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.
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.
But that’s completely missing the point.
The speculation of evolutionary theory suggests that changes in genotype lead to changes in phenotype, and the only way to prove it scientifically is to produce at least a written description of those changes. The changes you mention are not positively linked to changes in phenotype.
Not only are we unable to describe what specific changes in genotype mark the difference between habilis, erectus or sapiens. We have no evidence of what supposedly came in between.
If habilis evolved into erectus, according to Darwinian theory it was a very gradual change, one random mutation at a time.
This means the phenotypic changes would have been very small over a long period, and that the generosity of chance would have necessarily provided the fossil evidence of the in between species. I don’t mean 50% of volume, but 50% of variety. The absence of variety applies across the board to every kind of animal—the fossils just aren’t there.
Somehow, I doubt that.
What could I possibly say that I haven't already?
I have a feeling that the ToE has been explained to you many times, yet the religious dogma you have chosen precludes a reasonable examination of the facts. For me to go through that exercise again only wastes time for both of us. Embrace your willful ignorance.
Yes let’s just keep moving that goal post, and ignore the mountains of supporting evidence. You can deny history all you want but that does not change the facts.
Your statement is so far from correct that it is laughable.
There are literally thousands of examples of observed speciation.
I have already referred you to one example of observed, repeatable, and falsifiable example of evolution preformed in a laboratory
Here is it again
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf+html
I have all ready shown that your example of irreducible complexity of the blood clotting is not correct.
Here it is again
“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.”
I have already explained to you that the evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life
Here that is again
“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
And so far you have completely ignored this question to you:
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”?
You do know no matter how many times you repeat the same fallacy it does not make it true
Here you go. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf+html
Dittoes!
You don’t have facts. You have superstitions. Unless there is some new theory I haven’t heard of. The old ones are junk science.
Ah, the cult classic. I ask about complex animals, I get an answer about bacteria. Not good enough.
New people, same errors. It is a dangerous cult. Resist it.
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.