Advanced Search

Pro-Evolution Book Says Science and God Compatible

By
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Jan. 09 2008 08:53 AM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

A new book produced by scientific advisers to the government in support of evolution says science and religion, as two separate ways of human understanding, can be compatible and it is possible for one person to embrace both.

"Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience," reads “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” published by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine.

The former is empirical and the latter is not, acccording to the 70-page book released on Thursday.

"Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist,” states the book, asserting that one does not have to abandon belief in God to accept evolution.

It is the third pro-evolution book put forth by the scientific organization but the first where the panel of authors addressed the religion question for an intended lay public audience.

According to Alan Leshner, CEO of American Association for the Advancement of Science, the scientific community is “working more and more with religious communities so that we can talk about ways that people can have this co-existing understanding (of science and religion),” he said Monday on The Diane Rehm Show.

“This really doesn’t have to be a debate. We don’t pitch science against religion,” said Leshner. “Over and over, religions that see the Bible as an allegory, as a description of an overall process that isn’t tied to literal day by day, those religions seem to understand better how science can co-exist with a religious belief or even a biblical belief. It’s the literalist point that has tremendous problems.”

Barbara A. Schaal, NAS vice president and evolutionary biologist at Washington University, noted, “We wanted to produce a report that would be valuable and accessible to school board members and teachers and clergy,” according to the New York Times.

She is also a member of the panel – led by Francisco Ayala, a biologist at the University of California, Irvine and a former Dominican priest – that produced the book and that has agreed evidence was growing for evolution.

One piece of evidence referred to in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish displaying "intermediate" features, such as four finlike legs, which was believed to play a role in helping the creature pull itself through shallow water onto land.

At four chapters long, the report devotes one entire chapter to "Creationism" – the Biblical view that God created the universe – describing a creationist as one who rejects scientific findings "in favor of a special creation by a supernatural entity." In this chapter, the book states that one can believe in God, not reject science – or in other words, accept evolution – and not be called a "creationist."

A 2006 Pew Research Center poll showed that while 51 percent of American adults embrace evolution, nearly half (21 percent) of them said evolution was guided by a supreme being. Only 26 percent said they believe in Darwinian evolution while 42 percent rejected evolution altogether, saying humans and other living things have existed in present form only.

The book also doesn't end without muddying the concept of intelligent design – the teaching that features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause as opposed to an indirect process – much to the dismay of its proponents.

Many pro-evolution reports, including the latest book, often mistakenly portray intelligent design as a sister concept to creationism, injecting a religious element where none exists.

"NAS manages to celebrate evolution as an unassailable truth, completely misrepresent intelligent design," argues a Jan. 3 report by Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, in response to the book.

Intelligent design is unlike creationism because it doesn't rely on religious text but rather on empirical evidence, according to Discovery Institute's briefing packet for educators entitled "The Theory of Intelligent Design."

The group and other supporters also criticized NAS for failing to address challenges to the theory of evolution and for instead "rehashing" the same arguments.

"What's lacking is the true scientific debate about the merits and weaknesses of evolutionary theory as presented by Darwin," said Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at Family Research Council (FRC), in his Jan. 3 appearance on NBC Nightly News.

The book ignores "peer-reviewed articles on the concept and the credentials of 700 doctoral-level scientists who have publicly questioned Darwinism," argues FRC President Tony Perkins.

Despite the usual buzz surrounding the evolution-related controversies, the book's publication has garnered attention as science curriculums in several states like Florida and Texas undergo scrutiny or reevaluation.

Evolution critics, meanwhile, have urged the schools to re-tune the teachings on evolutionary theory by providing alternate views.

"Students should learn about the evidence for and against evolution," Casey Luskin, program officer for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, told the Associated Press.

Christian Post reporter Nathan Black contributed to this report.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
agentorange
  • Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:07 pm
  • : 1
  • : 2
  • Flag
Seedy,

Read up on DNA evidence, particularly ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 Fusion for common ancestry, especially the details on what the data infers for evolution. That coupled with fossils of past hominids and early primitive apes like Australopithecus Afarensis give fairly good credence for human evolution.

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (whole Video)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

NOVA Judgement Day ,Intelligent Design onTrial. part1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qk3sRqsVrh4

Humans and chimpanzees have at least 7 IDENTICAL inactive retroviral DNA sequences (Endogenous Retrovirus) in IDENTICAL locations in their genomes. Most importantly is the ERV insertion via reverse transcriptase occurs entirely at RANDOM. The ONLY way this could occur is if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor which also possessed the inactive retroviral sequence. What about the fact that the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two great ape chromosomes.

With respect to DNA evidence, especially the Fusion and 7 Identical ERV's, the only response AIG and ICR has is well, 'god made it that way'. Logically this is foolish as it's suggesting god intentionally leaves evidence for evolution, all the while it's somehow not true according to AIG and ICR.

i await your reply to this.
agentorange
  • Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:57 pm
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
“I think that it is correct to presume that in the order of things a Designer necessitates one that at least looks like the Christian God.”

So, now you agree with me that ID = god, where earlier you denied it? Hilarious. Not just god, but of course the Christian god.

“.He actually has stated that ID does not rule out alien spawning”

Really, WHERE?. Cite that one for me please.

“Often enough their work overlaps, but it is distinct in their approach, this story is also similar to the young earth creationists.”

You know it is, and there’s more likeness so it’s quite obvious that ID = god, it’s a no brainer.

AO-“ Moreover, you must admit if there is a god that is behind it all, it’s not an omnibenevolent one, it’s one of indifference. A short glance of the chaos in our Universe and domestically on earth will attest to that.”

Seedy “Hugh Ross has taken a lot of time to explain his results leading to an opposite conclusion.”

Please, do tell. This would be interesting.


(referring to the ‘atheist gene you mentioned) “It apparently is somewhere along the spinal cord, we don’t know exactly. It disables them from being able to humble their self before God. Lol”

A typical creationist failed attempt at making a joke. Hardy har har. It would almost have weight if your god had enough evidence to be believed in to pay homage to in the first place.

Since we have gone off on this morality, ethics, and this entirely different tangent than what my first question posed, allow me to retort. PLEASE finally answer these 2 pieces of evidence as they relate to evolution in the post above.

PEACE.
agentorange
  • Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:45 pm
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
“You believe that we have been begotten through random acts of blind impersonal materialism, step by step in a world of hostility. Yet guided by Mother Nature it somehow was able to over come the obstacles by sheer determination”

Obviously you don’t understand the 4 universal laws (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) if you had you wouldn’t have made such a claim. Matter has to exist (refer to 1st law) it can’t NOT exist, and it also must seek a resolute state, and it operates according to those universal forces. Those forces is what ‘guided’ naturally if you will the universe we see before us. No magic man behind the curtain pulling strings required for any of that.



“The fact that it was relatively recent that the scientific community threw out magical spontaneous generation reveals problems with your analogy.”

No it’s not, science strips away ignorance, it lives off of new data that is tested added and used, unlike religion which never uses any new data in it’s scriptures as to alter scripture is heresy!.

The two are totally different in this dept. Religions work best when no new evidence for anything is uncovered and while the masses are ignorant of evidence; while science thrives as new theories are created, edited (relativity) or crushed to explain the evidence of our world. Science is all about progressing knowledge and explain our universe. Religion asserts there is no reason to even research anything as it asserts it has all the answers in their ancient book.

“God is not merely a ‘posit,’ but rather deduced from the evidence. Looking at the technological advancements of science, how could one say that this is a result of years of accumulated random chance processes by which material came together to form complex structures.’

What technological structures? Please do list, I love refuting ID complexity.
agentorange
  • Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:24 pm
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
“The evidence is not so persuasive for natural evolution; certain aspects of evolution, yes; natural evolution, no.”

Fine what aspects in natural evolution are so confounding to you that the whole notion that it works naturally must be tossed? My guess is you’ll opt for biological systems and not mention any of the paleontology evidence or any other evidence for natural evolution. ID resides in arguing from personal incredulity and attempts to hammer in a designer in place of ignorance. Most disingenuous.

“How could I have guessed that you would have introduced atheism of the gaps? The point here is that if a miracle was staring you in the face, you would not believe it until you discovered some kind of a way to dismiss it, in spite of the evidence affirming it.”

No, I want to explain everything that can be explained in a scientific natural method and not resort to opt to use the ‘god did it’ clause which has been used over and over when attempting to explain confounding things. I asked for the evidence of ‘how dead this guy was’, IE was he brain dead? You didn’t bother to answer so I’ll assume he wasn’t and so he was never really dead to begin with.


(regarding spontaneous generation) “To be quite honest I did not know the scientific establishment had changed its mind.”

It’s been over a decade, read up on it. They don’t think it poofed out of nowhere in a single instance. Refer to the chemically bonding processes that molecules naturally have and why such nucleotides and poly nucleotides would have formed, that is one of the leading ideas leading to primitive RNA that composes DNA. No current scientists think DNA in a single instance was up and formed and nor do they consider ‘magic’ to be involved, rather they’re investigating the natural means to explain it as even according to Occam’s razor it makes more sense for things to occur naturally and without adding more complex factors (god) into the equation, especially as this factor can’t be substantiated.

“To say that imperial evidence is the only plausible evidence only reveals the inability on your part to recognize multi-dimensional realities that do not suite your taste buds’

EVIDENCE is everything. If some other dimension exist and there is credible evidence that is the case that it’s logical to accept it. Religious beliefs such as miracles fly in the face of this reality and they assert credible evidence isn’t required, but just ‘faith alone’ and this is why I reject them. To have ‘faith alone’ in any proposition is delusional.
agentorange
  • Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:23 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
“Peter Singer”

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is grounded in a being's personhood; that is, in the sense of a being's rationality and self-consciousness. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.
His argument against this is to say that, while a fetus is admittedly a member of the human species, it is not a person, which is defined as a self conscious being that sees itself over time. Species membership is morally irrelevant, but personhood is relevant.

His views on such things stems logically concluding using sciences evidence for what is defined as a human as it relates to conscisouness, sensory of pain and so on. Is a zygote a human, it has no memeory, no sense of conscious being, nor does it feel pain and this can be said further out past when it’s an embryo. Od you consider a zygote human and if so on what grounds? If you ground them on your religious belief in a soul, something that none have even prooved then it’s perhaps time to see what science has to say as to what a human really is.



“Again, without a moral compass, I think that the natural tendancy as noted here prior is one of domination and control.”

Right, no theists have ever tried to assert political control or domination. What are you kidding me?
What religious doctrines HAVEN’T been used in the past to assert domination, control and subjugation over the masses is the real question. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


‘Naturalism is based on certain beliefs and presumptions that are carried into science.”

Gee, I wonder why?! It’s b/c for something to be included in science an it must be studied in the NATURAL world, that's why naturalism is prefered.
agentorange
  • Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:52 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
“My point merely is as simple as this, if it is bad to take the Bible literally, how much worse is it to take survival of the fitest literally”

Well, if you read biology you’d realize that in evolution ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t strictly mean ‘only the strong survive’. In most organisms they only survive b/c of their altruistic and symbiotic relationships with other species and their own species. Only by ignoring this and other biology information would one conclude that evolution or natural selection some how gives a license to go out on a rampage.

We don’t see too many scientists and biologists going on rampages (at all literally) and they’d never blame it on some processes the excuse their actions. We don’t see scientists doing such rampage acts as they fully understand evolution and natural selection and that ‘survival of the fittest’ is a misnomer. It’s not always the most fit, but many times the most cooperative, the most ethical, and most moral species that win out, but of course you’d have to read a biology book and not sound bites to know this.

“This does not mean that all atheists and naturalists are in fact nihilists, but they are in the same religious category”

Fine, how are atheists, agnostics religious at all? We have no sacred holidays, no doctrines, no places of worship, we don’t worship anyone, etc.

“If you presuppose religion should be eliminated because people take it too literally,”

This isn’t my only reason, but it’s among them. Taking anything too literally and not acting rationally and logically is most absurd, theistic or not.

“If you really want to work on some type of social harmony it is counter-productive to come into a Christian sight posting anti-theistic messages.”

No it’s not, my goal is to strip away at unchallenged dogmas that most theists never question. My goal is to inform theists, Christians in particular on what evolution and other sciences REALLY suggests and so they’re no mislead. I have been doing this, but as it seems some Christians here don’t want to even hear of the evidence and so I am censored. If they are still religious in the end then fine, if they move toward Deism fine, if they choose non religious views fine. Perhaps more importantly is to show my Christian brethren that as un believer I have many of the same aspirations in life and can offer a view that they otherwise can’t or wont’ see. I am here to demystify the stigmas attached to non believers as being less ethical or someone un able to know morality without the notion of god.
agentorange
  • Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:11 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
“I am sure that you are including atheists [in your diagnosis] as well, such as the Columbine High [massacre], Jeffrey Dahmer…”

Well of course I am, any dogmatic literalist approach, theistic or atheistic isn’t rationale or wise.


“Nevertheless, atheism as a whole is proven to be the most destructive ideology’

No it’s not, only those that are NIHILISTS view the world in such ‘meaningless’ terms.

“Even though non-religious affiliated people only make up around 80% of the world’s population, this small percentage is responsible for the vilest acts of human depravity ever perpetrated on mankind.”

Non religious people globally make up 80% of the worlds population huh? What nonsense, the majority of people are theists! I guess you meant 8%? As if theist organizations haven’t done anything wrong then, is that what you’re saying? Both sides have done wrong and both have done right.

“Meanwhile you are complaining about the extremely few churches that practice snake handling because they don’t know how to properly exegete Scripture and institute hermeneutics.”

Oh those hics are hardly the only ones that don’t interpret the bible as it should be and you know this. Part of the problem is religious doctrines give otherwise san people a license to do stupid things.

“ Meanwhile, what violence have they committed to others?”

Say this about the Muslims who took their holy book literally and flew planes into our world trade center. Taking anything to such a degree of certainty is retarded, and mixing 21st century nuclear weapons with 1st century or 6th century beliefs is like mixing drinking with driving.

“but again I do not see them as raging atheists who are plotting the next coup.”

Where do you even see this? WHAT coup?
seedplanter
  • Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:45 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
And now that were getting more polite and tolerant:

“I however do not see how anything short of the miraculous, whether it be theism or pantheism, could account for the complexity and fine tuning of creation”

AO: “I do agree with this in the most broadest sense, and this would only suffice for a Deistic or Pantheistic view of god. However, give science some time to determine how if at all the universe could be tuned before assuming it was. There is the anthropic principle afterall.”

Interesting.

Moreover, you must admit if there is a god that is behind it all, it’s not an omnibenevolent one, it’s one of indifference. A short glance of the chaos in our Universe and domestically on earth will attest to that.”

Hugh Ross has taken a lot of time to explain his results leading to an opposite conclusion.

Final note:

“The atheist gene has been discovered”

AO: “It has, where’s it located? I have heard of science studies regarding the ‘god gene’ though.’

It apparently is somewhere along the spinal cord, we don’t know exactly. It disables them from being able to humble their self before God. lol
seedplanter
  • Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:44 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
AO: “ID most certainly implies god, Dembski even says ‘ID = God’. You’ll never hear ID proponents inferring that ‘ID means an alien that crafted these irreducible complex biological systems’, that would kill their whole neo-creationist focus.”

I think that it is correct to presume that in the order of things a Designer necessitates one that at least looks like the Christian God. You are wrong however about ID automatically referencing God. I have heard Dembski himself state that this is not the case. Now you can call him a liar, or say that he has changed his stance, but nevertheless this is the case. He actually has stated that ID does not rule out alien spawning. This is exactly why Hugh Ross and other scientists have not hopped on the ID community. Often enough their work overlaps, but it is distinct in their approach, this story is also similar to the young earth creationists. While I do recognize that deism, pantheism could be argued, I personally have distinguished my argument around the nature of your obsession with eliminating religion. All of these other things are merely to answer your criticisms and presumptions, which you have been largely either wrong, misinformed, uninformed or just difficult to follow on these posts; to speak more politely.
seedplanter
  • Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:44 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
AO: “Religion and its claims (what happens after we die for instance) particularly deal with items that are void of credible evidence and in this sense are mere hearsay. This is why evidence is everything.”

It is interesting that you brought this up. I just heard a lecture from a doctor who became an outspoken believer after dealing with people going in and out of death. Of course I should automatically presume that you have a natural explanation. But of course it does not necessarily warrant the occasion, since faith was not the centrality of the issue.

AO: “Sure you can site you doctrine, but anything in our Universe that doesn’t conform to its claims will instantly negate its defacto authority that normally would have sway over ignorant masses.”

That is an ironic twist. It does not take into account the problems that science itself has had over even the last century. The fact that it was relatively recent that the scientific community threw out magical spontaneous generation reveals problems with your analogy. It is not Christians alone who have had problems interpreting science and the way it relates to reality, naturalists have also had this problem. Thus your defacto argument works on both Christians and naturalists, exposing spurious thinking on both parts.

AO: “If you posit god and that he poofed us here instantly, you have some explaining to do and why all the evidence for evolution exists at all, namely Human Chromosome 2 Fusion and the 7 Identical ERV’s we and Chimps share in the exact same genetic locations.”

God is not merely a ‘posit,’ but rather deduced from the evidence. Looking at the technological advancements of science, how could one say that this is a result of years of accumulated random chance processes by which material came together to form complex structures. Thus non-life begets life; non-personality begets personality; non-complexity begets complexity; material structures beget immaterial structures; seems a little odd doesn’t it?
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here