Where faith and science meet

[mammal_mama]

Francis Collins, the man who led the Human Genome Project, has started an awesome site called Biologos to help people see how evolution doesn't contradict a belief in God. I'd love for others to browse/read there and comment here.

http://biologos.org/

[PlayaMama]

i'm browsing but i'd like to say that one of my evolutionary botany teachers was a hard-core christian. i never asked him but i think the way he reconciled it was that god was working through the process of evolution.

[Bluegoat]

Certainly this has never been a point that bothered me. From quite early on there were Church fathers who say the Genisis story as primarily religious allegory or metaphor - not all, but it's not like it is a far-out idea. Which I suppose it why the RC and the OC are both ok with the idea of evolution, though they don't take a particular scientific stance.

In any case, the story of the Garden, even taken literally, is clearly not in the same kind of place/time as the Earth that we know and live on now - there has been some sort of change, and I don't think we have any way to tell what that would really mean for the history of the Earth. God gave us reason to help us to know and understand him, if we throw it out, we might as well be waiting for spaceships to beam us up and take us away.

[kimiij]

Similar to Bluegoat, for me, evolution has never bothered me. However, I think I also just look at things differently:

I don't try and fit science into faith.
I also don't see the two as necessarily contradictory.
I don't feel like I need to know the answers to everything in order to believe in God.

But, not everyone thinks like me so I think it's great that he has this site.

[holyhelianthus]

That site pretty much rocks

I also don't *try* and fit science with religion to me it has always just fit. I believe (not speaking for any particular religion here) that God does have a way of doing things and it's not just a snap of the fingers and voila the world has been created. I do believe He has a process not for the sake of having one but because all of creation no matter how big or small follows a process- the natural law or whatever you want to call it. Just because we can explain the way some of these things might have happened doesn't mean He didn't have a hand in it and on the flip side trying to find an explanation is not somehow going against Him. I think He instilled in us that curiosity for a reason.

JMO, take it or leave it.

Thanks for the link!!

[genifer]

Along the same lines of what everyone else has said... I too dont believe I need science to fit perfectly into faith, as if scientists were gods who knew everything already simply bc they have had some very fancy and extensive, expensive education...(or as if science was god). Ive yet to find a good arguement, using purely science, that DISproves the existance of God. Scientific evidence does NOT disprove the existance of God. Like some nonbelievers say 'its just not all been discovered yet'. They say it to 'prove' a point that science does have all the answers we need to know and in the end it will ALL be discovered..., but it goes the other way as well, they simply havent discovered what will prove to EVERYbody, that God is real. Nor will they ever... ever seeking and never knowing....

Now about genesis being literal or not...Bluegoat mentioned...

In any case, the story of the Garden, even taken literally, is clearly not in the same kind of place/time as the Earth that we know and live on now - there has been some sort of change, and I don't think we have any way to tell what that would really mean for the history of the Earth. God gave us reason to help us to know and understand him, if we throw it out, we might as well be waiting for spaceships to beam us up and take us away.

And I find that interesting, Ive never thought of it that way actually. But I did always say even if we believe its all alegory and metaphore, I wouldnt be at all surprised to find that it did happen exactly as it is written in genesis. Not saying that IS what I believe, but I wouldnt be surprised if we find in the end that it is how it happened.

[smeisnotapirate]

Never bothered me from a Jewish perspective, either. Evolution and my faith totally go hand-in-hand.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by smeisnotapirate

Never bothered me from a Jewish perspective, either. Evolution and my faith totally go hand-in-hand.

I'm curious, do the Orthodox Jews have a united stand on this issue? ( I seem to recall that you are from a Reformed tradition?)

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I'm curious, do the Orthodox Jews have a united stand on this issue? ( I seem to recall that you are from a Reformed tradition?)

I work in a reform synagogue, but philosophically I consider myself much more orthodox.

Here is a great summary of the debate. That summarizes things better than I could.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by smeisnotapirate

I work in a reform synagogue, but philosophically I consider myself much more orthodox.

Here is a great summary of the debate. That summarizes things better than I could.

Very interesting, Thanks! I find it interesting that many Jewish scholars, as well as the small-c catholic types of Christians, don't see a problem with evolution with regard to what Genesis and the Bible says. It doesn't seem like mystical meanings or non-literal accounts in scripture bother any of those groups. I wonder what that says about the difference between those people and the ones it does bother (Christian or Jewish?)

I always find the Kabbalists kind of obscure to my way of thinking, but I read a little Maimonides in university and he make me feel very happy. I think he was an interesting guy.

[beansmama]

Originally Posted by PlayaMama

i'm browsing but i'd like to say that one of my evolutionary botany teachers was a hard-core christian. i never asked him but i think the way he reconciled it was that god was working through the process of evolution.

I don't "get" christians who think evolution and God go hand in hand...assuming Christians think God is all powerful and can do ANYTHING - why the heck would he *need* billions of years to make the earth? Also, if you believe in evolution, you are disbelieving the creation story as a truth. The Bible is meant to be taken literally. If you choose to disbelieve and discredit one thing in there - why not open up your eyes a bit and discredit the rest?

I'd venture to guess the answer has to do with faith...and since i don't have any, i just don't "get it".

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by beansmama

I don't "get" christians who think evolution and God go hand in hand...assuming Christians think God is all powerful and can do ANYTHING - why the heck would he *need* billions of years to make the earth? Also, if you believe in evolution, you are disbelieving the creation story as a truth. The Bible is meant to be taken literally. If you choose to disbelieve and discredit one thing in there - why not open up your eyes a bit and discredit the rest?

I'd venture to guess the answer has to do with faith...and since i don't have any, i just don't "get it".

Desiree~ Not everyone believes God is all powerful as in He can snap his fingers and voila an entire world has been formed. I personally believe there is a natural order to things and He works within that (whether because He has to or because that's just what He does for no more than show is up for debate as much as anything else but IMO not very relevant to this discussion). As for the Bible being meant to be taken literally where do you get that? Symbolism is one of the best ways we learn for one, and for two (as one example) there is no definitive answer as to what is meant by a day in the creation story. Further more who is tlaking about disbelieving/disproving anything in the Bible?

There is more than one way to view the Chrisitan God, the Bible, evolution, etc etc.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by beansmama

I don't "get" christians who think evolution and God go hand in hand...assuming Christians think God is all powerful and can do ANYTHING - why the heck would he *need* billions of years to make the earth? Also, if you believe in evolution, you are disbelieving the creation story as a truth. The Bible is meant to be taken literally. If you choose to disbelieve and discredit one thing in there - why not open up your eyes a bit and discredit the rest?

I'd venture to guess the answer has to do with faith...and since i don't have any, i just don't "get it".

The idea that 'the Bible is meant to be taken literally" isn't really very meaningful, to be honest. Some of it is obviously not meant to be taken that way, and it's a pretty recent idea in the history of Christianity that it should be understood that way, as a whole. As far as I can see, that hasn't been a feature of Jewish understanding either. Why do you think it's true?

Why does God do anything the way he does? Why create at all? Perhaps the process is part of what God wants, perhaps it has some profound truth attached to it, perhaps it is beautiful in itself. Many mystics and scholars have suggested that God creates because of love - love of all the possibilities of being, love of diversity, just an overflowing of outward giving. To see how all things are connected, and that multiplicity comes arises from unity, in physics, in chemistry, and in biology, is quite an amazing parallel to the act of creation in itself, I think, and a process which contemplation of leads the mind to God.

But really, who are we to say how God "should" create anyway - I suppose we need to just take what we find.

[mammal_mama]

It's been interesting to read what everyone's had to say about this! I've also been trying to understand more about Intelligent Design -- and so far I must say, ID seems to be based not on science, but on a desire to reverse some social trends that ID proponents don't like, and that they see as an outgrowth of what they call "scientific materialism."

Which I guess is a fancy way of saying that they want to counter evolution, and they realize the most persuasive way to do this is scientifically. So their main interest in science seems to be as a tool of persuasion.

This is probably old news to many of you guys -- but I just recently learned about the Wedge Document, which was an internal memo being circulated at Discovery Institute, outlining their plan for countering "scientific materialism" in order to bring about social renewal.

And I also found Discovery Institute's response to the criticism of their Wedge Document, which they title "The 'Wedge Document': 'So What?'" -- in which they basically seem to be saying that it was never any secret that this is what they are about. But they say they are NOT in favor of changing our government into a theocracy.

Here's a link to the Wedge Document, and also a link to Discovery Institute's response --

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...437/wedge.html

http://www.discovery.org/a/2101

[mammal_mama]

I wanted to add that I just have more respect for Darwin, because he didn't formulate his theories as an attempt to "counter" anyone else's theories, or to transform society -- but, rather, he was just intrigued by all the stuff he discovered on the Galapagos Islands, and he spent his whole life processing his observations. This seems more like the heart of a scientist, than does the desire to use science as a social engineering tool.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

It's been interesting to read what everyone's had to say about this! I've also been trying to understand more about Intelligent Design -- and so far I must say, ID seems to be based not on science, but on a desire to reverse some social trends that ID proponents don't like, and that they see as an outgrowth of what they call "scientific materialism."

Which I guess is a fancy way of saying that they want to counter evolution, and they realize the most persuasive way to do this is scientifically. So their main interest in science seems to be as a tool of persuasion.

This is probably old news to many of you guys -- but I just recently learned about the Wedge Document, which was an internal memo being circulated at Discovery Institute, outlining their plan for countering "scientific materialism" in order to bring about social renewal.

And I also found Discovery Institute's response to the criticism of their Wedge Document, which they title "The 'Wedge Document': 'So What?'" -- in which they basically seem to be saying that it was never any secret that this is what they are about. But they say they are NOT in favor of changing our government into a theocracy.

Here's a link to the Wedge Document, and also a link to Discovery Institute's response --

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...437/wedge.html

http://www.discovery.org/a/2101

I think that whole wedge thing is really odd. OTOH, I think scientific materialism is an oxymoron.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

It's been interesting to read what everyone's had to say about this! I've also been trying to understand more about Intelligent Design -- and so far I must say, ID seems to be based not on science, but on a desire to reverse some social trends that ID proponents don't like, and that they see as an outgrowth of what they call "scientific materialism."

Which I guess is a fancy way of saying that they want to counter evolution, and they realize the most persuasive way to do this is scientifically. So their main interest in science seems to be as a tool of persuasion.

[Mountaingirl79]

I don't understand how one ( I'm saying "in general", as I've always wondered this.) could believe in the story of creation ( 7 days, Adam and Eve) and still believe in evolution, at the same time. Evolution kinda wipes that one out with the loooooong process and us coming from animal ancestors. ( Unless, of course, your Adam and Eve are monkeys....)


There must be a something you tell yourself to reconcile the two but I cant figure out what it is....

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by Mountaingirl79

I don't understand how one ( I'm saying "in general", as I've always wondered this.) could believe in the story of creation ( 7 days, Adam and Eve) and still believe in evolution, at the same time. Evolution kinda wipes that one out with the loooooong process and us coming from animal ancestors. ( Unless, of course, your Adam and Eve are monkeys....)


There must be a something you tell yourself to reconcile the two but I cant figure out what it is....

Again 7 days doesn't necessarily equal the literal 7 days as in Sunday through Saturday or 7 24 hour days. I personally believe the creation was a long process.

I think people outside of Christianity (and even Judaism and Islam) make a lot of assumptions about what is believed about our holy texts. Not everyone believes in the literal scripture. Not everyone believes that what God does is completely unexplainable to us at all times.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Mountaingirl79

I don't understand how one ( I'm saying "in general", as I've always wondered this.) could believe in the story of creation ( 7 days, Adam and Eve) and still believe in evolution, at the same time. Evolution kinda wipes that one out with the loooooong process and us coming from animal ancestors. ( Unless, of course, your Adam and Eve are monkeys....)


There must be a something you tell yourself to reconcile the two but I cant figure out what it is....

Well, what does the creation story tell us? About why we seem to be separated from a God we can conceive rationally, why we are unable to always do the things we know are right, that we have the ability to make moral choices, that the material world is good and comes directly from God, that there is some kind of order in creation, that humans have some kind of different role from other living things, that the world we live in is changed in some undefinable way from how it was and it seems to have impacted all of creation, including time.... and so on.

But allegory has been used for some types of religious texts since as far back as we know, and the creation story has often been interpreted this way. There are other examples of stories that are made up of allegory and metaphor - the Pilgrim's Progress, Animal Farm, The Divine Comedy, because they tell what the author wants people to know in a better way than an essay or narrative account. Sometimes poetry or fiction can tell the truth in a much more exact and useful way than historical narrative can - how many of us could pull as much out of the story of the development of the cosmos from the Big Bang through to the evolution of homo sapiens, as they can out of the Genesis account? How many would fall asleep before they ever got to amoebas multiplying in the ocean?

Since many scholars interpreted this story in an allegorical way before evolution was ever thought of, I don't see how it is an issue. Of course, we may have really misunderstood evolution, we could discover tomorrow it's a hoax by aliens, or we made some other mistake. But since it seems like a good theory, and it doesn't seem to contradict the basic truths that the Genesis story contains, I feel free to think it's the most likely explanation in so far as we understand it.