Skip to comments.Church of England Declares Evolution, Faith Are Compatible
Posted on 02/14/2010 9:38:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Church of England's governing body on Friday approved a motion that emphasizes the compatibility of belief in both God and science.
Dr. Peter Capon, a former computer science lecturer, introduced the motion arguing that "rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists ... or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area."
He urged Christians to take scientific evidence seriously and avoid prejudging science for theological reasons.
The vote comes as more than 850 congregations throughout the globe are celebrating Evolution Weekend with the aim of demonstrating that evolution poses no problems for their faith.
Religion and science are not adversaries, they say. Rather, the two fields should be seen as complementary, they maintain.
Evolution Weekend, which kicked off Friday, is supported by those of various faith traditions including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Unitarian Universalists.
"Religious leaders around the world are coming together to elevate the quality of the discussion about this important topic. They are demonstrating to their congregations that people can accept all that modern science has learned while retaining their faith," said Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Weekend and professor of Biology at Butler University in Indianapolis.
Since 2004 more than 12,400 Christian clergypersons from various denominations in the United States have signed "The Clergy Letter," expressing their belief "that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."
In the letter, Christian clergy contend, "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
"We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
Zimmerman, who is leading "The Clergy Letter Project," says those who promote "narrow religious views" and reject the compatibility of science and faith do not speak for all of the world's religious communities.
"Evolution Weekend shows that the disagreement is actually not between religious leaders and scientists, but rather between those who believe that their particular religious views should be incorporated into the science curriculum and clergy who recognize and respect the diversity of different faith traditions," he noted.
The compatibility, or lack thereof, of evolution and faith remains a hot debate among Christians. Prominent evangelical theologian Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. has said he finds it impossible to reconcile the two. While he does not deny that changes do take place in the animal kingdom and that there is even a process of natural selection, he firmly rejects theistic evolution and the argument that the process is entirely natural and in no case supernatural.
"God was not merely fashioning the creation of what was already pre-existent, nor was He merely working with a process in order to guide it in some generalized way, nor was He waiting to see how it would turn out," Mohler has said.
Evolution Weekend is scheduled to be celebrated in conjunction with Charles Darwin's birthday and the anniversary of the publication of his book, On the Origin of Species.
Religion and science are certainly not adversaries. Atheistic secularism and religion are adversaries, though.
Church of England also thinks men fascinated with swapping fecal matter orally or otherwise with one another passes for love and God sanctioned passion.
They haven’t been the same since Henry died.
Church of England. No wonder Prince Charles is so screwed up.
Science of this week or last week or next week?
Wake me when they settle on a final version and then I’ll compare it with the Textus Receptus.
To me, evolutionary theory and atheistic secularism are Siamese twins. The “Church” of England is an embarrassment. Bob
That’s easy to do when you call your leaders “Primates.”
If people have to “believe in” science, then evidence is lacking. This committee is probably pushing ESCR, even though real science has moved on.
Maybe someday evolutionary scientists will come to grips with the fact that they have no evidence.
There is no known mechanism for evolution.
I think Roman Catholicism believes this too. Though without taking on their theologies, I’d advise passing on the macro, with evolution’s best evidence lying within its microscopic aspects, i.e., at its molecular and even sub-molecular levels wherein possibly even cosmic radiation could have a mutative effect, for good...or for ill which would usually mean eventual extinction.
Your total lack of even a basic understanding of science, and denial of history is astonishing
Why does the creationist/i.d crowed keep asking for the evidence when it is here? All you have to do is go to a museum and see it for yourself. You can take a look at Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens and see the clear transition.
Your statement is not correct; the two main mechanisms that produce evolution are natural selection and genetic drift.
Do you really believe that? Have you learned nothing from ClimateGate? I call it DarwinGate...a bigger fraud than even ClimateGate!
re: men fascinated with swapping fecal matter orally or otherwise with one another passes for love and God sanctioned passion
Thanks for the short description which says it all with regard to homosexual male false use of the term “love”. I don’t like to beat around the bush. Whenever I need to hit someone on the head to make them wake up to what homosexuality is, I bring up this same point of yours, however, as a Catholic I had to go through mental gymnastics to say it without scandalizing people. Your brief words says it all. Makes things easy to say now.
If I may add to it:
Deluded people who think that men fascinated with swapping fecal matter orally or otherwise with one another, passes for love and God sanctioned passion
yes in my family fag hags have had to have doses of reality from me on occasion
Yes the evidence shows a clear transition to anybody who does not deny history, and has a rudimentary knowledge of science.
So since you answered my question with a questions here is one for you.
Please explain why we find no trilobites above the Permian strata, and why we find no dinosaurs above the cretaceous strata, or no mammals in the Cambrian strata?
I accept the observable facts of natural selection, and genetic drift, it is not a matter of belief. That is like asking if I believe in gravity, or that the sky is blue.
I will give you credit for your attempted straw man argument. I was born at night but it was not last night so that tactic will not work here. Your original statement is still incorrect and you have provided no evidence to show otherwise.
Gosh, nothing like the $65,000 Question, eh?
Trilobites.... My guess is that conditions for them changed, and/or with the profusion of other predatory life forms in the Cambrian they were considered quite tasty. Just a guess though. I'd have to study the issue in more detail.
Dinosaurs.... There seems to be a fairly good fit with the idea of a huge impact in the Gulf Of Mexico region at the end of the Cretaceous, or perhaps designating its end. There's pretty good evidence for a worldwide layer of Iridium in contemporaneous strata.
Some primitive mammals seem to have appeared during the Jurassic/Creataceous transition with representatives of that order surviving to the current day.
My view of evolution is based primarily on the molecular and sub-molecular level which makes these form all the more susceptible to cosmic ray bombardment. However, if I understood the details I should be nominated for a Nobel or at least a McArthur award.
It is enough in itself to believe that God is involved in everything. And with always more study those details as well become themselves all the more clear.
Here is a "fair" representation of the Geologic Column from the Cambrian on, at least so far as I understand it.
Question: Since life is structured and controlled by information, where did the original information come from? For instance, codons are used to assemble amino acids into proteins - where is the dictionary that defines which of 20 amino acids is associated with each of 64 codons?
Why is Faith called faith?
But what is your point?
Again with the straw man. The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since its inception.
I understand it is a common creationist/i/d tacit to use the straw man as to avoid facts to do not support their creation myth.
Faith is not based on proof.
But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume there is a starting organism. There is still information involved. But information is more than symbols/code. There are rules for employing the code, there is then meaning of the assembled code. And there is some type of purpose for the "organisms" that the code builds. Where does that "stuff" come from? Meaning is not a property of matter or energy.
Example: blood clotting - necessary to repair wounds in the organism. Blood clotting requires 13 proteins, all of which are dormant until there is a cut. The cut activates the protein cascade, one protein activating the next, until they are all activated. What would it take for an organism to retain one protein until all 13 are in place? What would it take for an organism to retain 12 proteins until the 13th comes along, and then what would bind them together? Where would the trigger come from? Why would there be a trigger? And how did all of the animals survive until the full blood clotting mechanism was in place and operational?
The problem with organisms is that they are extremely complex. And totally interdependent. Hardly the stuff of chance and natural selection!
It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
So far all you have done is throw out a statement that is not supported by the facts, put up two versions on the same straw man, and an Argument from personal incredulity. I guess when that is all you got, you have to go with it.
You guys are full of straw men, there is no such thing as devolution.
Please provide one creditable peer-reviewed paper that supports this assertion.
See post 26...how do you answer the questions posted there?
Trying the same straw man again, it did not work for Michael Behe, and Casey Luskin what makes you think it will work for you?
An Irreducible Core? Heres where things get really, really interesting. Luskin maintains that the irreducible core is a long-standing concept within ID thinking, and argues that this concept is well-supported by current research on the system. Well, is it? Does the blood-clotting system really contain an irreducible core?
Not even close. Luskins own sketch of that core highlights seven (count em) components in that core (click here for that image. The core is the red box in his diagram). Those seven components are:
Factor VIII (Antihemophilic Factor)
Factor X (Stuart Factor)
Factor V (Proaccelerin)
Factor II (Prothrombin)
Factor XIII (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor)
According to Luskin, these form an irreducible core without which blood clotting would not be possible.
Once again, ID fails, and the culprit isnt a liberal judge, the ACLU, or even a slick-talking smoke-and-mirrors biology prof. Its nature itself, in the form of a collaboration between a nasty little beast called the lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), and a pioneering scientist who has spent his career working out the evolution of the clotting cascade. That scientist is Russell Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego Diego (which, as it happens, is the very same university where Casey got two degrees in Earth Science while simultaneously founding and managing his creationist Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness [IDEA] Club).
His 2008 paper [Doolittle et al, 2008] reports on a careful search through the lamprey genome. The lamprey, as luck would have it, has a perfectly functional clotting system, and it lacks not only the three factors missing in jawed fish, but also Factors IX and V.
Now, Luskin could object that Factor IX wasnt part of his core, but Factor V certainly was. And, as Behe pointed out at length, the absence of factor IX causes potentially-fatal hemophilia in humans, which was part of his argument for the irreducible complexity of the whole system. The lamprey genome does contain a single gene, somewhat related to Factor X and Factor V, but not identical to either. As the papers authors put it: In summary, the genomic picture presented here suggests that lampreys have a simpler clotting scheme than later diverging vertebrates. In particular, they appear to lack the equivalents of factors VIII (or V) and IX, suggesting that the gene duplication leading to these factors, synchronous or not, occurred after their divergence from other vertebrates. [p. 195]. To make things even worse for Luskins core, a previous study from Doolittles lab [Jiang & Doolittle, 2003] had already shown that the bits and pieces (protein domains) of most of the clotting factor proteins are present in a primitive, invertebrate chordate. This is exactly what one would expect from an evolutionary trajectory leading to the current system in vertebrates the assembly of a complex pathway from pre-existing parts.
So, what are we left with? Nothing more than a vain attempt to pretend that IDs collapse in the Dover case was the result of misrepresentation and deception. For Mr. Luskin and his employers at the Discovery Institute, the generation of sound and fury continues, but in scientific terms, their continuing noise signifies nothing more than the utter emptiness of their failed ideas.
Might I suggest a little bit of independent research instead of regurgitating the same old debunked creationist/id talking points.
Evolution is based on molecular genetics.
What is the genetic difference between Homo habilis and Homo erectus? And between erectus and sapiens?
You can’t tell me because you don’t know. Nobody can because nobody has the slightest idea.
If they could answer, I would ask how many evolutionary steps separated any two of these along the arrow of nature.
What came in between, and why are there no fossils of those in between species?
There are no in between fossils because species don’t evolve.
BTW - your reference to my, what was it, "regurgitating" creationist talking points - did you think all of the information you posted? Or, were you dependent upon the research of someone else? We all cite our "experts" as justification for the positions we take. I happen to think that my "experts" are right, and more logical than yours.
Not so good for your irreducible complexity .
Evolution is defined as a genetic transition.
Without a description of the genetic change, it doesn’t describe evolution. It describes a hypothesis, or a guess.
I would be satisfied with the fossilized remains of only 50% of every species.
We don’t even have 1%.
You know teh google can be your friend.
“Genetic evidence for evolution
If there is evolution, is there any evidence for it at the genetic level?
The answer is yes. Scientists who have been studying genetic changes occurring in the human genome over the last 15,000 to 100,000 years, have found that over this relatively short period of time the human genome has changed by as much as 10 percent”
Just an example of one of the 2,050,000 hits I got in 0.28 seconds
By the way you know it would be impossible to find 50% of a species as fossils. You really should study up on fossilization and how really rare it is, lest you make your self look foolish by moving to goal post to a completely unattainable distance.
We miss you.
No, Catholicism is much more specific that this kindergarten journalism. Maybe the Church of England postulated something that makes a Catholic sense and maybe it hasn't, there is not way to tell from this.
The Catholic Church teaches that God as the only Creator of life and of the species MAY have alos put in place some evolutionary principles as another law of nature. A Catohlic MAY believe that, or, as my humble advice would be, he MAY believe that God simply made the species one by one, as something we have most ample evidence of being the fact. In any event, a Catholic MAY NOT believe the stupid tale how species just happened without any divine involvement from mud.
Theistic evolution is allowed as a theory in Catholicism. Direct creation of species one by one, -- literal creaitonism is also allowed as a theory. Neither of these two contradicts the reason. Non-theistic evolution is a heresy and also a shameful stupidity and mockery of science.
Forgot to mention, no Catholic ever disputes that. Scientific facts are another Bible: this how God reveals Himself to man. At dispute here is charlatanism of Darwinism, not honest science.
The CoE took a vote on that? Hilarious.
Of course not...I am saying that the explanation of “evolution” is pure speculation. And that there is no known mechanism to bring about what evolution claims. There are alternative explanations which account for the creation of information and amazingly complex organisms.
What you are really saying is that I do not understand basic science.
So just what are these alternative explanations that account for the creation of information and amazingly complex organisms, and how what repeatable, and falsifiable test would support this hypothesis?
Lets’ start with your own claim, because you are the ones who claim to be scientists.
Take several species. Any species, in any number. Put them in a lab. Any lab. Take your time. Produce a stable new species that can no longer breed with the original species.
We are talking, of course, sufficiently complex species and not flu viruses.
I really cannot disagree with the theory that it requires ‘faith’ to believe in evolution.. So nothing new under the sun about this religious arm around an old whispering.
I can only guess but this ‘church’ probably sanctions man cause global warming as science as well.
The Heavenly Father did say what He would do Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD GOD, that *I* will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, *but* of hearing the words of the LORD:
There are no repeatable and falsifiable test which can support evolution or special creation. One can only look at the evidence and deduce the most plausible explanation. There is only ONE known source of information - a mind. Information is not a property of matter, nor energy, and neither can generate it. Sadly, you restrict yourself to naturalistic explanations, presuming a purely natural world. There is more to this world than meets the eye.
It is well propagandized. It is not well understood. It will become well understood when someone explains to me, as college educated intelligent man, how a series of birth defects in one set of species can produce a different, new, stable species that no longer breeds with the original ones.