Skip to comments.In the beginning (Evolution and religion)
Posted on 04/30/2007 1:18:21 PM PDT by mjp
The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global
THE Atlas of Creation runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between Darwinism and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the Atlas de la Création has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world.
The mass distribution of a French version of the Atlas (already published in English and Turkish) typifies the style of an Istanbul publishing house whose sole business is the dissemination, in many languages, of scores of works by a single author, a charismatic but controversial Turkish preacher who writes as Harun Yahya but is really called Adnan Oktar. According to a Turkish scientist who now lives in America, the movement founded by Mr Oktar is powerful, global and very well financed. Translations of Mr Oktar's work into tongues like Arabic, Urdu and Bahasa Indonesia have ensured a large following in Muslim countries.
In his native Turkey there are many people, including devout Muslims, who feel uncomfortable about the 51-year-old Mr Oktar's strong appeal to young women and his political sympathies for the nationalist right. But across the Muslim world he seems to be riding high. Many of the most popular Islamic websites refer readers to his vast canon.
In the more prosperous parts of the historically Christian world, Mr Oktar's flamboyant style would be unappealing, even to religious believers. Among mainstream Catholics and liberal Protestants, clerical pronouncements on creation and evolution are often couched in carefuland for many people, almost impenetrabletheological language. For example, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the world's 80m Anglicans, has dismissed literal readings of the Creation story in Genesis as a category mistake. But no such highbrow reticence holds back the more zealous Christian movements in the developing world, where the strongest religious medicine seems to go down best.
In Kenya, for example, there is a bitter controversy over plans to put on display the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human being ever found, a figure known as Turkana Boyalong with a collection of fossils, some of which may be as much as 200m years old. Bishop Boniface Adoyo, an evangelical leader who claims to speak for 35 denominations and 10m believers, has denounced the proposed exhibit, asserting that: I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it.
Richard Leakey, the palaeontologist who unearthed both the skeleton and the fossils in northern Kenya, is adamant that the show must go on. Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his, Mr Leakey has insisted. Local Catholics have backed him.
Rows over religion and reason are also raging in Russia. In recent weeks the Russian Orthodox Church has backed a family in St Petersburg who (unsuccessfully) sued the education authorities for teaching only about evolution to explain the origins of life. Plunging into deep scientific waters, a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, Father Vsevolod Chaplin, said Darwin's theory of evolution was based on pretty strained argumentationand that physical evidence cited in its support can never prove that one biological species can evolve into another.
A much more nuanced critique, not of Darwin himself but of secular world-views based on Darwin's ideas, has been advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, the conservative Bavarian who assumed the most powerful office in the Christian world two years ago. The pope marked his 80th birthday this week by publishing a book on Jesus Christ. But for Vatican-watchers, an equally important event was the issue in German, a few days earlier, of a book in which the pontiff and several key advisers expound their views on the emergence of the universe and life. While avoiding the cruder arguments that have been used to challenge Darwin's theories, the pope asserts that evolution cannot be conclusively proved; and that the manner in which life developed was indicative of a divine reason which could not be discerned by scientific methods alone.
Both in his previous role as the chief enforcer of Catholic doctrine and since his enthronement, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has made clear his profound belief that man has a unique, God-given role in the animal kingdom; and that a divine creator has an ongoing role in sustaining the universe, something far more than just lighting the blue touch paper for the Big Bang, the event that scientists think set the universe in motion. Yesterday America, today the world
As these examples from around the world show, the debate over creation, evolution and religion is rapidly going global. Until recently, all the hottest public arguments had taken place in the United States, where school boards in many districts and states tried to restrict the teaching of Darwin's idea that life in its myriad forms evolved through a natural process of adaptation to changing conditions.
Darwin-bashers in America suffered a body-blow in December 2005, when a judgestriking down the policies of a district school board in Pennsylvaniadelivered a 139-page verdict that delved deeply into questions about the origin of life and tore apart the case made by the intelligent design camp: the idea that some features of the natural world can be explained only by the direct intervention of a ingenious creator.
Intelligent design, the judge found, was a religious theory, not a scientific oneand its teaching in schools violated the constitution, which bars the establishment of any religion. One point advanced in favour of intelligent designthe irreducible complexity of some living thingswas purportedly scientific, but it was not well-founded, the judge ruled. Proponents of intelligent design were also dishonest in saying that where there were gaps in evolutionary theory, their own view was the only alternative, according to the judge.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has spearheaded the American campaign to counter-balance the teaching of evolution, artfully distanced itself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the local school board had gone too far in mixing intelligent design with a more overtly religious doctrine of creationism. But the verdict made it much harder for school boards in other parts of America to mandate curbs on the teaching of evolution, as many have tried to doto the horror of most professional scientists.
Whatever the defeats they have suffered on home ground, American foes of Darwin seem to be gaining influence elsewhere. In February several luminaries of the anti-evolution movement in the United States went to Istanbul for a grand conference where Darwin's ideas were roundly denounced. The organiser of the gathering was a Turkish Muslim author and columnist, Mustafa Akyol, who forged strong American connections during a fellowship at the Discovery Institute.
To the dismay of some Americans and the delight of others, Mr Akyol was invited to give evidence (against Darwin's ideas) at hearings held by the Kansas school board in 2005 on how science should be taught. Mr Akyol, an advocate of reconciliation between Muslims and the West who is much in demand at conferences on the future of Islam, is careful to distinguish his position from that of the extravagant publishing venture in his home city. They make some valid criticisms of Darwinism, but I disagree with most of their other views, insists the young author, whose other favourite cause is the compatibility between Islam and Western liberal ideals, including human rights and capitalism. But a multi-layered anti-Darwin movement has certainly brought about a climate in Turkey and other Muslim countries that makes sure challenges to evolution theory, be they sophisticated or crude, are often well received.
America's arguments over evolution are also being followed closely in Brazil, whereas the pope will find when he visits the country next monthvarious forms of evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are advancing rapidly at the expense of the majority Catholic faith. Samuel Rodovalho, an activist in Brazil's Pentecostal church, puts it simply: We are convinced that the story of Genesis is right, and we take heart from the fact that in North America the teaching of evolution in schools has been challenged.
Even in the United States, defenders of evolution teaching do not see their battle as won. There was widespread dismay in their ranks in February when John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate, accepted an invitation (albeit to talk about geopolitics, not science) from the Discovery Institute. And some opponents of intelligent design are still recovering from their shock at reading in the New York Times a commentary written, partly at the prompting of the Discovery Institute, by the pope's close friend, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna.
In his July 2005 article the cardinal seemed to challenge what most scientists would see as axiomaticthe idea that natural selection is an adequate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life in all its forms. Within days, the pope and his advisers found they had new interlocutors. Lawrence Krauss, an American physicist in the front-line of courtroom battles over education, fired off a letter to the Vatican urging a clarification. An agnostic Jew who insists that evolution neither disproves nor affirms any particular faith, Mr Krauss recruited as co-signatories two American biologists who were also devout Catholics. Around the same time, another Catholic voice was raised in support of evolution, that of Father George Coyne, a Jesuit astronomer who until last year was head of the Vatican observatory in Rome. Mr Krauss reckons his missive helped to nudge the Catholic authorities into clarifying their view and insisting that they did still accept natural selection as a scientific theory.
But that was not the end of the story. Catholic physicists, biologists and astronomers (like Father Coyne) insisted that there was no reason to revise their view that intelligent design is bad science. And they expressed concern (as the Christian philosopher Augustine did in the 4th century) that if the Christian church teaches things about the physical world which are manifestly false, then everything else the church teaches might be discredited too. But there is also a feeling among Pope Benedict's senior advisers that in rejecting intelligent design as it is understood in America they must not go too far in endorsing the idea that Darwinian evolution says all that needs to be, or can be, said about how the world came to be.
The net result has been the emergence of two distinct camps among the Catholic pundits who aspire to influence the pope. In one there are people such as Father Coyne, who believe (like the agnostic Mr Krauss) that physics and metaphysics can and should be separated. From his new base at a parish in North Carolina, Father Coyne insists strongly on the integrity of sciencenatural phenomena have natural causesand he is as firm as any secular biologist in asserting that every year the theory of evolution is consolidated with fresh evidence.
In the second camp are those, including some high up in the Vatican bureaucracy, who feel that Catholic scientists like Father Coyne have gone too far in accepting the world-view of their secular colleagues. This camp stresses that Darwinian science should not seduce people into believing that man evolved purely as the result of a process of random selection. While rejecting American-style intelligent design, some authoritative Catholic thinkers claim to see God's hand in convergence: the apparent fact that, as they put it, similar processes and structures are present in organisms that have evolved separately.
As an example of Catholic thinking that is relatively critical of science-based views of the world, take Father Joseph Fessio, the provost of Ave Maria University in Florida and a participant in a seminar on creation and evolution which led to the new book with papal input. As Father Fessio observes, Catholics accept three different ways of learning about reality: empirical observation, direct revelations from God and, between those two categories, natural philosophythe ability of human reason to discern divine reason in the created universe. That is not quite intelligent design, but it does sound similar. The mainly Protestant heritage of the United States may be one reason why the idea of natural philosophy is poorly understood by American thinkers, Father Fessio playfully suggests. (Another problem the Vatican may face is that Orthodox Christian theologians, as well as Catholic mystics, are wary of natural philosophy: they insist that mystical communion with God is radically different from observation or speculation by the human brain.) The evolution of the anti-evolutionists
Whatever they think about science, there is one crucial problem that all Christian thinkers about creation must wrestle with: the status of the human being in relation to other creatures, and the whole universe. There is no reading of Christianity which does not assert the belief that mankind, while part of the animal kingdom, has a unique vocation and potential to enhance the rest of creation, or else to destroy it. This point has been especially emphasised by Pope Benedict's interlocutors in the Orthodox church, such as its senior prelate Patriarch Bartholomew I, who has been nudging the Vatican to take a stronger line on man's effect on the environment and climate change.
For Father Coyne, belief in man's unique status is entirely consistent with an evolutionary view of life. The fact we are at the end of this marvellous process is something that glorifies us, he says.
But Benedict XVI apparently wants to lay down an even stronger line on the status of man as a species produced by divine ordinance, not just random selection. Man is the only creature on earth that God willed for his own sake, says a document issued under Pope John Paul II and approved by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
What is not quite clear is whether the current pope accepts the Chinese wall that his old scientific adviser, Father Coyne, has struggled to preserve between physics and metaphysics. It is in the name of this Chinese wall that Father Coyne and other Catholic scientists have been able to make common cause with agnostics, like Mr Krauss, in defence of the scientific method. What the Jesuit astronomer and his secular friends all share is the belief that people who agree about physics can differ about metaphysics or religion.
Critics like Father Fessio would retort that their problem was not with the Chinese wallbut with an attempt to tear it down by scientists whose position is both Darwinist and anti-religious: in other words, with those who believe that scientific observation of the universe leaves no room at all for religious belief. (Some scientists and philosophers go further, dismissing religion itself as a phenomenon brought about by man's evolutionary needs.)
The new book quoting Pope Benedict's contributions to last year's seminar shows him doing his best to pick his way through these arguments: accepting that scientific descriptions of the universe are valid as far as they go, while insisting that they are ultimately incomplete as a way of explaining how things came to be. On those points, he seems to share the anti-Darwinist position of Father Fessio; but he also agrees with Father Coyne that a God of the gaps theorywhich uses a deity to fill in the real or imagined holes in evolutionary scienceis too small-minded. Only a handful of the world's 2 billion Christians will be able to make sense of his intricate intellectual arguments, and there is a risk that simplistic reporting and faulty interpretation of his ideas could create the impression that the pope has deserted to the ranks of the outright anti-evolutionists; he has done no such thing, his advisers insist.
Not that the advocates of intelligent design or outright creationists are in need of anyone's endorsement. Their ideas are flourishing and their numbers growing. As Mr Krauss has caustically argued, the anti-evolution movement is itself a prime example of evolution and adaptabilitydefeated in one arena, it will resurface elsewhere. His ally Father Coyne, the devoted star-gazer, is one of the relatively few boffins who have managed to expound with equal passion both their scientific views and their religious beliefs. He writes with breathless excitement about the dance of the fertile universe, a ballet with three ballerinas: chance, necessity and fertility. Whether they are atheists or theists, other supporters of Darwin's ideas on natural selection will have to inspire as well as inform if they are to compete with their growing army of foes.
“Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the world’s 80m Anglicans, has dismissed literal readings of the Creation story in Genesis as a category mistake”
Archbishop Rowan Williams is the very definition of a category mistake.
And your evidence, aside from a book written by man, is?
It seems to me that both the Anglican and the Catholic Churches, plus many main line Protestant denominations, view evolution as the mechanism of creation and reject YEC. That is also what I beleive. There is overwhelming evidence against YEC.
These people are looking for evidence to support their tiny four dimensional thinking capability. There are many more dimensions of this universe that we have no capability of understanding until our souls are released from the Bodies. It has always been a battle between God and Satan. This battle started in the beginning of mankind and is the basis for all our history up to now. We have been the pawns, in Satans eyes, and Children in Gods eyes.
Evolution was just another way Satan has used to deceive us as to the truth. To believe in Evolution is a fools journey that has traps all along the way, and the end is to turn away from Christ. Once a person believes in Evolution, this will immediately discredit the Bible for some and diminish its’ importance to the Christian that accepts Evolution as just a way God made man. There are those that actually believe in God, but think that he used Evolution to make man. To believe this puts a limit on Gods power and all powerful Father we know him to be.
The people around Noah wanted proof that it was going to rain. Well, they got their proof alright, however, many failed to even build a rowboat much less an Ark. Once the proof was provided, it was just a little too late when the arks doors closed. :)
This time, the proof will be a lot of heat......lots of heat.
Oh, yes, I agree, I don’t believe in Religion....I believe in Jesus Christ. :)
Oh, good line!
“That is also what I beleive. There is overwhelming evidence against YEC.”
Jesus taught a literal creation in which man and woman were creaded as such “from the beginning”. You must decided who your final source of authority will be - the Bible or modern theories.
“Science” would reject the posibility of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ outright.
“Oh, yes, I agree, I dont believe in Religion....I believe in Jesus Christ. :)”
You would know nothing of Jesus Christ were it not for “religion”.
Since Adam wasn't created on the first day, how can man and woman have been in existence "from the beginning"? Your argument is subject to the "how long is a day" problem.
Science would reject the posibility of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ outright.
"Science" would say there is no evidence of the resurrection. Which is the same thing that "Law" would say. If you reject "science" for that reason, then will you reject "law" as well?
Apparently the Bishop doesn't know that many creationists believe that the "Turkana Boy" IS a "normal" human (even though he is clearly Homo erectus). Of course other creationists think all H. erectus are just apes. Funny that they ALL agree there are NO intermediates, that apes and humans are perfectly distinct, but there are all sorts of fossils for which they can't agree to which distinct category unconnected by intermediates they belong!
“Since Adam wasn’t created on the first day, how can man and woman have been in existence.”
I’ll direct yo to the words of Jesus. You can argue with Him.
Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”
“Which is the same thing that “Law” would say. If you reject “science” for that reason, then will you reject “law” as well?”
A Judge looks at the evidence for the Resurrection
If you are currently uncertain what to believe about the resurrection, or if you are open to that which would further inform your opinion, you should know about Simon Greenleaf.
Simon Greenleaf was born in 1783. As a young man he prepared for a career in law under the tutelage of Ezekiel Whitman, once a chief justice of Maine. He practiced law here in Maine. He was appointed reporter of Maine’s supreme court when it was established in 1820. His own legal reputation and practice grew until he became, quite possibly, the foremost legal figure in the state at that time.
When he was 50, Greenleaf accepted an offer to become Royal professor of law at Harvard University’s Law School, a distinguished post that he held for 13 years.
Greenleaf was granted Doctor of Law degrees by Harvard, Amherst and the University of Alabama. He wrote a highly respected text and numerous papers, played a role in the formation of Liberia’s original constitution, and on at least one occasion appeared as chief counsel before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court once referred to Dr. Greenleaf as “the greatest authority on legal evidence that ever lived.”
At one point in his career, Simon Greenleaf mounted an intensive examination into evidence from the Gospel accounts for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The result of his work was a published piece entitled “The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice.”
Greenleaf concluded that in any unbiased courtroom in the world, if such evidence were presented, it would be adjudged as absolute historical fact.”
Does the article not note B-XVI's skepticism (at the least) over the curious notion that men are somehow "descended" from apes???
God said that He created Adam and Eve. God holds considerably higher authority than any scientist. Darwin was a failed (and resentful???) theology student as well as a knee-slappingly hilarious author of fables for the gullible among us.
In charity, we ought to consider that the view of Darwin and others that they are decsended from apes may actually be evidence that they are but they have no business maligning the ancestry of humans as though ours were theirs.
Fr. Coyne should find a new line of work: gardening, or carpentry or cooking or swinging through the treetops with a banana in one hand and a vine in the other or whatever. He is over his head on man's ancestry. When we need "science" to reveal religious truth, we will be sure to let the "scientists" know but they ought, in prudence, hold their breath waiting. If God's Word was good enough for real scientists like Louis Pasteur, then it ought to be good enough for the Darwinist pipsqueaks who never seem to produce work as valuable or practical as that of Pasteur.
aug: Well, then, get down on your knees and worship what you conceive to be "science" almighty. A mighty strange god to have before the one genuine God, but free will is free will. AND, when Darwin died, his personal attempts to deny the Truth, ummmm, ended.
Neither resentful (he enjoyed his time in Cambridge and maintained contacts there for many years) nor failed (he took a four year "ordinary" degree and passed his finals well in the top 10 percent, 10th on the list out of 178). He just never went on to take up orders in clergy as his scientific career took of, and he found himself loaded down with scientific work, in the wake of The Beagle voyage.
The rest of your sneering screed is about equally accurate.
If, tomorrow, you awoke to find that the Bible had disappeared from history and all of its derivitive ‘religions’ no longer existed in fact or in memory, in what would you believe? By what system would you live your life? No offense intended; just curious. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.