ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Evolution goes to church

Posted: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:47 PM by Alan Boyle

It's usually not a pretty sight when religious belief and evolutionary theory mix, but that's what will be happening over the next few days in hundreds of locales around the country and around the globe, under the banners of Evolution Weekend and Darwin Day.


Rischgitz / Getty Images
This view of British naturalist Charles
Darwin, circa 1880, is based on a
painting by W.W. Ouless.

For two years now, educators and members of the clergy have been working together to bridge the gap between science and religion by organizing an annual teach-in, timed to coincide with the Feb. 12 anniversary of evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin's birth. In 2006 and 2007, the event was known as Evolution Sunday - but this year the organizers say the title has been changed to Evolution Weekend "in an attempt to be more welcoming to members of all religions."

Michael Zimmerman, the intiative's founder and dean of liberal arts and sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis, said the effort is going "phenomenally well" - even though some clergy have had to spin this year's sermons to accommodate the first Sunday of Lent rather than the Sunday before Darwin's 199th birthday.

"We have gone up almost 30 percent over last year, which was 30 percent over the year before," he told me.

Zimmerman is particularly pleased to see scientists get involved. More than 550 scientists from 29 countries have signed up to help answer questions from clergy or congregations, speak at church services or promote Evolution Weekend gatherings.

"I want to be clear: These scientists are not promoting religion, they're promoting good science," he said. "But they're perfectly willing to work with clergy to promote good science."

More than 800 congregations will be engaged in the dialogue this year. Check out the Web site to find a sermon near you - and in case you're in need of inspiration, more than 100 sample sermons have been posted on the resource page.

Darwin has his own day in the sun on Tuesday, when the countdown begins toward the big 200th birthday as well as the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of Species." Hundreds of events around the world are offered on the Darwin Day calendar, aimed at celebrating the fruits of the scientific method as well as Darwin's contributions.

Bringing up evolution is a good way to start an argument, as we've seen repeatedly in the six years since Cosmic Log started up. Even in the wake of 2005's federal court decision on evolution education, the argument continues.

To get the anti-Darwin perspective, there are books such as "Darwin Day in America," which blames much of what's wrong with the world on evolutionary theory and materialism. You can also check in with the Discovery Institute and a gathering of blogs such as Evolution News & Views and Uncommon Descent.

Darwin's most vocal defenders include groups such as the National Center for Science Education, and blogs such as Panda's Thumb and P.Z. Myers' Pharyngula.

In this week's issue of the journal Nature, Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian addresses Darwin's top 10 legacies, ranging from natural selection to co-evolution. It's a shame the essay is available only to subscribers, but the first two paragraphs alone provide adequate fuel for further reflection and debate (or an argument): 

"Perhaps no individual has had such a sweeping influence on so many facets of social and intellectual life as Charles Darwin, born on 12 February 1809. Of the other two of the great nineteenth-century triumvirate of European thinkers, Marx's ideas have been distorted beyond recognition in their political execution, and Freud's approach to the psyche no longer merits scientific recognition. Neither man had Darwin's impact on the structure of empirical knowledge.

"In the past century and a half, Darwin's ideas have inspired powerful images and insights in science, humanities and the arts. Meanwhile, countless commentators ignorant of his meaning have borrowed his eloquence to plump their own chickens — from capitalism to 'evolutionary psychology.' Darwin has been invoked as the demon responsible for a variety of perceived heartless ills of society, including atheism, Nazism, communism, abortion, homosexuality, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, and the abridgement of all our natural freedoms. One can scarcely imagine the horror that Darwin would feel at the misunderstanding, misappropriation and vilification of his ideas in the 125 years since his death. ..."

Speaking of debate, Nature also weighs in with questions about the idea of bringing the presidential candidates together for a debate focusing exclusively on scientific and technological issues. The theme gets more detailed treatment in a freely available essay from David Goldston, a former congressional staff member who is now a visiting lecturer in science policy at Harvard.

Are you ready to join the debate over religion, science and politics? Just add your comments below. But please, be civil.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

is this 2008 AD, or BC?
This is a great thing that science and religion are getting together like this in a polite dialogue.  A lot of clergy don't understand evolution, and a lot of scientists don't understand the real crux of creation either.  There is no point in building an artifical wall between religion and science, all truth comes from God.
These perfect ideas are pulled from our perfect minds.
Religion with no proof. (need to see to believe, and understand)
Math that is not correct. (cheats=pi)
Science that has no understanding. Gravity?
Bebate all you want, we're too stupid to figure it out
I'm all for a presidential debate specifically focused on Science and Technology.  Maybe Huckabee "isn't running to write 8th grade science textbooks", but I think most will agree that all presidential candidates should at least be able PASS 8th grade science.  Any candidate who says "Evolution is just a Theory" obviously does not understand the definition of a scientific theory, and should be forced to wear a t-shirt every day for the remainder of the election cycle which reads:  "Gravity is just a THEORY!"
As a student of Cell & Molecular Biology and Genetics, I can tell you that both of these diciplines reinforce each other when the topic turns to evolution.  You forgot to mention in your article that the laws of Genetics were formulated by Gregor Mendel, a MONK, a religious man. Charles Darwin just put Mendel's laws to animals and not peas like Mendel did.
How can these scientists be "promoting good science"?
Since when is an unproven theory "good science" They must have a different definition for the word "Science".  My observation of these "scientists" is that they believe the theory, and will fit all observations into that theory no matter what. So church is not a bad place for them since there too, you must be a believer, the “scientists” just believe in a different "god"  
I like that it sounds more and more like the Church and Science are starting to come together in some ways.

I am so sick and tired to the pointless debates I see on God v. Evolution.  

To me, it's just too simple... the Bible tells WHO did it, not HOW He did it.  The Bible's purpose is to reveal the Truth about God, not the Truth about science.

When God wrote Genesis, it's purpose was not to reveal science but to reveal Himself.  So assuming Evolution is correct, God couldn't very well start Genesis with something like "In the beginning there was an amoeba...", because then it becomes a revelation on science, not God.
I never saw why there is such a conflict between religion and Darwinism.  I believed in both at one time, as many people do.  Besides, we see examples of evolution today: strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics.  This is a minor change, but that's because they only have months or years, instead of millions of years.
Science is the study of nature. Nature was created by god. Seems to me like science is an affirmation of our positive relationship with our creator.
I believe Martin Luther's instruction to take the wording of the Bible literally a mistake in this instance.  He was well-intentioned, but I always took Biblical creation to be a parable. Noah's Ark was a parable to me at every stage of my life, and I just turned 49.
Interesting idea, but I think that it takes more FAITH to believe in evolution that creation.  Evolution so far has had so many hoaxes and lab results demonstrations are in fact...intelligent design since the scientist forced the change.
I personally find the debate between naturalism and teliology fascinating. I have long ago abandoned the fundamental teachings of my youth. However, I do beleive there is a greater puropose to things, something we can't seem to grasp, but a pupose no the less. It is good to see people willing to start a bridge between the natural world and the supernatural.
My comments on the above are best summarized in a song, "Evolution Redefined" by Geoff Moore and the Distance.  See it on YouTube, don't mind the poor lip synch...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gwIDSIOEFo
Well, it's interesting how religious groups update their immutable and eternally true positions whenever faced with undeniable evidence that refutes what they've been preaching for hundreds of years, and yet are unwilling to reflect upon the other shortcomings of their beliefs.  Remember that evolution was heresy until the religious were forced to acknowledge it's sensibility after 100 years of scientific acceptance. They only play nice when allowed to fill in the blanks with 'the god of the gaps.'  For them, what science doesn't have an explanation for (yet) will always be a convenient place to continue marketing superstition.
Religion is loosing their audience so an effort must be made to get them back. The whole though of evolution going to church is nothing more than if you can't beat them join them.

Religion is always looking to legitimize their position, they are not looking for the truth and answers. Just read some of the sermons.

There is no common ground between creationism and evolution, none.
Read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", which references Darwin's theory of evolution extensively.

I suspect Dawkins would be appalled at this gathering, as there is no reason to bring religion into it.  One might just as well include santa claus and the tooth fairy.
Personally, I think the so called "war" between science/evolution and religion is ridiculous.  The two are NOT and I repeat NOT mutually exclusive.  They're just two ways of looking at the same thing which is the miracle of life.  Much of the Bible is teaching in parables, or using a story to convey a message or idea.  Did God create the Universe, the Heavens and the Earth and Man in His own image?  Of course he did, but since we can't prove that scientifically, those are facts that we simply have to accept on faith.  However, why can't the Big Bang and evolution be the scientifically verifiable methods by which God's ultimate plan, the dominion of Man over the Earth, be achieved?  Einstein said that his sense of God was his sense of wonder about the Universe.  To be familiar with science, to see the intricate complexities of space, time and most importantly, life in all its myriad forms and to see the long, sometime bumpy road that we took to get to where we are, that to me shows how wondrous and miraculous a place this Universe is with which we have been blessed.

Science doesn't seek to disprove religion, all science does is try to explain why things are the way they are and how they got that way based on the evidence we can see and by methods that are provable according to the Scientific Method.  The rest?  Well, I guess we just have to take that on faith...

Peace.
It is hard for me to understand that after all this time some people still believe in evolution. The most brilliant minds around including Steven Hawking cannot prove the origin of creation. The entire universe was created from nothing (creatio ex-nihilio) Creation from nothing. There wasn't any cosmic dust that bumped into each other that started a chain reaction that caused the whole entire universe to be created. It was created by GOD. That is the only explanation. We are not descendants of apes. Our DNA is close but different. Other creatures have DNA similar to each other. They are not descendants of each other either. Science will never be able to prove that GOD didn't create the universe.          
Anyone interested in this subject should also read "The Varieties of Scientific Experience, A Personal View of the Search for God", Carl Sagan" Edited by Ann Druyan.
Science has a lot of the pieces of puzzles put togeother and
religion (god did it all) has no pieces of the puzzle. Now they are looking at science to see how it was was done.
For anyone who doubts that evolution is a firmly established scientific theory, or misunderstands that when science uses the term "theory" it's not meant in the same vein as the vernacular meaning of "guess" or "idea", let me point out that there are mountains of scientific evidence from multiple branches of science that support evolution.

The people most qualified to judge the validity of evolution, biologists, have spent years studying science in college and graduate-level classes, and with few exceptions, the vast majority of biologists embrace evolution as a scintific reality.

It wasn't always this way; at first many bioligists found the idea repulsive. However, after decades of examining the ever growing body of evidence, they could not reasonably draw any other conclusion.

The only reason why evolution is seen by some as a controversial idea is because some wish to consider it a controversial idea, and this mindset exists almost exclusively in the US. Evolution is as widely accepted in other countries as germ theory, the theory of gravity, and nuclear theory - things most people consider incontrovertable facts (and that many would be surprised to learn are "only" considered theories as well).
Trying to combine science and religion is a fool's errand.  Religion starts with what people want to believe and then uses fairy tales and myths to claim that it is true.  Science comes up with a hypothesis and then conducts experimentation, discovery and analysis to prove or disprove the hypothesis.  Even when a theory is established, it is still under constant review and open to new discoveries and experimental findings.  So, to claim that religion and science can achieve harmony on any subject is to ignore one or the other.  Usually it is science that gets ignored, especially when the topic is supernatural deities.  Claiming that something, in this case, a deity exists with no proof, logical reasoning or facts denies scientific thinking.  Using scientific rationale to explain the know universe is the only mature way to deal with unknowns, making up fairy tales to explain them is immature and illogical.
It amazes and saddens me how the religious right has managed to twist the idea of what a scientific theory is, and manipulate simple-minded people with fear, and made-up terms like "bad science." The only bad science is made-up science, aka religion. I understand that some people need religion and god to give meaning and hope to their lives, and don't begrudge people their beliefs, but can't tolerate when they try to tell me and others—who have studied science and the world rather than blindly accepting what religious and political leaders have told us—what we should believe.
I have one word, and one word only, for non-believers in Evolution.  That word is FOSSIL.  And if God put fossils on the Earth for us to find, and made them as old as some have been proven to be, doesn't that make him/her the greatest comedian of all time?
Slam, I just want to address one very common misconception. First of all, the creation of the universe is covered by a branch of science called cosmology, a branch of astronomy. That has nothing at all to do with biology.

The Big Bang theory states that the universe was created from a super dense ball that contained ALL the matter and ALL the energy in the entire universe. I would hardly call that nothing.

You may have a personal belief that man and apes did not share a common ancestor, but you certainly haven't given the matter as much time, thought, and study as most biologists, especially those with advance degrees.

Considering they and you don't agree, and they are MUCH more qualified in this area than you are, who has the better chance of being correct? Amajority of scientists who are experts in the subject matter, or one person with no real qualifications but who finds the idea distasteful?

Finally, science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all. God, by definition a supernatural being, is not within the scope if science, which is the study of natural phenomenon.
Since kindergarden we are taught that knowledge is power and that as we grow, we not only expand our knowledge but we can also challange or knowledge to gain a better understanding of the world around us, so it seems silly that we take the words of a book that has only changed to suit the society that it is in, and not because the ideas are challanged. I will say that the bible and religion do provide a good moral example of how to live ones life, it does not provide more complex answers. Science is a study of the physical world that surrounds each and everyone of us and though the relevence of science has recently increased, we must remember that the idea of science pre-dates that of the bible. And we must also remember what happened when the achievements of the of the Roman Empire were discarded, I beleive it was called the Dark Ages. So the bible can be useful to an extent, but it is Science that makes the world go round.
The best information on this topic I have ever read actually were 2 books put out by Jehovah's Witnesses: Is There A Creator Who Cares About You?  and Life - How Did It Get Here?  By Evolution or Creation?  So thorough in an intellectually honest examination of both sides of the issue.  No dogma or preaching, just clear, logical reasoning.  Ask the next one who comes to your door for one or both of these excellent publications and you won't be sorry.
The underlying conflict is that evolution implies  Man ultimatly evolved from a single organism and therfore is not special or unique to Earth. God created Man different than all other things with a special purpose that only God himself can truly explain.  Evolution puts man on the same playing field as monkeys, which is in conflict with Gods word.  Evolution is a rationalization for people to disbelieve God and his teachings.  Evolution explains Gods system to keep the strong survivng and adapt to environments and situations, not how life originated on Earth.
It's funny, Darwin himself, before he died, said that he may have made a mistake in regards to his theory of evolution.  The entire universe was created by an intelligent being.  That is God.   That's what faith is all about, believing something you can't see but knowing it's there.  How else can you explain how the universe works so perfectly.  It can only come from a supreme being.  Science will never prove their theory of evolution and will never prove that God didn't create the universe.  
I have always considered the miracles that Jesus performed while on earth to be indisputeable facts. He did cause the blind to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, and yes, the dead to come back to life. But, He also did one other thing that causes me to think very seriously about the power He possessed which has never been denied except by the foolish. He took some DEAD fish and some bread and caused their lifeless forms to multiply. It didn't take Him millions of years, but only a few minutes of time. This couldn't be a make believe story because there simply were too many witnesses who saw Him do it. He had no controled experiment and no scientific lab. Since He was able to do all He did in such a short amount of time, why do people find the creation account so difficult to believe? It is because we are trying our best to describe an incredible and infinite God using a limited and very restricted resource---our minds. No, we don't know how God is able to simply speak things into existence, but I would much rather put my stock in a God who has proven Himself over and over again to me than in some man (scientist) who doesn't have a clue how life came about. Evolution is mere speculation. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. Those who proprogate evolution only serve to prove the scripture correct that the day will come when people will turn their backs on God and put their faith in man, even if it means their own destruction.
Evolutionary Science is written in the fossil record, organic chemistry and molecular biology. It operates the same way whether God is or isn't. But Natural Selection is a poor design due to so much imperfection and ELEs. God could do MUCH better. (So much for ID).Nontheless, when I read about Scientific Evolution, I see that the only possible way for the incredible diversity of animals and plants to have occurred is through natural selection.Like it or not, it is what it is.
  The world may or may not be flat, but I would have an easier time believing that than the round peg square hole idea of Creationism. Religion needs to take care of the business of religion. Science needs to take care of the matters of science.
 

Ricardo brings up the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion ... which has been pretty much debunked. Here's the reality check from TalkOrigins.org, which along with TalkDesign.org serves as a good resource for background information.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

There's a Wikipedia article that delves further into Darwin's views on religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

And that article includes a link to the Google Books version of "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Part I," including long stretches of Darwin's own writings on religion starting on page 274. Makes for fascinating weekend reading and reflection.

 Where are the transitional fossils? Who wrote the genetic code in DNA?? If you found a newpaper you realize there was inteligence behind it. In the same way, we see the code in DNA that cannot have evolved (it been attempted)and we know that there is the fingerprint of our creator.
 People will not address these issue because they cannot be explained.      



 
Poor, poor Slam (above) and others:  When we read Darwin's work (and apparently many have not), there is no mention of how the universe or life was created.  Rather, Darwin's work is focused on how living things CHANGE  and how new species arise.  The CREATION of life and how it EVOLVES over long periods of time are two different questions with different answers.  Therefore, as both a scientist and Christian, I am perfectly content with the ideas that God created the world, and that Darwin explained how all living things evolve through the forces of natural selection and spontaneous mutation.  
Blah blah blah . . .talking heads who think evolution makes any sense.  Darwin was a racist!  Simple truths like that should make one think twice about following his "phantasy" as he himself put it when he questions his findings in his own diaries.  SIGH  

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
It's interesting that even though backers of evolution have all this scientific reasoning and physical evidence, creationist feel that all they have to say is "God made everything" without any sort of explanation in order to be considered a credible source of educational information. The only reason anyone believes in the "evidence" of the bible, is that they are told to by others who were told to believe. If you want to learn more about the physical, real, universe, then it makes sense to use scientific research, instead of going on religious beliefs that pride themselves on having absolutely no proof.
I agree with Bear and disagree with Bryant in allowing science and religion to overlap.  Yet, I think this discussion is missing one key element, and that is it is focused on the ideas themselves and not their origins.  I believe both come from, in some way shape or form, the human mind.  That in itself links the two.  Both are based on human witnesses as no other species has really been able to communicate with us.  Both must concede the factor of human error in the recordings.  The bible has its witnesses....that are human.   Science also has its witnesses....that are human.  In a more personal sense, I think God exists and that science is right.  Science in itself could be caused by a slight action made by God.  After all, being an effective ruler or leader is allowing your subjects/followers to succeed when they haven't noticed that you have actually done anything at all.
"Faith" is the result of being brainwashed as a child to believe in fairy tales.  Nothing more.

"Creationists" twist fact and NEVER supply hard scientific evidence to back up their nutcase claims.  Ignorant statements such as "We are not descendants of apes" is misrepresentation of Natural Selection made by people dumbed down by religion.

Believe it because the bible is "god's" word? So much of the bible has been put to shame by scientific discovery.  God must be pretty stupid.

Enjoy your fairy tales! I prefer to say "I don't know how that works...YET" rather than be so feeble minded to invoke a concept like "god".  FEH!

I've studied the debate since 1992.  Frankly, I believe there is a huge amount of evidence that suggests the universe is young, say 10,000 years or less, which leaves zero room for the theory of evolution.  At the same time, depending on whereone was located in the universe, the creation of the universe could literally been 6 days.  We know very little.  Science continually learns, and usually finds the discoveries of the previous generation were false.  The Bible, on the other hand, I've found to be the complete, perfect Word of God, and was meant to be taken literally without fear.  Science will eventually figure out how God made the universe if mankind exists long enough.  Another argument against evoulution is lack of a fossil record.  For example, the theory suggests millions of evelotutionary changes took place over millions of years.  Between just about every known genus today, there would have been hundreds of thousands of changes, and therefore lifeforms.  But, there is virtually zero evidence that any transitionary life forms ever existed.  For evolution to be true, millions, perhaps trillions of life forms would have to have existed, and yet vanished without a trace.  I find that quite ludicrous.  I believe the fossil record speaks for itself.
I am a student of the field of geology and ancient socities. In all that I have seen, held in my hand and studied, I have found many things that are amazing. I then wonder, "How did that happen"? Always, if I am willing to search hard enough, I find the answer. The simple becomes the complex in it's effort to survive. I see animals that adapted to a changing environment or died. I see peoples that changed or died. Some have commented on the DNA string. A part of the string can be found in every living thing on this earth, both present and past. We are all linked together. Since you pass your DNA on to your offspring, you have continued the evolution that was began millions of years ago.
There is not one word in the bible that was written by a supreme being called god for lack of a better name. All words in the bible were written by some man. They are his words, nothing more, nothing less. They are stories ment to give some direction to other people. It is an effort to control the thought and actions of others. The thinking is that the writers better know how you should live than you do. It is a book written on fear. The loving words so often quoted are misleading. You are constantly told what will happen if you do not believe. That is intimidation and fear. The bible most people read isn't the complete series of writings, just the ones chosen to be included for shock value. All of the religions follow the same pattern. Rule by intimidation and fear. That is whay they are called organized religion. That is why they are similar. This universe is so huge no one knows where it starts or ends. There are billions of galaxies like the Milky Way we are in. There are billions of stars in our galaxie. There are billions of planets around those stars like our solar system and our sun. Go out side any day or night and point at god. You can't. Because it has never been seen or heard and never will be.
Dr. Francis Collins headed up the team that decoded the human genome and is the director of National Human Genome Research Institute. He is certainly one of the world's leading biologists.

He is an evangelical Christian. He has written a book called "The Language of God", which is how he views genetics and evolution. He has no problem with evolution, which is also true of arguably the greatest Christian apologist of the last century, C.S. Lewis.

Here is an interview with Dr. Collins.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/october1/2.42.html
If evolution is such a tight scientific theory were are the millions of transitional fossils?  How did a partially developed heart work?  The idea that we developed from nothing is impossible and takes more faith than to belive God spoke it all into existence.  God has revealed himself to the world in many ways and many times but man chooses to turn away in disbelif and destroy themselves in their wickedness.  Jesus Christ holds the whole universe togehter turn to him while you still can.  
It's all a complete waste. These type of christians want it both ways. Well, sorry but you can't.
Darwins evolution by it's most basic premise is a process that happens and works solely on it's own without a God. The notion of a God using evolution is ludicrous. This implies that a God has nothing to do other than let evolution progress by it's own devices without any intervention. People really need to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins to get the truth about all of this.
If this were 700 years ago or so, people would be arguing against the "theory" that the earth is not at the center of the universe. They would be using all the arguments that you see in these paragraphs, including biblical "proof." People even died for suggesting otherwise, or like Galileo, were relegated to prisoner status. Today, the argument is over evolution, and it is hard to imagine a topic where so many people who know nothing about the subject matter are so willing to make statements. It is discouraging to me that so many don't understand how science operates; the overwhelming mound of evidence supporting evolutionary theory means nothing to them, because it interferes with their preconceived philosophy. It is also disconcerting that creationists and IDer's continue to use the same, tired old "proofs" that have been laid to rest many times over, or can't seem to come to grips with the fact that biology and cosmology are two different realms of study.  Meanwhile, the country clamors for good science education, as if that's somehow divorced from movements that tell us that the earth is only 6000 years old, that humans and dinosaurs lived together, or that faith should be introduced into science classes. They are badly damaging the country's ability to compete in science, and yet they are the biggest pseudo-patriotic flag wavers. I would suggest they go to a library and take out a text on evolution, so they can see the data right in front of them. There's nothing quite like knowing something about a field of study before opening one's mouth.
I think I have finally figured it out: The entire struggle between secularism and sectarianism comes down to one thing - security.  If everyone in the US becomes religious, I would be fearful that I would be discriminated against because I am not religious.  Conversely, if everyone becomes an atheist in the US, those who are religious would fear discrimination. Now if I could only figure out the answer to the delemma.
This reminds me of the likely discussions of 400-450 years ago regarding Capernicus's theory, and later, Galileo's observations of planitary rotation.  The Catholic church (power player at the time) was extremely threatened by this and moved resolutely to abolish such 'heresy'. Gee, when was the last time a modern Christian argued about whether the earth revolved around the sun, or vice versa, and/or whether the earth was the center of the universe?  Knowledge marches forward, doesn't it?  Why is it so threatening?  As a Christian, I find it embarrasing that my friends feel so threatened.  'The Christian Right' is painting itself into a corner on this one and will eventually have to concede that good science is simply that.  As we gain understanding, the bogus parts will fall away and truth will march forward.  Who knows exactly how God chose to create?
Believing in Creationism is intellectually lazy.  If you can't understand Evolution, don't give up.  Think outside that box the church put around your mind...
A well know historical figure in the Holy Scriptures, namely Jesus makes reference to the Genesis account in the Bible book of Matthew chapter 19 and the 4-6 verses. In those verses Jesus explains to the Pharisees that it was God who created man and woman and not evolution. So if anyone who has a belief in Jesus, you cannot believe in the teachings of evolution. If you do, you would actually be saying that Jesus is a liar, and anyone would be hard pressed to find another person on earth to say that Jesus was a liar.

The Prophet Isaiah at was inspired to write at the Bible book of Isaiah chapter 40 verse 22 that the God dwells 'above the circle of the earth.' How could Isaiah right about this scientific matter when he did not have access to the modern technology that we have today. The answer in short has that God told him so. God was the creator of the earth and so he knew the what kind of shape the earth was in (no pun intended.

A true statement: The Bible is not a scientific textbook, however when touches on matters of science it is always accurate and trustworthy.
Bit by bit, religion loses ground with individuals that can reason and have studied enough history to know that it separates us. How many different Bibles are there, different denominations, theologians not agreeing on any interpretations of the Good Book. Scientists were imprisoned or put to death because a discovery, they made, proved a certain belief wrong.(Galileo). It seems to me the very thing religious people are trying to disprove will ultimatly lead to their decline.EVOLUTION! Churches are more and more watered down with ministers sounding more like motivational speakers. Young kids from a very religious upbringing, don't just automatically accept what their parents believe. Why? They are evolving! Personally, I believe we aren't intelligent enough to grasp how we got here, or if there's a creator or not. Religion gives people a crutch, but look whats been done with it, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, 911, suicide bombings, protestants vs. catholics, even the wonderful Apostle Paul was a mass murderer of Christians, when he was Saul. Isn't it possible to be kind, giving, loving to all human beings without having the dogma associated with a religious group. I would think so and hopefully EVOLUTION will bit by bit ,get us there. Just take some time and THINK!
For the interested, the most scientifically sophisticated treatment of evolution is in a book by Dinesh D'Souza "What's So Great About Christianity" published by Regnery Publishing.  It is available at Barnes and Noble.  


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=649324

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google