There is something about sectarian dogma that attracts and draws out people who want to meddle in the personal affairs of others.
It is not surprising that young people find these kinds of disputes and disagreements revolting and choose to leave the churches. As children of parents who found church to be a centering community for their lives, they start to grow up and begin to realize that many adults never grow up; and that can be quite a turn-off.
fnxtr · 15 January 2012
Well, if there's one person who should know about the limits of biology, it's an aerospace engineer.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 January 2012
WHEREAS, the laws of physics and chemistry and many scientists deny evolution,
Couldn't, like, name a law of physics or chemistry that "denies" evolution, eh? "Apologists" would be more a more honest term than "scientists" with respect to those denying evolution, even if they're "scientists" in one area or another (even biology).
WHEREAS, creation scientists have published many research findings since 2000 that support creation and deny evolution
Whereas creation scientists (at least he knows what the IDiots are about) have played off of a false dilemma and pretended that they know far more about the probabilities of evolution than they actually do (highly biased to the downside), and haven't in the slightest come up with any evidence for design, I'd note that they're complete failures.
Glen Davidson
TomS · 15 January 2012
As a scientist, I have studied the Creation/Evolution argument for 60 years and am
convinced that Evolution is a nonscientific teaching based on faith because the
laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of living molecules from the
random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible.
...
Charles
A. Rodenberger, PhD
Professor
Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering
(1) This is an exceptionally extreme straw-man characterization of evolutionary biology.
(2) There is nothing shameful about being a professor of engineering. Why would a professor of engineering claim to be a scientist?
Michael R · 15 January 2012
If anyone wants a Darwinian priest (Anglican) in the North West of England then try me!!!!
apokryltaros · 15 January 2012
TomS said:
(2) There is nothing shameful about being a professor of engineering. Why would a professor of engineering claim to be a scientist?
To give inappropriate legitimacy, or rather, illegitimately lend authority to his Young Earth Creationist beliefs, of course.
Joe Felsenstein · 15 January 2012
fnxtr said:
Well, if there's one person who should know about the limits of biology, it's an aerospace engineer.
Well this one was rather convinced of the strengths of biology.
SWT · 15 January 2012
TomS said:
(2) There is nothing shameful about being a professor of engineering. Why would a professor of engineering claim to be a scientist?
I am a professor of engineering. I am also a scientist; the roles are not mutually exclusive. My graduate students do original research studying fundamental phenomena of interest in my particular corner of chemical engineering and the results are presented at national conferences (usually AIChE and another topically-focused international conference, sometimes ACS as well) and in the peer-reviewed literature.
IMO, the other criticisms of Rodenberger's resolution are valid.
SWT · 15 January 2012
Joe Felsenstein said:
fnxtr said:
Well, if there's one person who should know about the limits of biology, it's an aerospace engineer.
Well this one was rather convinced of the strengths of biology.
Yeah, but he cheated by actually learning biology.
Frank J · 15 January 2012
It is difficult to imagine that such discussions within the churches can actually help young people to stay with the churches or that such an objective is even desirable.
— Mike Elzinga
The goal ought to be to make them stop bearing false witness, not to "stay with the churches." But many can do, and have done, both.
The person you cited is clearly beyond hope, if not in on the scam. Attempting to reason with him would be a waste of time, but it would be productive to ask him in the presence of non-hopeless churchgoers:
1. Exactly which of the mutually contradictory YEC and OEC "theories" he means by "creation" and whether he can refute any of the others?
2. Why the "many research findings" he referred to are at best worthless arguments from incredulity, and why even the tiny fringe of scientists that the scam artists tout as "dissenters" know better than to attempt to support their "theories" on their own merits (hint: they know they'll fail)?
3. Why is there an increasing "don't ask don't tell" policy with even the simple "what happened when" claims that were once a major part of "scientific" creationism?
There are countless more questions, but it doesn't take many to make 90% of the people see the double standard.
transreality · 15 January 2012
'the laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of living molecules from the random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible.'
yes, carbon and oxygen is required as well. Surely he could not be so ignorant as to not know these elements are formed through the random interaction of hydrogen molecules in the environment of a star, or that these elements interact readily to form organic molecules in both stellar and terrestrial environments, or that not evolution not would claim that a molecule is 'living'... and he claims to be a 'scientist'. bah!
SWT · 15 January 2012
transreality said:
'the laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of living molecules from the random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible.'
yes, carbon and oxygen is required as well. Surely he could not be so ignorant as to not know these elements are formed through the random interaction of hydrogen molecules in the environment of a star, or that these elements interact readily to form organic molecules in both stellar and terrestrial environments, or that not evolution not would claim that a molecule is 'living'... and he claims to be a 'scientist'. bah!
I suspect he's using the usual creationist canard of conflating all change in the universe since the big bang with biological evolution ... since all the carbon and oxygen ultimately came from hydrogen, he probably feels rhetorically justified in implying that "Darwin sez we all came from random interactions of hydrogen atoms."
DS · 15 January 2012
Well a brilliant scientist should know better than to use a meaningless term like "living molecules", especially since he never defined the term or said how living molecules are different from any other kinds. This alone tells you he is either completely ignorant or just plain lying through his teeth. Or maybe both.
Of course he is also completely wrong about the laws of physics and the publications of creationists, but who's counting?
FL · 15 January 2012
Sincere thanks for the heads-up about the recent Methodist article, Matt.
Couldn't help noticing that it appealed to Pope Pius XII, but carefully avoided mentioning both Pope John Paul II and the current Pope Benedict XVI.
Also couldn't help noticing that the article was TOTALLY silent concerning the Bible, not even mentioning the word itself. (Go figure!!)
Anyway, I will possibly make use of that article for a February blog essay in my hometown newspaper, regarding the giant and insurmountable Incompatility that exists between evolution and Christianity.
Once again, thanks for calling attention to it.
FL
FL · 15 January 2012
Also, an equally sincere thanks to Mike Elzinga for mentioning the bold, strong response by Prof. Rodenburger.
Perhaps the Methodists have not yet decided to trash their own Bibles (and their own futures) after all.
Thanks again, Mike.
FL
Dave Luckett · 15 January 2012
Once again, FL, there is no incompatibility between Christianity and evolution. That is a lie.
FL · 15 January 2012
Minor correction: the phrase "Genesis 1" does appear once in the article.
However, the article writer clearly and openly denies all "creationist explanations of the natural history of our planet and its myriad life forms", such as those of Genesis 1. He seems to have no clue that those Genesis "explanations" are foundational to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Historically false Genesis? Then historically false Gospel. One thing leads to another.
FL
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 January 2012
Couldn't help noticing that FL wrote yet another tedious, meaningless post without the slightest regard for Biblical injunctions against dishonesty.
FL has confirmed he believes that the god directed slaughter of children and selling of daughters as sex slaves as plainly described in the inerrant bible (see below) are examples of the unconditionally loving and ethical morals of his inerrant bible god (FL has no problem with these passages).
Ezekiel 9:5-6 ‘As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,…” ‘
Exodus 21:7-11 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son,…”
From a morals and rationality perspective, FL's ability to hold these contradictory positions should be considered when interpreting all of FL's posts.
Mike Elzinga · 15 January 2012
FL said:
Also, an equally sincere thanks to Mike Elzinga for mentioning the bold, strong response by Prof. Rodenburger.
Perhaps the Methodists have not yet decided to trash their own Bibles (and their own futures) after all.
Thanks again, Mike.
FL
Just how do you justify this as a “bold, strong response” when you yourself don’t know anything about science, don’t want to know, and take extreme pride in your smug ignorance?
Your church is a personality cult of taunting deity wannabes that nobody wants or needs. Young people would be well advised to leave your church. In fact, you are a classic example of exactly the kind of self-righteous fanatic that young people come to despise.
The First United Methodist Church has taken the formal stance of accepting evolution, and there are ministers within that denomination that have given powerful sequences of sermons repudiating the tactics of ID/creationist fundamentalists.
Rodenberger is doing what all ID/creationists do; namely, credential-waving to push pseudo-science that he does not understand.
And you are in no position to judge because you not only have no credentials, you can’t even pass an elementary concept test on some of the most fundamental ideas in science. Nevertheless, you continue to copy/paste the ideas of others with the implication that you are able to vet scientific concepts even as you taunt.
As long as there are people like you in any church – people who will viciously sabotage every attempt at dialog and understanding – there will continue to be divisions and splintering within these religious communities that will inhibit the growth of individuals within those communities. Young people are not so stupid that they can’t figure that out for themselves. Nobody should blame them for leaving.
But none of that is going to stop rational and reasonable people from trying to come to grips with the implications that science and secular experience has for outmoded sectarian thinking such as yours. You know nothing of religion or its history; and increasing numbers of church goers are becoming aware of that fact (thanks to idiots like you).
Henry J · 15 January 2012
I suspect he’s using the usual creationist canard of conflating all change in the universe since the big bang with biological evolution … since all the carbon and oxygen ultimately came from hydrogen, he probably feels rhetorically justified in implying that “Darwin sez we all came from random interactions of hydrogen atoms.”
Was atomic theory even in place when Darwin wrote his book?
Henry
Mike Elzinga · 15 January 2012
Frank J said:
There are countless more questions, but it doesn't take many to make 90% of the people see the double standard.
From what I know from my church-going friends, the dialog is ramping up in the light of the abusive tactics by the ID/creationists over the years. I suspect the jig is up for the ID/creationists as far as the more moderate churches are concerned. Forty years of lying has been an extreme overreach by the creationists; and from the sermons I have heard on line, some ministers are starting to firmly repudiate these abuses.
Matt Young · 15 January 2012
Sincere thanks for the heads-up about the recent Methodist article, Matt.
***
Also, an equally sincere thanks to Mike Elzinga for mentioning the bold, strong response by Prof. Rodenburger.
The FL troll thinks it is cute; please do not feed it any more.
SWT · 15 January 2012
Henry J said:
I suspect he’s using the usual creationist canard of conflating all change in the universe since the big bang with biological evolution … since all the carbon and oxygen ultimately came from hydrogen, he probably feels rhetorically justified in implying that “Darwin sez we all came from random interactions of hydrogen atoms.”
Was atomic theory even in place when Darwin wrote his book?
Henry
I don't think so. It's my understanding that atomic theory wasn't broadly accepted among physicists until the early 20th century. I recall reading speculation that one of the contributing causes of the depression that led to Boltzmann's suicide was rejection of his kinetic theory, at least in part because of skepticism of the underlying atomic/molecular model of matter.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 January 2012
Cute kid, and I became curious about the plant. Apparently he was already a collector of plants, etc., at a very early age. And the picture above crops out his little sister Catherine:
Frank J said:
There are countless more questions, but it doesn't take many to make 90% of the people see the double standard.
From what I know from my church-going friends, the dialog is ramping up in the light of the abusive tactics by the ID/creationists over the years. I suspect the jig is up for the ID/creationists as far as the more moderate churches are concerned. Forty years of lying has been an extreme overreach by the creationists; and from the sermons I have heard on line, some ministers are starting to firmly repudiate these abuses.
If that's the "from so simple a beginning" that I have been waiting for, then it's far better news than Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover put together. As nice as those decisions were, we know that pseudoscience peddlers on a mission have many more tricks to fool the public, and all it would take is to load the courts with either radical authoritarians or postmodernists, and all the work to restrict public science education to that which has earned the right to be taught will be for naught.
Right now we have ~75% that thinks it's fair to "teach the controversy." About 1/3 of them have no problem with evolution, and another ~1/3 is not in hopeless denial but just misled. If that's going to change it'll happen in the churches and "on the street" not in courts. And it will take at least a generation. And people who want their children to learn fairy tales or postmodern nonsense instead of science will be still free to do it on their own dime.
TomS · 16 January 2012
SWT said:
TomS said:
(2) There is nothing shameful about being a professor of engineering. Why would a professor of engineering claim to be a scientist?
I am a professor of engineering. I am also a scientist; the roles are not mutually exclusive. My graduate students do original research studying fundamental phenomena of interest in my particular corner of chemical engineering and the results are presented at national conferences (usually AIChE and another topically-focused international conference, sometimes ACS as well) and in the peer-reviewed literature.
IMO, the other criticisms of Rodenberger's resolution are valid.
I recognize that a person can have two fields of expertise. For example, Alexander Borodin was a chemist and a composer.
As far as criticism, of course it is not usually appropriate to critique an argument by comments on the person making the argument. But when the person claims expertise as a scientist, it would seem appropriate to ask whether that person actually is a scientist, and evidence for his being an engineer is not adequate evidence for his being a scientist; no more than would I expect someone to appeal to Borodin's abilities as a composer in support of his opinions on chemistry.
Karen S. · 16 January 2012
For example, Alexander Borodin was a chemist and a composer.
Yes, and he wanted people to NOT wish him well, since he only found time to compose when he was sick!
apokryltaros · 16 January 2012
Karen S. said:
For example, Alexander Borodin was a chemist and a composer.
Yes, and he wanted people to NOT wish him well, since he only found time to compose when he was sick!
Oh, was he the guy who composed "Toccata in Phlegm Minor," and "Fugue with Cough and Cello"?
Dave Luckett · 16 January 2012
No. That would most likely be P D Q Bach.
harold · 16 January 2012
TomS said:
SWT said:
TomS said:
(2) There is nothing shameful about being a professor of engineering. Why would a professor of engineering claim to be a scientist?
I am a professor of engineering. I am also a scientist; the roles are not mutually exclusive. My graduate students do original research studying fundamental phenomena of interest in my particular corner of chemical engineering and the results are presented at national conferences (usually AIChE and another topically-focused international conference, sometimes ACS as well) and in the peer-reviewed literature.
IMO, the other criticisms of Rodenberger's resolution are valid.
I recognize that a person can have two fields of expertise. For example, Alexander Borodin was a chemist and a composer.
As far as criticism, of course it is not usually appropriate to critique an argument by comments on the person making the argument. But when the person claims expertise as a scientist, it would seem appropriate to ask whether that person actually is a scientist, and evidence for his being an engineer is not adequate evidence for his being a scientist; no more than would I expect someone to appeal to Borodin's abilities as a composer in support of his opinions on chemistry.
Engineering is a field of applied science.
All academic engineering degrees provide strong training in basic science.
Even the most pragmatic applications of engineering are grounded in recognition of science as the best way to study physical reality, and the use of the scientific method of objective observation, logical analysis, and, where possible, empiricism, to solve problems. That is why it is relatively uncommon for bridges to collapse or for airplanes to fall from the sky, for example.
Some engineers are obnoxious creationists.
The explanation for this is NOT that "engineers are ignorant of science".
Rather, it is that "despite the strong scientific training required to achieve and apply an engineering degree, some few engineers are so emotionally biased that they deny major scientific theories, and compartmentalize to do engineering".
harold · 16 January 2012
Tom S. -
I should also note that some engineers can be surprisingly lacking in knowledge of biomedical science. I learned this in the last few years. The reason is that, whereas a biomedical degree requires basic physics, chemistry, calculus, and statistics, it is actually possible to get an engineering degree without any biomedical courses.
Thus, although I am familiar, at a very modest but not useless level, with thermodynamics (for example), some rational, non-creationist engineers I know are ignorant of very basic biomedical science. I know at least one who admits that he took up engineering because he doesn't like icky blood (he is of Indian descent and of a generation for which engineering or medicine were the only acceptable careers).
However, even an engineer without much knowledge of biomedical science has enough training to reject ID/creationism, on the grounds of its internal logical inconsistency, and false claims about such subjects as thermodynamics and probability (which engineers typically receive extensive training in).
Furthermore, many, many engineers are extremely knowledgeable of biomedical science.
An engineer who is a creationist is being so despite their strong scientific training, not because of a lack of scientific training.
Karen S. · 16 January 2012
Oh, was he the guy who composed “Toccata in Phlegm Minor,” and “Fugue with Cough and Cello”?
I reckon hardware engineers get some years of physics and chemistry as requirements. Software engineers, on the other hand, only have to take some science as part of their electives, and may have some choice as to which ones.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 · 17 January 2012
Matt Young said:
Sincere thanks for the heads-up about the recent Methodist article, Matt.
***
Also, an equally sincere thanks to Mike Elzinga for mentioning the bold, strong response by Prof. Rodenburger.
The FL troll thinks it is cute; please do not feed it any more.
If you opt to create a separate thread for Darwin Day events, Matt, I'll post one I know of here in New York City that will be held on February 12th.
Roger · 18 January 2012
"Once again, FL, there is no incompatibility between Christianity and evolution. That is a lie."
Right. Which version of Christianity would that be again? Is it the one that does NOT say that man was created in God's image, given a soul, and is descended from Adam and Eve - not a common simian ancestor?
As far as I can tell, there is not a single Christian denomination that does NOT believe that God himself directs evolution (if they accept that evolution occurs at all!).
Sure, they are some denominations that say that they accept 'evolution' (and by that they, of course, mean an evolution to some degree guided by God's hand), but to say that there is no incompatibility between Christianity and evolution is as disingenuous as saying that because there are religious scientists, there is no conflict between religion and science.
FL, like a stopped clock, happens to be correct on this issue. So, go at it, FL! Write a blog how Christianity and evolution are not compatible. It will be fascinating to everyone who has never heard of the Scopes trial. Both of them.
bplurt · 19 January 2012
Karen S. said:
Oh, was he the guy who composed “Toccata in Phlegm Minor,” and “Fugue with Cough and Cello”?
Or Kodaly's Hary Janos Suite (which starts with a loud orchestral sneeze)
Dave Luckett · 19 January 2012
Roger said:
Right. Which version of Christianity would that be again? Is it the one that does NOT say that man was created in God's image, given a soul, and is descended from Adam and Eve - not a common simian ancestor?
Nope. It's the one that accepts that the Genesis account need not be read literally. That's all. That's most Christian denominations. Not the fundamentalist fringe, to be sure.
As far as I can tell, there is not a single Christian denomination that does NOT believe that God himself directs evolution (if they accept that evolution occurs at all!).
That would be right, I think.
Sure, they are some denominations that say that they accept 'evolution' (and by that they, of course, mean an evolution to some degree guided by God's hand), but to say that there is no incompatibility between Christianity and evolution is as disingenuous as saying that because there are religious scientists, there is no conflict between religion and science.
If most (not "some") Christian denominations say they accept the facts known to science, what's the problem with that? They can think that God's hand is in every mutation, every adaptation, every radiation, every selection, every speciation, every change on every genome that has ever existed. You don't think that, obviously. Neither, as it happens, do I. But why should it bother either of us if they do, so long as they accept the facts and defer to the evidence?
FL, like a stopped clock, happens to be correct on this issue. (...)
No, he isn't. And he isn't going to convince most Christians that he is, not now. But why give him a helping hand?
Roger · 19 January 2012
" As far as I can tell, there is not a single Christian denomination that does NOT believe that God himself directs evolution (if they accept that evolution occurs at all!).
That would be right, I think."
Then you have just agreed that all Christian denominations do NOT accept the most important precept of evolution - that it is a natural process based on randomness and is not directed by a deity. Theistic evolution is NOT scientific evolution.
dalehusband · 19 January 2012
FL said:
Historically false Genesis? Then historically false Gospel. One thing leads to another.
FL
Then why are you a Christian and Creationist attacking us here? Because you are a lying abuser of souls, @$$hole! You refuse to grow up and deal with reality, which includes none of your dogmas.
harold · 19 January 2012
Roger said:
" As far as I can tell, there is not a single Christian denomination that does NOT believe that God himself directs evolution (if they accept that evolution occurs at all!).
That would be right, I think."
Then you have just agreed that all Christian denominations do NOT accept the most important precept of evolution - that it is a natural process based on randomness and is not directed by a deity. Theistic evolution is NOT scientific evolution.
Some of the pro-science posters here are Christians (I am not personally religious), and seem to understand the theory of evolution correctly. My understanding is that "theistic evolution" is often used to describe the position of fully understanding and accepting the theory of evolution, while also believing in some kind of deity. It's not an ideal nomenclature, but that seems to be what it means to many people.
Clearly, I don't accept theistic evolution myself, or I'd be religious. However, again, my understanding is that many people who fall under this terminology have religious beliefs I don't share, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they get the science wrong.
harold · 19 January 2012
They can think that God’s hand is in every mutation, every adaptation, every radiation, every selection, every speciation, every change on every genome that has ever existed
I'm no theologian, but I'm pretty sure that some Christians accept mutations as random events.
I suppose they must believe that their god "could" interfere, or "intended" or "gives meaning to" the process of human evolution, or some such thing.
TomS · 19 January 2012
I just refreshed my memory by looking at a few standard Christian creeds, such as the Nicaean. There is no mention of there being no simian ancestry of humans, nor of Adam and Eve, etc. OTOH, nothing in evolutionary biology is about God's image or the origins of souls.
apokryltaros · 19 January 2012
TomS said:
I just refreshed my memory by looking at a few standard Christian creeds, such as the Nicaean. There is no mention of there being no simian ancestry of humans, nor of Adam and Eve, etc. OTOH, nothing in evolutionary biology is about God's image or the origins of souls.
On the other hand, the Nicaean creed never stated that believing in or assuming Evolution is true conflicts with Jesus Christ saving souls, nor is tantamount to automatic damnation like FL claims, nor did the Nicaean creed state that the number one requirement for Salvation was a literal reading of the English translation of the Bible.
The only creeds that claim that are the statements of faith made by modern-day Creationist organisations who use it to discriminate against their work forces and make sure that all of their employees slavishly, and mindlessly obey their masters' prejudices.
harold said:
Some of the pro-science posters here are Christians (I am not personally religious), and seem to understand the theory of evolution correctly. My understanding is that "theistic evolution" is often used to describe the position of fully understanding and accepting the theory of evolution, while also believing in some kind of deity. It's not an ideal nomenclature, but that seems to be what it means to many people.
Clearly, I don't accept theistic evolution myself, or I'd be religious. However, again, my understanding is that many people who fall under this terminology have religious beliefs I don't share, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they get the science wrong.
Kenneth Miller of Brown University and Francis Collins of the NIH and the BioLogos Foundation have written extensively on how they accept evolution as devout Christians. Miller states in Chapter 6 The World That Knew We Were Coming of "Only a Theory" that the physical laws of this world make it certain that a creature would evolve with the intelligence to know God and love Him in return. That would be us. "Guiding" is stated in the most general sense, because we don't know exactly how God works (Isaiah 55:8). How did God guide Jesus to be born in Bethlehem? By making Cleopatra chicken out at the Battle of Actium? Maybe so.
"Let the earth/waters bring forth" in Genesis 1:11, 20, and 24 is best understood as theistic evolution; the earth-sun system brings forth new life forms at God's ultimate command (over millions of years). Miller is fascinated by how that biological process works. John McCain urged scientists to let people see the hand of God in evolution if they so choose.
Dave Kinnaman at the Barna Group has written a book "You Lost Me": Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church.
Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.
SWT · 19 January 2012
harold said:
Roger said:
" As far as I can tell, there is not a single Christian denomination that does NOT believe that God himself directs evolution (if they accept that evolution occurs at all!).
That would be right, I think."
Then you have just agreed that all Christian denominations do NOT accept the most important precept of evolution - that it is a natural process based on randomness and is not directed by a deity. Theistic evolution is NOT scientific evolution.
Some of the pro-science posters here are Christians (I am not personally religious), and seem to understand the theory of evolution correctly. My understanding is that "theistic evolution" is often used to describe the position of fully understanding and accepting the theory of evolution, while also believing in some kind of deity. It's not an ideal nomenclature, but that seems to be what it means to many people.
Clearly, I don't accept theistic evolution myself, or I'd be religious. However, again, my understanding is that many people who fall under this terminology have religious beliefs I don't share, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they get the science wrong.
harold, even though I agree with your meaning, I'm going to use your comment as a cue to reiterate how much I dislike the term "theistic evolution".
It makes, I suppose, some sense to describe a theist who accepts evolutionary theory in exactly the way a non-theist might (no "guiding", no back door supernatural tweaking of genomes, etc.) as a "theistic evolutionist". That would describe me, a Presbyterian and a scientist who is committed to seeking natural causes for natural phenomena.
But I don't believe in something called "theistic evolution" -- I accept the same mechanistic framework that you do. Other "theistic evolutionists" almost certainly accept the scientific explanation with an asterisk (the * being "the Almighty occasionally slips something in for a specific reason through means that are imperceptible to us"). In real life, people who should know better have tried to attribute this position to me (for what I suspect were rhetorical reasons) and it's an important enough distinction that I'm obligated to correct them.
This difference is enough the render "theistic evolution" too slippery and misleading a term to be useful.
And that declaration from the the Presbyterian Church, which purports to reconcile their faith with scientific evolution states :
"...After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female; formed the body of man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of man; endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image . . ."
and:
"We re-affirm our belief in the uniqueness of man as a creature whom God has made in His own image."
That is creationism, not scientific evolution.
And the Catholic church, while giving lip service to scientific evolution, also maintains, as a direct communication from a guy who wears silly hats who himself has direct communication with God, that God made man in his image and provides only him with a soul.
And that declaration from the the Presbyterian Church, which purports to reconcile their faith with scientific evolution states :
"...After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female; formed the body of man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of man; endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image . . ."
and:
"We re-affirm our belief in the uniqueness of man as a creature whom God has made in His own image."
That is creationism, not scientific evolution.
Try reading for meaning, rather than reading for your desired meaning.
Roger · 19 January 2012
Harold said:
"...My understanding is that “theistic evolution” is often used to describe the position of fully understanding and accepting the theory of evolution, while also believing in some kind of deity. It’s not an ideal nomenclature, but that seems to be what it means to many people..."
I don't think that is quite right, as it is possible to have a mushy deistic approach which attributes the creation of the universe to a Creator, who merely set up scientific materialistic reality as we know it and then stepped away, never to have any other input. That would not be theistic evolution, at least according to the discussions of the subject over at WEIT, where theistic evolution is defined,if I recall and paraphrase it correctly as evolution with some sort of God-given human exceptionalism. Which is what all the Abrahamic religions insist upon, to one extent or another, I think it is fair to say.
Roger · 19 January 2012
SWT:
"Try reading for meaning, rather than reading for your desired meaning."
What part of God making Man uniquely in his image (and with an immortal soul) is consistent with modern evolutionary theory and inconsistent with Creationism?
Dave Luckett · 20 January 2012
Roger, Christians believe that God is in control of His creation, and that all things, saving alone human free choice, happen according to his Will. That means that God may intervene in any or all events that have ever happened, or may ever happen, at His sole will. If He chooses, each and every interraction of every quantum and every particle that has ever happened or will ever happen occurs equally at His behest, which operates indifferently through all space and time, for He created space and time, and hence is independent of them. We, being trapped in time and tied to consequence, to cause and effect, can't tell His will from what we call physical laws or the operation of chance, and must treat it as such, but it is as God wills. It becomes us to study His laws, moral and physical, but God alone disposes.
That's hardly "mushy" or "deistic". Christianity says that God never "stepped away" from His creation. But from that it follows that Christians can believe, perfectly consistently, that the events of evolution both must be treated as a concatenation of physical law and chance events by us and also exemplify the sovereign Will of God.
We are "made in His image" but that does not mean that our physical body resembles His - it can't, for He is pure spirit. We reflect, somewhat, and very imperfectly, some of his attributes. That's what an image does; that's what it means. There is no implication from this that our body or that of any living thing is identical or similar to Him.
You will observe that I have avoided the expression "theistic evolution" in this. I agree the term means too many different things.
SWT · 20 January 2012
Roger said:
SWT:
"Try reading for meaning, rather than reading for your desired meaning."
What part of God making Man uniquely in his image (and with an immortal soul) is consistent with modern evolutionary theory and inconsistent with Creationism?
We're discussing a theological statement that explicitly affirms that the Bible is not a book of science. The statement's affirmation that we are "made in the Image of God" is not an affirmation in any way related to biology, as Dave Luckett noted above. Were it otherwise, the Permanent Theological Committee would not have been able to "conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church."
You seem desperately to want the PC(USA) statement to require divine intervention in human evolution, yet there's no reason the divine purpose could not work itself out through the unguided operation of natural phenomena.
Roger · 20 January 2012
Errr... There appears to be more than 1 Roger, unless I've started writing in my sleep.
I'm the flippant English, sword-fighting, computer programming, live and let live variety.
TomS · 20 January 2012
Roger said:
What part of God making Man uniquely in his image (and with an immortal soul) is consistent with modern evolutionary theory and inconsistent with Creationism?
How does evolutionary biology differ from reproductive biology with respect to immortal souls and the image of God?
gingerbaker · 20 January 2012
"Errr… There appears to be more than 1 Roger, unless I’ve started writing in my sleep.
I’m the flippant English, sword-fighting, computer programming, live and let live variety.
Sorry - it's my fault. With all the new sign-in options, and my propensity for forgetting passwords, I was pretty well stymied there for a while. I usually post here as Gingerbaker, not as "Roger". Hopefully all fixed now, and sorry for the confusion. :) "
gingerbaker · 20 January 2012
SWT:
"We’re discussing a theological statement that explicitly affirms that the Bible is not a book of science. The statement’s affirmation that we are “made in the Image of God” is not an affirmation in any way related to biology, as Dave Luckett noted above. Were it otherwise, the Permanent Theological Committee would not have been able to “conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.”..."
The Permanent Theological Committee can claim whatever it wants. They can claim that a duck is not a duck. But it if it quacks like a duck....
The Pope has made similar statements. Yet he too reserves the precept that God imbues only man with a soul. I daresay that both Catholics and Presbyterians also believe that God answers prayers, do they not? And both houses still insist that God "created" of "made" man in his image. You can try to say that this has "nothing" to do with biology, but special creation of man by God is Creationism no matter how fine you try to split that hair.
Dave Luckett:
"...Roger, Christians believe that God is in control of His creation, and that all things, saving alone human free choice, happen according to his Will. That means that God may intervene in any or all events that have ever happened, or may ever happen, at His sole will. If He chooses, each and every interraction of every quantum and every particle that has ever happened or will ever happen occurs equally at His behest, which operates indifferently through all space and time, for He created space and time, and hence is independent of them...."
I know that you don't see this, but that statement is irrevocably NOT consistent with scientific evolution. You simply can not maintain that God has a hand in every molecule of his creation, that everything happens according to his will, that he intervenes in this world and simultaneously maintain that that is not theistic evolution. It is the very definition of theistic evolution.
There is no place for God in scientific evolution. There is nothing special about Homo sapiens in scientific evolution. There is nothing about Homo sapiens in scientific evolution that makes them special, or on a higher plane, or that they possess a soul, or that they are made in the image of God, or that God intervenes for them, or that God directs any aspect whatsoever of species, molecules, inheritance; or that God's will has any effect whatsoever on the progression of species. There is simply no room for the divine, or any room for human exceptionalism in scientific evolution. None. You can not have it both ways.
Carl Drews · 20 January 2012
SWT commented:
harold, even though I agree with your meaning, I'm going to use your comment as a cue to reiterate how much I dislike the term "theistic evolution".
Francis Collins hates the term "theistic evolution", too; he calls it "such a terrible name" in The Language of God. Collins proposes instead BioLogos: The Word of God became flesh and lived, as in John 1:14a. All biological life arose from God's words of creative command. I'm not thrilled with the term "theistic evolution", either, but that's what we have.
gingerbaker said:
There is simply no room for the divine, or any room for human exceptionalism in scientific evolution. None. You can not have it both ways.
That's why we call it "theistic evolution." God is outside of science.
Dave Luckett · 20 January 2012
If you want to call what I described "theistic evolution", then fine. I'll accept that it's theistic evolution. Let us not become the prisoners of words, here.
But I can have it that Christians believe that God is in control of his Universe, but that simultaneously they can cogently argue that this is perfectly consistent with accepting the operation of physical law and events that cannot be told from chance, including evolution, by the reasoning I have outlined above. Hence, they can and do accept those operations and those events. They can and do study the phenomena, apply the scientific method, test their facts and hypotheses empirically, and come to reasoned conclusions from physical evidence without ever invoking God, and yet still believe that all things happen by His will.
61 Comments
Frank J · 15 January 2012
Mike Elzinga · 15 January 2012
fnxtr · 15 January 2012
Well, if there's one person who should know about the limits of biology, it's an aerospace engineer.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 January 2012
TomS · 15 January 2012
Michael R · 15 January 2012
If anyone wants a Darwinian priest (Anglican) in the North West of England then try me!!!!
apokryltaros · 15 January 2012
Joe Felsenstein · 15 January 2012
SWT · 15 January 2012
SWT · 15 January 2012
Frank J · 15 January 2012
transreality · 15 January 2012
'the laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of living molecules from the random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible.'
yes, carbon and oxygen is required as well. Surely he could not be so ignorant as to not know these elements are formed through the random interaction of hydrogen molecules in the environment of a star, or that these elements interact readily to form organic molecules in both stellar and terrestrial environments, or that not evolution not would claim that a molecule is 'living'... and he claims to be a 'scientist'. bah!
SWT · 15 January 2012
DS · 15 January 2012
Well a brilliant scientist should know better than to use a meaningless term like "living molecules", especially since he never defined the term or said how living molecules are different from any other kinds. This alone tells you he is either completely ignorant or just plain lying through his teeth. Or maybe both.
Of course he is also completely wrong about the laws of physics and the publications of creationists, but who's counting?
FL · 15 January 2012
Sincere thanks for the heads-up about the recent Methodist article, Matt.
Couldn't help noticing that it appealed to Pope Pius XII, but carefully avoided mentioning both Pope John Paul II and the current Pope Benedict XVI.
Also couldn't help noticing that the article was TOTALLY silent concerning the Bible, not even mentioning the word itself. (Go figure!!)
Anyway, I will possibly make use of that article for a February blog essay in my hometown newspaper, regarding the giant and insurmountable Incompatility that exists between evolution and Christianity.
Once again, thanks for calling attention to it.
FL
FL · 15 January 2012
Also, an equally sincere thanks to Mike Elzinga for mentioning the bold, strong response by Prof. Rodenburger.
Perhaps the Methodists have not yet decided to trash their own Bibles (and their own futures) after all.
Thanks again, Mike.
FL
Dave Luckett · 15 January 2012
Once again, FL, there is no incompatibility between Christianity and evolution. That is a lie.
FL · 15 January 2012
Minor correction: the phrase "Genesis 1" does appear once in the article.
However, the article writer clearly and openly denies all "creationist explanations of the natural history of our planet and its myriad life forms", such as those of Genesis 1. He seems to have no clue that those Genesis "explanations" are foundational to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Historically false Genesis? Then historically false Gospel. One thing leads to another.
FL
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 January 2012
Couldn't help noticing that FL wrote yet another tedious, meaningless post without the slightest regard for Biblical injunctions against dishonesty.
Enough of the troll food.
Glen Davidson
rob · 15 January 2012
Time for a FL calibration.
FL has confirmed he believes that the god directed slaughter of children and selling of daughters as sex slaves as plainly described in the inerrant bible (see below) are examples of the unconditionally loving and ethical morals of his inerrant bible god (FL has no problem with these passages).
Ezekiel 9:5-6 ‘As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,…” ‘
Exodus 21:7-11 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son,…”
From a morals and rationality perspective, FL's ability to hold these contradictory positions should be considered when interpreting all of FL's posts.
Mike Elzinga · 15 January 2012
Henry J · 15 January 2012
Mike Elzinga · 15 January 2012
Matt Young · 15 January 2012
SWT · 15 January 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 January 2012
Cute kid, and I became curious about the plant. Apparently he was already a collector of plants, etc., at a very early age. And the picture above crops out his little sister Catherine:
Gleaned from his biography at this site
fwiw
Glen Davidson
Frank J · 16 January 2012
TomS · 16 January 2012
Karen S. · 16 January 2012
apokryltaros · 16 January 2012
Dave Luckett · 16 January 2012
No. That would most likely be P D Q Bach.
harold · 16 January 2012
harold · 16 January 2012
Tom S. -
I should also note that some engineers can be surprisingly lacking in knowledge of biomedical science. I learned this in the last few years. The reason is that, whereas a biomedical degree requires basic physics, chemistry, calculus, and statistics, it is actually possible to get an engineering degree without any biomedical courses.
Thus, although I am familiar, at a very modest but not useless level, with thermodynamics (for example), some rational, non-creationist engineers I know are ignorant of very basic biomedical science. I know at least one who admits that he took up engineering because he doesn't like icky blood (he is of Indian descent and of a generation for which engineering or medicine were the only acceptable careers).
However, even an engineer without much knowledge of biomedical science has enough training to reject ID/creationism, on the grounds of its internal logical inconsistency, and false claims about such subjects as thermodynamics and probability (which engineers typically receive extensive training in).
Furthermore, many, many engineers are extremely knowledgeable of biomedical science.
An engineer who is a creationist is being so despite their strong scientific training, not because of a lack of scientific training.
Karen S. · 16 January 2012
Henry J · 16 January 2012
I reckon hardware engineers get some years of physics and chemistry as requirements. Software engineers, on the other hand, only have to take some science as part of their electives, and may have some choice as to which ones.
DavidK · 16 January 2012
Another step forward in support of evolution:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120108143559.htm
https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 · 17 January 2012
Roger · 18 January 2012
bplurt · 19 January 2012
Dave Luckett · 19 January 2012
Roger · 19 January 2012
" As far as I can tell, there is not a single Christian denomination that does NOT believe that God himself directs evolution (if they accept that evolution occurs at all!).
That would be right, I think."
Then you have just agreed that all Christian denominations do NOT accept the most important precept of evolution - that it is a natural process based on randomness and is not directed by a deity. Theistic evolution is NOT scientific evolution.
dalehusband · 19 January 2012
harold · 19 January 2012
harold · 19 January 2012
TomS · 19 January 2012
I just refreshed my memory by looking at a few standard Christian creeds, such as the Nicaean. There is no mention of there being no simian ancestry of humans, nor of Adam and Eve, etc. OTOH, nothing in evolutionary biology is about God's image or the origins of souls.
apokryltaros · 19 January 2012
SWT · 19 January 2012
*sigh*
http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/theologyandworship/evolution/
Carl Drews · 19 January 2012
SWT · 19 January 2012
Roger · 19 January 2012
SWT · 19 January 2012
Roger · 19 January 2012
Roger · 19 January 2012
Dave Luckett · 20 January 2012
Roger, Christians believe that God is in control of His creation, and that all things, saving alone human free choice, happen according to his Will. That means that God may intervene in any or all events that have ever happened, or may ever happen, at His sole will. If He chooses, each and every interraction of every quantum and every particle that has ever happened or will ever happen occurs equally at His behest, which operates indifferently through all space and time, for He created space and time, and hence is independent of them. We, being trapped in time and tied to consequence, to cause and effect, can't tell His will from what we call physical laws or the operation of chance, and must treat it as such, but it is as God wills. It becomes us to study His laws, moral and physical, but God alone disposes.
That's hardly "mushy" or "deistic". Christianity says that God never "stepped away" from His creation. But from that it follows that Christians can believe, perfectly consistently, that the events of evolution both must be treated as a concatenation of physical law and chance events by us and also exemplify the sovereign Will of God.
We are "made in His image" but that does not mean that our physical body resembles His - it can't, for He is pure spirit. We reflect, somewhat, and very imperfectly, some of his attributes. That's what an image does; that's what it means. There is no implication from this that our body or that of any living thing is identical or similar to Him.
You will observe that I have avoided the expression "theistic evolution" in this. I agree the term means too many different things.
SWT · 20 January 2012
Roger · 20 January 2012
Errr... There appears to be more than 1 Roger, unless I've started writing in my sleep.
I'm the flippant English, sword-fighting, computer programming, live and let live variety.
TomS · 20 January 2012
gingerbaker · 20 January 2012
"Errr… There appears to be more than 1 Roger, unless I’ve started writing in my sleep.
I’m the flippant English, sword-fighting, computer programming, live and let live variety.
Sorry - it's my fault. With all the new sign-in options, and my propensity for forgetting passwords, I was pretty well stymied there for a while. I usually post here as Gingerbaker, not as "Roger". Hopefully all fixed now, and sorry for the confusion. :)
"
gingerbaker · 20 January 2012
Carl Drews · 20 January 2012
Dave Luckett · 20 January 2012
If you want to call what I described "theistic evolution", then fine. I'll accept that it's theistic evolution. Let us not become the prisoners of words, here.
But I can have it that Christians believe that God is in control of his Universe, but that simultaneously they can cogently argue that this is perfectly consistent with accepting the operation of physical law and events that cannot be told from chance, including evolution, by the reasoning I have outlined above. Hence, they can and do accept those operations and those events. They can and do study the phenomena, apply the scientific method, test their facts and hypotheses empirically, and come to reasoned conclusions from physical evidence without ever invoking God, and yet still believe that all things happen by His will.