God or Ape

[DeadPoolX 9]

If we could only get the Fundamentalists to accept that the story of Adam and Eve is metaphor and neither historically accurate nor factual, we wouldn't even have these discussions.

The problem, I believe, is that both sides are attempting to force their views on the other. No one likes being told, "I'm right and you're wrong." The natural reaction is to get defensive and even fight back.

Since religion is based on belief and science based on factual study (although to be fair, science is an ever-changing discipline), there's no way either side can be judged by the other's criteria. Instead, the best we can hope for is an intermingling of ideas. I could imagine a compromise or something similar.

[Nessa 23]

what if there was no adam and eve, but adam and jose and they were gay?

[DeadPoolX 9]

what if there was no adam and eve, but adam and jose and they were gay?

Hmmm... I doubt it. Although given the seriously lack of sexual outlets back then, I wouldn't be surprised if something similar occurred.

[Nessa 23]

or how about eve and lana

[HAL 9000 96]

or how about eve and lana

jejeje

[dalegg 143]

If we could only get the Fundamentalists to accept that the story of Adam and Eve is metaphor and neither historically accurate nor factual, we wouldn't even have these discussions.

Perhaps Senator Stabenow or Nancy Pelosi should draft a bill requiring churches to set aside a small amount of each sermon to let someone come in and explain that to them.

[HAL 9000 96]

If we could only get the Fundamentalists to accept that the story of Adam and Eve is metaphor and neither historically accurate nor factual, we wouldn't even have these discussions.

The problem, I believe, is that both sides are attempting to force their views on the other. No one likes being told, "I'm right and you're wrong." The natural reaction is to get defensive and even fight back.

Since religion is based on belief and science based on factual study (although to be fair, science is an ever-changing discipline), there's no way either side can be judged by the other's criteria. Instead, the best we can hope for is an intermingling of ideas. I could imagine a compromise or something similar.

That's why religion belongs in religion class and science *gulp* belongs in science class.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree that the subjects should be kept separate.

[Uncle Wally 2]

Utterly ridiculous, and shameful, really.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Episcopal Church: Resolution A129 Affirm Creation and Evolution

Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, and that an acceptance of evolution in no way diminishes the centrality of Scripture in telling the stories of the love of God for the Creation and is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith; and be it further

Resolved, That Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregation seek the assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

........

"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."

"If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ..."

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

.....

At last count 612 churches promoted evolution on "Evolution Sunday" on Feb. 11th. They chose this day because it it the Sunday closest to the birth of Charles Darwin. Statements in sermons such as "if we do not acknowledge evolution, then we are not giving God the full credit for creation" are common.

This special Sunday came about after 10,200 pastors signed on to the "Clergy Letter Project" This was an attempt to encourage clergy across America to sign a letter that supports evolution and rejects the Genesis account of creation as literal history.

[dalegg 143]

Episcopal Church: Resolution A129 Affirm Creation and Evolution

Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, and that an acceptance of evolution in no way diminishes the centrality of Scripture in telling the stories of the love of God for the Creation and is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith; and be it further

Resolved, That Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregation seek the assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

........

"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."

"If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ..."

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

.....

At last count 612 churches promoted evolution on "Evolution Sunday" on Feb. 11th. They chose this day because it it the Sunday closest to the birth of Charles Darwin. Statements in sermons such as "if we do not acknowledge evolution, then we are not giving God the full credit for creation" are common.

This special Sunday came about after 10,200 pastors signed on to the "Clergy Letter Project" This was an attempt to encourage clergy across America to sign a letter that supports evolution and rejects the Genesis account of creation as literal history.

These are not going so well amongst fundamentalists!

The Pope and Evolution

Did the Pope really say that evolution was 'more than a hypothesis'? It's probable that the secular media misinterpreted the Pope's address.

The original French address says:

“Aujourd'hui, pres d'un demisiecle apres la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaisances condesuisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'*une* hypothese.”

In English:

“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [Humani generis, 1950], new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than *one* hypothesis in the theory of evolution.”

The trouble is, the French word “une” can mean “a” or “one.” The secular media translated it “a” hypothesis, while the official RC newspaper L'Osservatore Romano translated it as “one.”

This information comes from the Polish RC (Roman Catholic) creationist and eminent scientist Maciej Giertych, who has published over 90 scientific papers. It was published in his private publication Opoka (The Rock), December 1996, and we were told 'feel free to publish it if you find it useful'.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Clergy Letter Project:

For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. Now, on the 198th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries. And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic.

618 Congregations

from all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the US Virgin Islands

and 5 nations participated in

Evolution Sunday 2007

• Christian Clergy Letter
• (11,824 signatures as of 2/9/09)
• Rabbi Letter
• (434 signatures as of 2/9/09)
• UU Clergy Letter
• (176 signatures as of 2/9/09)

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Evolution_Weekend/2007_evol_sunday.htm Edited February 9, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Amby 490]

I always wonder about the guy who "cracked" the human genome....

I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.

His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,” said Collins, 56.

“I don’t see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years.”

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. “I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details,” he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the “heresy” of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

Among Collins’s most controversial beliefs is that of “theistic evolution”, which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.

“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.

“Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get.”

Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.

“They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance,” he said. “That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling.”

He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis’s Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. “It was an argument I was not prepared to hear,” he said. “I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away.”

His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: “It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, ‘I cannot resist this another moment’.”

Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. “If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion,” he says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece

[amberdima 6]

Advocates against Intelligent Design (ID) are steadfast in their allegations that ID is fundamentalism brimming with miracles and hearsay. Granted, there are Americans who believe that “there was a time, not that long ago, when the plains of the Midwest were covered with water and some chap in an ark stuffed with animals came floating by.” (Ruse, 2005) This belief is legitimate only in that Americans have the freedom to practice their religion anywhere except in state institutions. This includes public schools. If people want America’s children to learn religion, send them to church. They will then be exposed to different schools of thought, after which they can see an obvious distinction between science and religion, evidence and conjecture, and decide to reject or accept the concrete theory of evolution.

This is the conclusion to a lengthy paper I wrote in college against ID.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Advocates against Intelligent Design (ID) are steadfast in their allegations that ID is fundamentalism brimming with miracles and hearsay. Granted, there are Americans who believe that “there was a time, not that long ago, when the plains of the Midwest were covered with water and some chap in an ark stuffed with animals came floating by.” (Ruse, 2005) This belief is legitimate only in that Americans have the freedom to practice their religion anywhere except in state institutions. This includes public schools. If people want America’s children to learn religion, send them to church. They will then be exposed to different schools of thought, after which they can see an obvious distinction between science and religion, evidence and conjecture, and decide to reject or accept the concrete theory of evolution.

This is the conclusion to a lengthy paper I wrote in college against ID.