Amen, David. God and science go together. It's people who make the separation.
Elvis | 09.15.05 - 11:04 pm | #

Elvis,
It's also our limitations that make the separation necessary. Science can not prove or disprove god, nor do we have the tools to measure the supernatural.

Oh, and were you ever going to answer my simple questions?
GCT | 09.16.05 - 6:27 am | #

Yes, science and religion should go together -- but they rarely do.

Name the congregations that study science. I'd like to find one.

My experience -- in San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Washington, D.C., Maryland, New York, Virginia and Texas, is that ID confabs tend to be held at fundamentalist establishments, or are invited by the more fundamentalist arm of the group. My experience is that none of these churches has ever before held a seminar on biology or biological issues, and especially they have avoided, like the plague, studying the healing and feeding powers of evolution.

It would be great to take science to churches. When can I come explain evolution to those groups? Or, if you'd prefer, I could get people who are much more expert in biology than I, probably local to those congregations.

Is the plan to learn or polemicize? I suspect you're doing the latter.
Ed Darrell | 09.18.05 - 7:02 pm | #

The impasse of these discussions comes down to whether one believes that God can do miracles or not. The distractions come with people wanting to argue over evolution.

Evolutionists, as an example, want Christians to explain Creation. God has said that there are some things that people will not be able to explain. See Ecclesaistes 1:13-18.

There are other miracles of God such as the Resurrection, water into wine, feeding thousands on two loaves and five fish, etc. These miracles cannot be explained by science as we know it. So, if one does not believe in God's miracles, one will not believe in God and Creation.

Learning about God is the basics of the sciences. God provided many aspects of the sciences in the Bible. They are just not in the language descriptions that we use today. Example, as in Job 41, there is a description that sounds suspiciously like a sauropod. Some people will say Job is describing an elephant or hippo. However, how many elephants or hippos have tails like a cedar tree? How did these people describe a dinosaur without today's words? Great beast, behemoth, leviathan, dragon, flying serpents, etc.

Anesthesia before surgery - In Genesis 2, God put Adam to sleep before He operated on Adam. People could have used that as a lesson, but people had to do it the hard way as in strapping people down on the operating table or sawing through limbs as fast as possible (Civil War style operations).

There are many more examples. One just has to read the Bible.

Does your inability to know everything about God leave you frustrated or in awe of Him? Why?
Elvis | 09.18.05 - 10:27 pm | #

If God and science should go together, should we expect a rational scientific explanation of all things described in the Bible? I think Elvis is right. There are miracles that defy explanation. Is there a scientific explanation for Creation in the Big Bang? Does theistic evolution explain the origins of man? If you find a way to combine science and God to get past the first miracles, can you then get through the rest the same way? How about the Flood? It seems to me you have the greatest conflict between science (physics and biology) when you arrive at the Flood.
John | 09.19.05 - 6:05 am | #

Elvis and John,
My whole point is that some of the stories in the Bible are completely contradicted by science when they are read literally. The creation of the universe is an example. You both call it a miracle, and it may or may not be. That's not my concern. My concern has been that Elvis wants to throw evolution out because he feels that it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible, yet he won't throw out the other sciences that contradict literal interpretations of the Bible. It's intellectually incoherent.
GCT | 09.19.05 - 6:37 am | #

What facts are contradicted in the Bible? How is Creation a contradiction except in your own mind?

The point is the impasse. If you are not willing to believe in God's miracles, how do you explain the unexplainable with your science?

God gave us science. If one goes off on a strange tangent with that science, it doesn't mean it contradicts the Bible. It just means the people going off on a strange tangent of science are at odds.
Elvis | 09.19.05 - 9:26 pm | #

Elvis wrote:

"God gave us science. If one goes off on a strange tangent with that science, it doesn't mean it contradicts the Bible. It just means the people going off on a strange tangent of science are at odds."

Even if we start with your assertion that science is a gift from God (which I'm happy to allow as a matter of faith), the problem with your argument, of course, is that evolutionary theory is hardly what anyone within the scientific community would call a "strange tangent". It may seem superficially counter intuitive (much of what science discovers is so and there is no necessary reason to expect scientific discoveries to make "common sense"), but it is cleary the very well supported by evidence (the measure that matters in science) theoretical foundation of modern biology. Pretending otherwise is just willful pious ignorance.

So what we have is (allowing your premise) God's gift of science showing evolution to be the best material explanation of our origins. It is scientific "truth", which is not the same thing as "Truth". But, if your premise is correct, why would you argue that the scientific truth of evolution contradicts God's Truth?

The problem, IMHO, is that the manner in which you box God into your literal interpretation of scripture prevents you from realizing that, in fact, there is no necessary reason to decide that scientific truth conficts with God's Truth. The host of this blog, David, seems to suffer from the same theological myopia.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.20.05 - 11:30 am | #

Shag,

Since when is evolution proven to be fact?

Is adapting to an evironment really evolution? I bale hay and I get stronger (like weight lifting). I adapted to the environment, but I do not become a new species.

Is selective breeding really evolution? Breeding out genetic traits as in dog breeds. The dog is still a dog no matter what it looks like.

Evolution is the changing of one species into another (as in dinosaur into bird fantasies). What in evolution explains that with proof that it happens? Where are all those millions of transitional fossils? I do not hear the clamor of this proof in text books.

Again, how does one explain the miracles of God so that a human scientist can go replicate that miracle? One cannot do it. The impasse still comes down to what we believe God can do.

Evolution doesn't limit God, you're right. Evolution just leaves God out.

I have not seen evidence that David limits God in a little box as suggested. David gives God the credit for all things possible. You should, too.
Elvis | 09.20.05 - 6:23 pm | #

Elvis:

"I have not seen evidence that David limits God in a little box as suggested. David gives God the credit for all things possible. You should, too."

Actually, what I've been endeavoring to communicate is that, in fact, I do by faith give God credit as Creator of a universe in which science shows us that life has certainly evolved and is evolving. It's perhaps too expansive a view of God's agency than you are comfortable allowing. You can suit yourself, theologically. But as for your denial of evolution, you can just check the talkorigins website for thorough debunking of your claims and objections. How it is that you are comfortable piously denying the scientific truth of evolution while at the same time attributing the gift of science to God truly escapes me. Was it a cheap, throw away gift? That is how your denial is treating it.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.21.05 - 2:41 pm | #

Shag,

Again, if evolution were proven fact, it would be in all the text books harped on as truth instead of some website or Hollywood movie. So, the question should be how you can call it truth.

You know I got stronger lifting weights. I adapted to the heavy environment. I did not change species into "super homosapien." My offspring will not acquire the strength that I gained. They may have the genetic potential from the genes that I passed, but they will have exercise to get stronger. Also, they do not change species either.

Mutation (change from the given set of genetics), apart from the fantasy of X-Men, is usually a fatal thing (instead of benign) called cancer. A strange recessive trait is something already in the genes and is not a mutation.

If evolution is "fact" or "truth" in your mind, why isn't it in all the text books as fact/truth?
Elvis | 09.21.05 - 9:53 pm | #

Hi Elvis:

Unless you are looking at a textbook marketed specifically to evolution-deniers, the truth is that essentially all undergraduate textbooks in biology do treat evolution as the central, unifying theory that it is. Indeed, many of them explain that evolution is both a scientific theory and an observed fact. But what really matters is that the textbooks can make that claim because they are supported by a rich and growing collection of peer-reviewed scientific studies based on evidence for evolution. You seem to be either sadly or willfully ignorant of this fact.

Look, you are playing a losing game. On the one hand, you seem to value science and what it tells us (by considering it a gift from God), while at the same time denying the discoveries that it provides. GCT has pointed out repeatedly that it is not just evolution, but all of science that seems to be in conflict with your pre-modern world view. If you want to ground your faith in the sixteenth century (or earlier), fine by me. But you are dismissing lots of perfectly good science in order to do so. It just seems like an inherently flawed way to think and be theologically.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.22.05 - 10:47 am | #

Shag,

Not sure what books you look at, but none of the books I've seen or studied from in secular school in the rich big city (Chicago area) including college call evolution a unifying theory nor is it ever called fact. Must be that 16th Century Chicago.

There is difference with evidence (circumstantial) and fact.

The losing game is the game that leaves God out like evolution. Neither money nor group think justifies leaving God out.

In comparison, there are millions of dollars involved with astrology and millions of people who believe in astrology. There is a "science" claimed with astrology, but in the end, it is quack science that leaves God out.
Elvis | 09.22.05 - 6:07 pm | #

Who says evolution leaves God out? Not Darwin. Not Miller. Not Gould. Definitely not Dobzhansky. Certainly not Collins. Not Wallace.

Extra-scientific conclusions are unwarranted. In science, evolution makes no claim against God. When one claims otherwise, one reveals more of one's biases than one discerns about science.
Ed Darrell | 09.23.05 - 1:28 am | #

Ed makes and excellent point, Elvis. You should take it to heart.

Science avoids references to God and the supernatural, not because it is opposed to either, but because it is simply outside the purview of science. If you want God in your science, fine; just be sure you put your references thereto in the form of falsifiable hypotheses. See, it's simply a methodological limitation, not an evil/atheist/philosophical anti-God conspiracy. We don't do God questions in science because that is not how science works.

Elvis, if you want to keep it in theological terms, you can consider that science as a God-given tool is a really useful and powerful way of studying and learning about the material creation. Since it relies on methods that only reference the material, it is categorically unable to tell us anything about the Creator. Thus, there is no conflict between science as practiced and one's faith in God. Period. Claiming that the material evidence-based inferences and provisional conclusions of science in any way take anything away from God is a theological claim that limits God; such cannot (categorically) be a scientific claim.

Also, Elvis, why don't you go ahead and list the authors and publishers of these evolution-free college biology texts that you speak of. Here are three that fit my description:

Campbell et al., Addison-Wesley
Purves et al., Sinauer-Freeman
Raven and Johnson, McGraw-Hill

(all three of these are texts intended for introductory courses in biology for biology majors)

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.23.05 - 2:26 pm | #

Let's see, evolution and its ideas of random formation/chance that life just appeared and mutated from a single cell thing to multicelled things. That is leaving God out. Even if you say, God sparked the life and then left everything alone. Giving God the credit of starting life is great, but then you leave God out from the rest of the happenings.

Science is not the quack science with the make believe. You may watch X-Men and herald that people will mutate to be Cyclops, Wolverine, Storm, Magneto, etc.

In comparison, astrology deals with stars and so does astronomy. One is quack science while the other is science. If I don't believe in astrology, that doesn't mean I toss out astronomy because they have stars in common.

Sounds very much like evolution is a religion in itself. You have a lot of faith believing in something that is not really scientifically proven.

If it is such a proven fact as you claim, introductory courses should not leave out the grand foundation. So you went from being a unifying theory and fact to limiting it to a specific set of books. In comparison, there are books that make claims that certain things in history never happened such as the moon landing. Circumstantial evidence of observations taken out of context lead to the claim that the moon landing was made up in a Hollywood studio.
Elvis | 09.23.05 - 7:08 pm | #

Elvis,

Pardon me for saying so, but I'm struggling to figure out if you are being genuine or just being contrarian.

For starters, the text books that I referred to are merely the three at the top of my head, i.e. they are examples. The truth is you'll find that pretty much all introductory biology texts, whether for majors or non-majors, will treat evolutionary theory as the central, unifying theory that it is to biology.

But again, it isn't the text books that make it so; it's the body of scientific research and evidence that makes it so. Evolutionary theory is science because it is built on the scientific method of forming hypotheses and testing the predictions that follow from the hypotheses. It is the same process that distinguishes astronomy (science) from astrology (non-science). Evolutionary theory, as you say, "leaves God out" not because it has anything against God, but rather because to include God would preclude the ability to do science (i.e. test predictions that have the potential to falsify hypotheses). For this same reason, evolutionary theory has no power to say God has nothing to do with life, the universe, whatever - to say so would be saying something categorically other than science. No one, on the basis of evolutionary theory or any scientific theory, can legitimately argue that one needs to abandon faith in God. It's that simple.

Now, how does one reconcile the observations of science with pre-scientific mythology about creation? Well, that is a theological problem to work out and it may not be easy. A question you might ask yourself in the process is whether you have any reason to believe that the Creator would create or cause the universe to appear othan it does through the lens of, as you claim, God-given science. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that life, including human life, has evolved. It is my contention that a faith that is legitimate and mature does not need to play denial games when it comes to the material; if one's faith includes the recognition of God as author of the material creation, there is no reason one needs to doubt or second guess the observation thereof.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.25.05 - 4:09 pm | #

Let's see. College level biology and genetics classes - text book had nothing to say that evolution is the holy grail (unifying theory) nor fact.

What overwhelming evidence? Transitional life forms? I don't think so. Only in your mind, padawan learner.

No reason to doubt God, but why perpetuate the myth of evolution?
Elvis | 09.25.05 - 9:29 pm | #

Elvis,

I've already pointed you to the talkorigins archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/). It is a grassroots effort to make the evidence for evolution available to the general public. Give it an open-minded look.

There is also a web site published by UC-Berkeley (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/) that summarizes evidence, primarily for an audience of science teachers. Give it a look.

Both of these are summaries and thus good starting points for considering the scientific evidence. A next step would be to look at one of the text books I cited (not a text book from a bible-college class). When you have a good general picture of the landscape, then, of course, I encourage you to look at some of the primary research evidence. If you are interested, I'll be happy to recommend some citations from the scientific literature. But, in truth, this is something you could find without much effort IF you are actually interested in critically considering the evidence on its own terms (not through an anti-evolutionist filter).

Best wishes on your journey of discovery and faith!

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.26.05 - 10:23 am | #

I go on vacation for a week and I come back to this? Ugh.

Elvis: "What facts are contradicted in the Bible? How is Creation a contradiction except in your own mind?"

For the umpteenth million time, the 6 day creation myth is contradicted by science. Why will you not address that?

"In comparison, astrology deals with stars and so does astronomy. One is quack science while the other is science. If I don't believe in astrology, that doesn't mean I toss out astronomy because they have stars in common."

So, astronomy, which "leaves God out" the same as evolution, is OK in your book? Why isn't evolution OK then?
GCT | 09.26.05 - 9:09 pm | #

Elvis,

Evolution is a fact with every new thing produced by sexual reproduction. Darwin's theory was confirmed the first time when a new species of salt grass was observed to arise in the mud flats of the Thames River, about 1865. It's a wholly new species (Spartina townsendii) hybridized from two other usually-non-hybridizing species, incorporating the entire genomes of both parents into a new plant that filled an available niche in the local ecosystem.

There are numerous examples of speciation, especially in plants. Few people any more argue that radishes and broccoli are the same species, or even varietals of the same species, for example. Several ring species are well known, including warblers in the Himalayas and especially the California or San Fernando Valley salamanders.

Facts of evolution are easy to come by. Darwin's great genius was in tripping over the mechanism that revealed the theory that explains the facts.
Ed Darrell | 10.01.05 - 11:28 am | #