Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Evolving Faith
by Kathleen Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


KEY WEST, Fla. -- If only William Jennings Bryan had known Francis Collins.

Maybe Bryan, who died just five days after leading the prosecution in the Scopes monkey trial, might have lived longer if he had. Although he won the case, his sudden death suggests the proceedings, during which he was savaged by the press, may have taken a toll.

And, who knows? We might never have argued at all about whether evolution should be taught in public schools had Collins been around. Timing.

If Collins is not familiar, he should be. He is the physician-geneticist who led the Human Genome Project for the National Institutes of Health and is noted for his discoveries of disease genes. Alas, he came along about eight decades too late for Bryan. But he may have entered the zeitgeist just in time for thousands (millions?) of others who have trouble embracing both Darwin and God without, as Collins puts it, their brains exploding.

Collins, an evangelical Christian who was home-schooled until sixth grade, wants to raise the level of discourse about science and faith, and help fundamentalists -- both in science and religion -- see that the two can coexist. To that end, he created the BioLogos Foundation and last month launched a Web site -- BioLogos.org -- to advance an alternative to the extreme views that tend to dominate the debate.

Yes, he asserted to a room full of journalists gathered here, one can believe in both God and science. In fact, says Collins, the latter does more to prove the existence of a creator than not.

This doesn't mean that Collins falls in line with those promoting creation science or, more recently, intelligent design. He merely insists that belief in God doesn't preclude acceptance of evolution.

Though his own beliefs are firm, Collins understands doubt, skepticism, and even atheism. He was once an atheist himself, believing only in what science could prove. As a medical student, however, he stumbled upon questions to which science had no answers. In treating dying patients, he also began to wonder how he would approach his own death. Not with as much peace as his patients of faith did, he supposed.

Having earned a Ph.D. and a medical degree, Collins is nonetheless a scientist with little patience for those who insist that evolution is just a theory that one may take or leave. Most human genes, he points out, are similar to genes in other mammals, "which indicates a common ancestry."

Even so, a Gallup Poll found last year that 44 percent of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

"You can't arrive at that conclusion without throwing out all the evidence of the sciences," says Collins.

The problem of not believing in evolution as one might not believe in, say, goblins or flying pigs has repercussions beyond the obvious -- that the U.S. will continue to fall behind other nations in science education. Collins says many creationist-trained young people suffer an intense identity crisis when they leave home for college, only to discover that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Talk about messing with your mind.

Collins says he hears from dozens of young people so afflicted. Most susceptible to crisis are children who have been home-schooled or who have attended Christian schools. Of all religious groups and denominations, evangelical Protestants are the most reluctant to embrace evolution. Their objections haven't changed much since Billy Sunday first articulated them almost 100 years ago and revolve around the fear that acceptance of evolution negates God.

To Collins, Darwin is a threat only if one thinks that God is an underachiever. Collins doesn't happen to believe that. His study of genes has led him to conclude that God is both outside of nature and outside of time. He's big, in other words. The idea that God would create the mechanism of evolution makes acceptable sense.

Now, if only he can convince his fellow Christians.

Through the foundation and Web site, Collins is hoping to help home-schoolers and other Christian educators come to grips with their scientific doubts. Among other projects, he intends to develop curricula that combine faith and science. He also hopes to help fundamentalist scientists see the error of their ways.

Whatever one's stripes or lack thereof, helping fundamentalists evolve can only be good for civilization -- a cause in which even the faithless can believe.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
The biggest problem with this
quote:
"Collins, an evangelical Christian who was home-schooled until sixth grade, wants to raise the level of discourse about science and faith"


"Yes, he asserted to a room full of journalists gathered here, one can believe in both God and science"
=======================

You got to be kidding!
God created the heaven and the earth, what would He know about science?

Give me a break, we all know this nitwit is smarter than God or anyone who believes in God.

Parker, you are a twit

What a load of bilge.




Odd?

I don't know, and have never met, a person who believes that man was made 10,000 years ago. And I've met a lot of Christian people, many Christian schooled.

And what is the purpose of science if not to believe in what it is we do not know?




To Collins
"... Darwin is a threat only if one thinks that God is an underachiever.

... The idea that God would create the mechanism of evolution makes acceptable sense."


Collins must have missed that lecture where it was explained that the attraction of the Theory of Evolution to the mind of the modern secularist is that it precludes the necessity of God.

But, of course, the problem is, again, with the believers, don't you know, and they are, as usual, the ones who need to have their perspective adjusted.

Some thoughts-Atheistic Darwinism
"Atheism is wedded to philosophical modernity, and both are aging gracefully in the cultural equivalent of the old folks' home."

"Quite often an atheistic philosopher or scientist will strongly appeal to branches of science such as the theory of evolution, cosmology, astronomy, physics or chemistry or the findings of neurology and cognitive science to try and consign religion merely as a form of infantile cognitive delusion which belongs to a primitive past, and needs to be discarded by our age of science and reason."

Save from the many awful and crude philosophical mistakes and fallacies scientists often make when they move from science to philosophy, as well as the crudity and nastiness towards religious people (which often shows up in Dawkins), this form of atheism is in bad need of addressing from the theological and philosophical viewpoint"

Something the Darwin gang fails at.

Francis Collins is
an affront to God. He's worse than those that are openly hostile to God in that he lures in people claiming he's an Evangelical Christian, when supporting the laughable theory of evolution, he attempts to make a mockery of
the Bible. He reminds me of the hypocrisy of those voting Democrat, and claiming to be Christians.

The creation
Carlos, you may not know any such believers, but they have their own creation museum somewhere in the South. I call it the Dino and Bam-Bam Museum because it promotes the preposterous notion that man and dinosaurs co-existed on Earth, even though science tells us the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years before the first humans.

I wonder how those museum curators explain God's reason for putting all those fossils in the ground. I mean, you know they have a biblical explanation for everything -- and if they don't, the explanation is "God works in mysterious ways." Either that or they can ask Pat Robertson, because he talks to God.

These are the same people who have the nerve to say that evolution is "only a theory." Well, guess what? Gravity is also a "theory" but nobody argues about whether it exists.

The state of science education in this country has been hobbled long enough by the creationists. If Collins or anyone else can change that, more power to him.

The Place of Science

I know that a 6 foot man cannot fit in a 4 foot bed; easy enough for science to measure. I know that a man cannot live in the belly of a whale, either. Science can figure that out, too. I also know there’s not enough water in the whole of earth to cover it completely, 15 cubits above the highest peak. Science can measure all these things; but what it can NEVER measure is God. So when God talks about the great flood or says that Jonah was kept alive in the whale, unbelieving Science comes along with unbridled audacity to say, “NO NO GOD, you’re mistaken about that!!

It’s not Science, itself, the Christian has a problem with; it’s the place it is given we have a problem with. It has its place, but that place is NOT on the throne of God. Rather, its proper place is at the footstool of God.

Gary Gordon

The Creation Story

One of the most profound observations Moses makes in the creation story, is that light is created (day 1) BEFORE God creates the light sources (day 4). That means that light didn’t start at a source and take billions of light years to streak across the universe as unbelieving Science promotes in its “big bang” theory. Rather, light was instantaneous everywhere; making the universe look a lot younger than Science can see.

God created a ready made universe. It had age built into it which is obvious from the simple fact Adam was created a full grown man. If he had cut down a tree, it would have had rings in it showing itself to be years old when it was just weeks old. Science will never figure out what came first, the chicken or the egg, but God created the full grown chicken before he created the egg.

God “calleth those things which be not as though they were.” Romans 4:17. That means that the world is NOT 18 billion years old, but God called it forth as though it were. Men will mock God as being a “trickster,” but the only men fooled are those who do not have a love for the truth. Those he sends “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11.

God did not create an “evolution mechanism.” How do I know that? because the Bible tells me so. Concerning the creation, Psalm 33:9 says, “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

Gary Gordon

Better than most
Parker's article is much better than most dealing with this topic on this particular site.

However, it would really help if she went into more detail regarding how it is that Collins believes religion and science (e.g., evolution) are compatible. There are many interesting possibilities here, but the reader is left more or less in the dark. Her only realistic example is that God would create the mechanism of evolution. This may be believable to some, both others will ask what created God? So Parker needs to go a few steps further in explaining Collins' reasoning.

But still, her article is halfway honest and much better than most.

44%!!!
If the Gallup poll is accurate and 44% of Americans actually believe that God created humans within the last 10,000 years, then this is an extremely sad statement regarding our education and knowledge.

The problem is that those who reject evolution also end up rejecting all of biology (since evolution is the foundation of all biological theory). They also must reject other "evolutionary" theories within biology, such as those found in embryology, immunology, neurobiology, and so on.

They must also reject fields outside of biology, such as psychology and anthropology, which rely greatly on evolutionary concepts. And finally, they must reject many of the physical sciences which are based on a billion year time frame, such as physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, and so on.

In other words, the problem is not simply that people reject evolution --The problem is that they end up rejecting virtually all of science.

And this is extremely sad.

Read Collins' book
He wrote about what he believes in a book "The Language of God". I read it. Although I found Collins to be a bit naive about his fellow scientists, I was overall in agreement with him.

I also don't know any Christians who assert that the world can only be a few thousand years old. Several of my cousins are working scientists. A couple are Christians. None of them believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. However, some of them do not wholly agree with Collins (we all read his book together as part of an ongoing family debate between the atheist scientists and the Christian scientists -- they let me join because of my Bible knowledge and journalistic zeal).

I think Collins is naive about his fellow scientists. He doesn't think they have allowed their bigotry to warp their interpretation of data with regard to origins. Even my atheist paleontologist cousin thinks that's naive -- he knows well-known scientists in his field who would rather die than admit there is more than a materialistic interpretation of the data possible. While holding firmly to his atheism, D admits that he might be a bigot on the subject -- that he might want there to be no God so badly that he doesn't really care what the data shows; he'll interpret it only in a way that agrees with his presuppositions.

I do believe that Collins is a Christian in that he has an orthodox faith and lives a Christian life. Certainly my scientist cousins believe he's a great scientist and I'm going to have to go with their estimation because they have the qualifications to recognize greatness in their own fields. However, I think in trying to bring his faith and science together, Collins might want to take a really hard look at his own presuppositions.

I plan to check out his website, however, and see if perhaps he's allowed God to work on him in that area.

Dr Douglas
I have to laugh regarding your tizzy regarding those people, as I am, who believe in the literal bible regarding creation, and the study of biology, (except the evolution chapters), embryology, immunology, and so on.
The study of any of these sciences has very little to do with evolution. In fact, if one is studying physics and astronomy, you'd have a very hard time accepting the present evolution theory as so many factors, as the rotation of some moons and planets, going against natural laws of physics, etc. In fact, the theories of the "Big Bang" and the fact that even the earliest, to you, life forms were actually quite complex and there's still no answer as to where the DNA information cam from. Come on now, primordial puddle, big bang, circular logic in regards to dating. LOL, what Fairy Tales you evolution buffs spin. By the way, even Darwin didn't really believe in Darwinism.

Dr Douglas
One of my cousins is a leading research physician-scientist who also happens to be a born-again Christian. He certainly does not reject all science because he doubts evolutionary scientists' assertions about life origins. He simply believes that they are not looking at all the scientific evidence or are interpreting it according to their own prejudices.

I suspect that Gallup poll was not worded very well and so forced its own results. It would be interesting to see honest pollsters like Rasmussen or Barna ask the same question. I think you'd find out that there's more to that 44% than meets the eye -- people like myself who reject the evolution of Dawkins but do not reject science in general or the basic concept of evolution within the support of existing evidence. My problem with it is that some scientists have tried to make evolution come to conclusions that ignores a great deal of evidence against those conclusions. Biology must agree with cosmology, chemistry, engineering, etc. It cannot stand alone. Yet, for example, cosmology speaks highly to a finite beginning the universe while materialistic evolution would have us believe in vast amounts of unrestricted time for things to "progress" and do things that we cannot seem to observe in "real time", in violationg of several long-held physics laws. It continually points to a 1950s experiment that has been refuted by chemists as "proof" that life can be created without non-natural intervention. While these evidences do not "prove" that God created the universe, they do indeed call into question some of the basic tenets of materialistic evolution and should therefore require a new look at the theory. I think it is a rejection of science when scientists try to interpret the evidence to fit the theory instead of modifying the theory to fit the evidence.

What Difference does it make?

What Difference does it make what man believes about things they cannot prove?

What constitutes proof?

That varies dependent upon facts, logic and reason of man.

Circular reasoning seems to be the bedrock of man's proof system.

Something seems provable to man, if man can compare and contrast 'Something' to 'Something', that was previously 'Defined' as true by man.

Common materials such as Genetics found in life forms, proves only a common source of materials.

Where those materials come from, is the real question, not necessarily how or when or why they were assembled.

The 'Singularity of the Big Bang', begs the question of several things.

1) Origin of the energy that ignited the 'Bang'.

2) Materials for that energy to operate on.

3) Space for the 'Bang' to occur.

4) Motion for the materials that 'Banged'.

5) Time for that material to move in the space that energy 'Banged'.

All of these ingredients for the 'Bang' were either:

1) Eternal without beginning or end.

2) Spontaneously came into existence from nothing to something accidentally.

3) Nothing really exists, man just thinks there is existence.

4) All that happened was created and designed by intelligence.

The theory of the 'Singularity of the Big Bang', must encompass at least one or more of the aforementioned, there is NO Fifth without combining one of the four.

Anyone care to "Prove" beyond a reasonable doubt, any of those statements?

Any reasonable person, knows that NOT only are those 4 points or a combined Fifth will never be "Proved" in this lifetime.



One issue with this article
Faith, which is based on the rock-solid certainty of God's promises, does not evolve. Science, however, should. Why it hasn't in the field of evolution in the face of mounting evidence in other sciences that call it into question is, well, I think it's horrible, tragically sad.

Correction to my post on Proofs

The last sentence should have read:

Any reasonable person, knows that NOT only are those 4 points or a combined Fifth unprovable, they will never be "Proven" by man.

The Debate is about the 'Method'

The debate is about the 'Method' used to operate on 'Objects'.

The real question is, where did those 'Objects' come from and what or whom is the source of the 'Method'?

Everything else is merely details.

Perhaps
Collins as an Evangelical Christian should re-read Matthew 18:6-7 and wonder about HIS teachings.

Up Collins, Down Parker
aurorawatcher is spot on per usual. I quote her: "I think Collins is naive about his fellow scientists. He doesn't think they have allowed their bigotry to warp their interpretation of data with regard to origins." Science is not the problem for religious folk, it is scient-ism, which is methodical matierialism, that ONLY what can be discovered by that method exists. A true scientist, if not a believer, should be an agnostic, unable to disprove the claims of religion, because it is at parallel lines with his/her method, they cannot touch (comprehend) God.

Like Aurora, I am glad to find Collins' website in this article and will visit it. But Parker puts down 'fundamentalists' throughout the article, Bryan and her final sentence: "Whatever one's stripes or lack thereof, helping fundamentalists evolve can only be good for civilization..." I'm sure she meant that for a condescending chuckle.

When will TH realize that Parker has evolved (devolved) into a liberal, and stop putting her drivel on this site?

aurora is also correct about the invalidity of the surveys cited. I would often give a reply that would put me into the 44%, even though i have no problem with evolution, because i know such a survey is designed and used to promote the other 56% into the scien-tistic agenda i mentioned above. Plus, you could ask hundreds of non-scientist but pro evolution folk when humans were created, some would say 10 trillion, some would say 10 thousand, some would say 10 minutes ago. Remember Jay Leno's 'Jaywalking' segments. 44% of US citizens couldn't tell you the name of our VP, which in this case is a good thing.

Singularity of the 'Big Bang'

My conversion from a Humanist/Atheist, to a belief in God, had a great deal to do with the previous posts I made.

The unanswerable questions of 'Method' and Energy, Space, Motion, Time and Materials made me search for answers.

As an Atheist, I never tried to prove there was NO God, because that would have required a 'Certain' belief in God.

God cannot be proven or dis-proven by mankind by some scientific method.

I was in a horrific automobile wreck and as a result I lay on my back (in traction unmoving) staring at the ceiling for almost three months, with nothing to do but think.

I knew NOTHING about God, religion or religious writings. My parentage was at least three generations of Humanist/Atheist/Marxist thinking.

I did not know that God had said, "Those who seek Me will find Me" - God touched my life during that time and many times afterward.

I am a witness, that God will touch those who seek Him - regardless of your upbringing or what you think about Him.

Poor, KP
Still auditioning for Margaret Sanger's old gig. HaHaHa!


Liberal Parker
Please don't ever believe that Kathleen Parker is a conservative----you can read any or all of her articles to find she is a donkey in elephants clothing. Why is she contributing to Townhall?

again
The ignorance & stupidity of religionists is revealed yet again in the responses to this article. Just because one does not know or understand everything doesn't mean one gets to make up nonsensical answers.

Why the country is failing
"...Even so, a Gallup Poll found last year that 44 percent of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years..."

La-la world fables cannot a science make. Poor Parker gets slammed again for being honest. Conservatism created this "alternate reality" and now we wonder why it failed and was incapable of governing? As they repeatedly deomonstrate, magical thinking doesn't work

"Similar genes"...means what?
Every living thing is composed of basically the same matter...
Many scientists who question Darwinism in light of modern developments in genetics and DNA study would disagree with your "similar genes" connection. In fact we now know that a very complex genetic code passes informaton from parent to child.
Isolation of a group over time can cause a mutation(which is always negative...loss of DNA/genes). This accounts for the various races and unique family characteristics. Mutation however NEVER involves gaining genes or DNA.

Now the genetic code can only pass on information that it has. Evolution requires more information of an entirely different sort.
Basically impossible and never proven. Just as the "missing link" is still missing. There is no fossil record of ANY species in transition from one to another, only within kind.

Darwinism is no more established as science than is religion. In fact, modern advances in the aforementioned studies tends to dismantle the theory in many ways.

Vapid BS
I am so sick of silly liberals like Kathleen Parker claiming that all people who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible are nincompoops. What a bunch of sanctimonious bozos. Who are they to tell anyone what to believe in. And there self serving question of "Do you believe in science?" is really just to try and mock anyone who doesn't agree with their global warming crap.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
"
The dinosaurs were on the earth from the Fall to the Flood. They all died in the Flood. The pressure created by having the entire earth covered with water to the tops of the highest mountains-Everest, K-12, etc., for over a year; caused fossilization, and accelerated aging.

The True History of this world does not care what you believe, or what Egyptian mud myths you perpetuate. Truth is Eternal, and will be known by all at the Last Day."

That's one for the collection!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Nickel/Mac
"Date: May 10, 2009 - 8:00 AM EST
Vapid BS
I am so sick of silly liberals like Kathleen Parker claiming that all people who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible are nincompoops. What a bunch of sanctimonious bozos. Who are they to tell anyone what to believe in..."

That is easy. Science the entire basis of western civilization is who we are to tell you. I don't know if you are "nincompoops" I do know that you are ignorant of the facts and reality. No, please go over and sit with those folks who still maintain that the earth is flat and that we never landed on the moon.

"...Darwinism is no more established as science than is religion. In fact, modern advances in the aforementioned studies tends to dismantle the theory in many ways."

Not certain what all is involved in Darwinism but the FACT (real fact) is that evolution is the basis of life. Modern advances only continue to reinforce and explain the theory. If you disagree, then by all means use the scientific theory to disprove it - go ahead fame and fortune await you if you can LMAO

The real issue
The issue really isn’t choosing between God and evolution, but between biblical inerrancy and evolution. The seemingly incompatible ideas like the creation of the physical world in six days merely thousands of years ago, versus an earth that’s billions of years old, form the crux of the problem. Evolution is really an argument against a literal interpretation of the Bible, rather than any refutation of the existence of God.

Here's a great idea...
Let's let those who believe in a 10,000 year-old earth and 4000 year-old science handle the next pandemic.

If creationists don't want to be objects of ridicule, they should refrain from commenting on subjects on which they are completely, abjectly ignorant.

Jesus Christ
affirmed the literal six-day Creation of which Moses wrote.

He also affirmed the historicity of the Flood, which purpose was to wipe out everything that moved upon the earth. Job, by the way, describes a beast that sounds as though it could well have been a dinosaur. Why not? Creatures have been slowly dying off since the waters either dried up or drained into newly formed oean basins. There are several critters mentioned in the Bible about whom we know nothing, just maybe because they're now extinct. The Flood wrought the ultimate in climate change; many kinds which had initially survived simply couldn't adapt and died off. Extinction takes place to this day.

That there is similarity in genes can also be taken to mean there is a common, efficient design in mammalian, reptilian and avian skeletal structures, though each is unique unto that kind and no other. The genetic codes that determine the structure, also keeps things stable since we do not see lizards turning into birds, or monkeys into men. Each is simply designed for its own place in nature, with no blurring those lines.

Joel De Loser

And if you don't pay homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he'll string you up with one of His Noodly Appendages for eternity.

Don't say you weren't warned!

PS I'm not mocking your sky pixie. I'm mocking YOU.

infidel57
Quote from the column:

"Most human genes, he points out, are similar to genes in other mammals, "which indicates a common ancestry."

Or maybe God came up with a design that worked and decided to stick with it?

In other words, we're talking philosophy & world view here, not hard science.

BTW, I have two Masters degrees, one an MS in Engineering. I've spent 30 years in technical & scientific pursuits, and my graduate & undergraduate curricula were very heavy in chemistry, geology, biology, physics, math, etc.

Not trying to brag, and I know it doesn't make me as smart as Dr. Collins, but I bet it makes me a lot more qualified to comment on such matters than Kathleen-friggin-Parker or those others with their Journalism degrees.

Curiously
With more and more discoveries and advancements in all branches of science, the number of scientists and academics who question and/or reject the naturalistic assumptions for biological development and diversity is increasing, not decreasing.

What is "Evolutionism", anyway?
Two observations: (1) Parker the Messenger is getting hammered for the Message that Collins is sending.

and (2) Collins is not defining what is meant by "Evolution" and "Evolutionism". Charles Darwin seems to have meant that the entire spectrum of living plants and animals, from one-celled entities to billion-celled thinking entities, may be a clue to its own origin. That is, a one-celled living organism may have evolved into a two-celled organism, etc., etc.

Darwin himself, in sending his Origin of the Species paper to his peers for their comments and critiques, pointed out that he was doing this at a time when the existence of the cell had only just been proven, and that, if subsequent probing into wnat the cell actually was, inside, showed that it, too, was complex, then his theory of evolution could not be true. As many of us know, the cell has now been shown to be exceedingly complex, the result of external intelligent design.

my own explanation of the Phyla (the plural of Phylum) is that God the Creator started small, creating the one-celled plant and animal Phyla, then, building upon what He had learned, created more Phyla of more and more complex living things, and getting better and better at His self-imposed job of Creation, pretty much as the Bible describes the process, but using as much time for each step of the process as He wanted or needed, over as many billion years as He chose.

As a proof that God became Expert in Creating, look at the highest and most beautiful Creature He made, the last and best created Being: Woman. I rest my case.

Chuck
"Date: May 10, 2009 - 9:24 AM EST
Curiously
With more and more discoveries and advancements in all branches of science, the number of scientists and academics who question and/or reject the naturalistic assumptions for biological development and diversity is increasing, not decreasing."

HUH? what is "naturalistic assumptions for biological development and diversity" If you are speaking of evolution you are wrong. They questions are over exactly how not if. By the way careful you don't hurt your tail bone sitting there. If you are speaking of a creator, neither science nor evolution in particular rules out a creator.

Missed by many
especially by Parker and yes, Collins, is that how we got here isn't half as important as what we do while here.

Since the simplest thing we use requires a designer and a builder, I refuse to believe that the most complicated thing, man and the human brain, happened merely by accident.

If you feel good thinking you descinded from monkey's, good for you. I prefer to think I had a more blessed beginning.

As for teaching life theory (yes, both are only theories), neither has absolute concrete proof, but only one is lauded as factual while absolute fear and loathing surrounds the other.

One Big Problem
"one can believe in both God and science. In fact, says Collins, the latter does more to prove the existence of a creator than not."

Wrong! That's all I can say. Collins completely destroys his scientific credibility when he says science can proof god. The reason is this. God is a supernatural being and science by definition can NOT have anything to do with the supernatural. It cannot make a Christian an atheist and an atheist a Christian. Those that claim it can just need to grow a spine.

It's okay to believe in god and be a scientist. In fact, most scientists in this country are Christians. But to say science can prove god is just wrong because it defies the definition of both of them. Collins may be brilliant in genetics, but he's dead wrong about linking god and science. They're separate. They can't be merged.

LewWaters
"Date: May 10, 2009 - 9:41 AM EST
Missed by many...As for teaching life theory (yes, both are only theories), neither has absolute concrete proof, but only one is lauded as factual while absolute fear and loathing surrounds the other."

One is a scientific theory and one is a religious theory. A huge difference. That you folks always neglect to mention

Einstein once said
" the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible ",in other words God created a very scientific and predictable universe. The evidence to support evolution is over whelming just as is the evidence of God. I once told an evangelical preacher that we agree on the all important questions of who and why, we disagree on the minor points of how and when.

The heart of the matter
Whatever Christians believe about science may change, as science demands discovery through research and experimentation.

Whatever Christians believe about God ought to occur through investigation of his written revelation, the scriptures.

The scriptures reveal an historical being called Adam, who was tempted to sin and who fell thereby causing us all to be sinners who descend from him. This same historical person is mentioned in the New Testament genealogy of Jesus Christ--who is called the last Adam.

The problem lies at the heart of the Gospel, which is that Christ, who became a man descended from the historical Adam through his mother Mary yet was also God because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and is Himself a person of the Trinity. He did this for no other reason than to become a Redeemer of a fallen race descended from Adam--the first man.

However Adam came to be--he had to be--or else there is no such thing as sin, evil, death or hell's punishment.

The followers of Darwin would, like those who follow Al Gore's "global warming" theories, claim the debate is over. I don't think so. They can't explain evil, which is plainly before our eyes every day.

God,Quantum Mechanics&Chaos Theory !

Our Understanding and Grasp Of The Divine is still an Ongoin' Learning Process.

An Understanding Problem That Our Still Finite Operatin' Minds Ain't Fully Grabbin'Yet.

Silly premise




"He has written this book out of a deep concern over the common misconception that faith and science are incompatible."

No such line exists as he defines it

Looking for an answer to a question takes faith there is an answer for the question.

This man simply does not understand the meaning of the word faith.
It takes faith to believe Darwin's theory.
It takes the very same faith to believe Jesus Christ.

It's a matter of which man you decide to believe according to your faith.

No such line exists that sets faith apart from science.
Without faith there is no seeking an answer to any question.

Some men place their faith in the words of Darwin, and others in the words of Jesus Christ.

They are exact opposites concerning the world and life's beginnings.

All men believe in Creation theory, even Darwin.
He just believed the Creator is time and chance.
He began to seek for proof that time is a creator of life.

Those who also believe that time is the Creator do so by their faith.

This man has no understanding of what he is speaking about in how he tries to draw a line where no line exists.

The very study of Nature came (in the last 2000 years) through men with a deep and abiding Faith in God.
Science existed long before this world ever heard of a Charles Darwin.

In looking back through the history of western civilization, both Christians and Jews are the founders of today's classroom of science.
Science was not invented by Charlie Darwin.

It takes a really ignorant (unlearned) person to believe it did.

Christians developed the very subject we call science.

Christians developed every single major University in America and Europe.

Faith cannot be separated from Science, and Science cannot be separated from a Creation, or Creator





I search in vain...

..for a single true statement in No Talent's blather.

Hang on! Here's one. "Christians developed every single major University in America and Europe."

(And other faiths developed their centers for learning.)

Joel De Loser accidentally speaks ...

... a truth. To wit "Ye cannot believe both God and Darwin."

Which is why ye-all refuse to accept evolution.

Quandry!
I've routinely raised a simple question on this site...one to which only the evolutionists respond [the creationist's won't touch the issue]. Explain why a merciful God "create" deadly disease [among other negative forces] which has caused such immense suffering for both the innocent and the infidel alike? The evolutionists answer the question with ease. If a void exists Nature will [via evolution] fill that void, and furthermore Nature is always neutral [being neither good nor evil which are man-make concepts].

Jim-Too

science.....
Someone once said"The most constant thing in
science is CHANGE!" I read recently that most doctors believe in a supreme being.Are they considered scientists? Hmmmm? Smile.
Elvis

Truth be told
I don't know how old the Earth is (and neither does Dr. Collins). God being God, it would have been no big deal for Him to create the heavens and earth over a period of 6 days as we measure time. But my faith does not lie in ruins if I find out that He used a different chronology.

That said, I find a lot of holes in what we are referring to here as "Evolution" or "Darwinism"--and these holes became apparent to me before I ever embraced Christianity. In fact, it was the inability of my teachers and professors to resolve these inconsistencies (according to the Scientific Method that they themselves taught) that drove me to look in other directions.

In short, the more time I spent in the hard sciences, the more I became convinced that "the heavens declare the glory of God."

On the other hand, I've always found it disturbing that this idea of random evolution seems to fit hand-in-hand with 20th century totalitarianism (e.g., Hitler, upon hearing that Gen. von Paulus had surrendered his 6th Army at Stalingrad:"What is the individual? The individual is nothing! It is the State that endures.." and so on).

As I said in an earlier post, it all comes down to philosophy and world view, and "science" has little to do with it. I don't have the credentials of Dr. Collins, but neither is he (or Darwin) in the same league as Newton, Keppler, Pascal...devout believers all.




You fall for a false argument
If you allow yourself to be drawn into this phony premise.

quote:

""He has written this book out of a deep concern over the common misconception that faith and science are incompatible."

The only line of division is who you believe speaks the truth.

Darwin or Jesus Christ.
This is the only line there is.

Darwin is not the father of doubts in God the Creator, he was a follower of a sower of doubts in God from the very beginning.

The serpent said:
"Yeah, hath God said?"

It takes faith in every single subject men speak about seeking truth,or by earning his living , or studies for knowledge.

The Court Room itself operates by the spirit of faith, belief, credibility of evidence.

You have two sides to every Court Case.
The Crime was not committed in the eye sight of any one on the Jury.

Evidence is presented to the Jury to prove guilt or innocence.
Which ever side has presented the facts of that persons guilt or innocence wins a verdict that comes through faith.

We call this good faith for a reason, because it verdict is arrived at through the evidence of good faith.

This is what removes all reasonable doubt to pass a judgment of guilty or innocent.

Nothing exists without FAITH

Joel-De Oppresso Liber
In an earlier post, you state: “The Lord made the Earth in 7 consecutive 1000 year periods which He called 'days'.”


I’m curious. How do you reconcile your “7 consecutive 1000 year periods” with the scriptural account of “And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day” in Genesis 1:5 and subsequent verses for each day?


I’m not trying to argue, just understand.


Can any person
Accept Darwin's Theory without faith?

Can any person have perfect faith that removes all doubt or reasonable doubt in Darwin's Theory?

Many speak with such assurance about Darwin's Theory, and sneer with contempt for anyone who would question this Theory of Creation.

Another false argument stems from the idea that Darwin's Theory is not about Creation.

Which statement is too dumb to argue with and just leads to black holes of dark thoughts, which no light can penetrate.

Joel-De Oppresso Liber, 10:42 am
When I was taking my Historical Geology course way back when, one of our assignments was to go over to the L.A. county Natural History Museum make sketches of (1) the bones of a human forearm and (2) the bones of a dolphin's flipper, and then draw some conclusions from what we observed.

Of course, the human forearm and dolphin flipper were strikingly similar in structure.

See if you can guess which conclusion was the "correct" one:

(a) We and the dolphin must have come from the same common ancestor

(b) God came up with a great design and carried it over from one species to the other.

If you answered (a), congratulations you aced that assignment.

(This is the same class, by the way, that had us convinced that a new Ice Age would show up, oh, sometime in the eary 21st century.)

Noodles for brains,
MellorSJ2

Proves for me there really is a flying spaghetti monster.

Mellor is proof he exists

JAMES
“As a proof that God became Expert in Creating, look at the highest and most beautiful Creature He made, the last and best created Being: Woman. I rest my case.”

Odd, don’t you think, that during creation God called the things He created “good”, that is until woman was created where He had nothing good to say? (smiling)

I do not believe Genesis
Is a fable.

Its impossible for any person to believe the New Testament and also believe Genesis is a fable.

I believe Genesis means exactly what it says.

6 Days God Created the Heavens and the Earth.

Mocking my faith in God is a faith builder and makes me stronger in my faith in God and the Science of a God Created Nature.

Nature has a God and all men believe this is true, but they all argue about who that God is.

This is the only true argument and it has existed for thousands of years under different forms of ideas.

Big deal, nothing is new in science, the mantra the word gives meaning to.

Science does not oppose the Existence of God but contrary wise, it proves His Existence


Joel-De Oppresso Liber...

Thank you! Now I cannot say I know none :-)

It is not that I do not believe such - nor did you accuse - I just do not know such. 44% is just a very high number compared to what is usually reported, or we are lead to believe is a very tiny minority. I shouldn't be surprised, eh?

The exacts of creation are neither here nor there (to me). I'm happy to believe we will all know one fine day.

This debate is not over as Al Gore and Chrissy Matthews and others would wish us believe. And neither is their Age of Enlightened Ignorance - Yet.

Hope we are saved!






talent scout
" Can any person
Accept Darwin's Theory without faith?"

darwins theory?! do you even know who i am?

darwins theory is bare bones. he would not recognize the advances that have been made in evolutionary science.
you people just don't understand what evolution is. for you it is just another science advancement that proves your ridiculous religious beliefs to be ridiculous. first, you had to accept that the earth is not the center of the universe (and now scientists say there are parallel universes), then you had to hear how the earth was round. and now this thing called evolution disproves the account in genesis.
DARN SCIENTISTS!!!

IT'S ALL ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION MY FRIENDS. READ ABOUT THAT AND YOU WILL SEE!!!!

talent scout,
You're in good company, evidently Jesus didn't believe the Old Testament was fable either...when He quotes from it, He and His audience clearly treat it as authoritative (e.g., "As in the days of Noah....")

People like Kathleen Parker--and Dr. Collins, for that matter--seem to want to have it both ways. They want to be seen believers, but they want to fit in with the world as well. Maybe they're just trying to hedge their bets...?

Frankly I have more respect for a dyed-in-the-wool atheist who's not afraid to lay his cards on the table.

God did create disease
There was no disease, no crime, no fears, no government, no war in God's Creation in the Garden of Eden.

Until the creator of disease, misery, fear and murder sowed his doubts into the minds of Adam and Eve.

God had simply Created two healthy human beings.

Healthy in mind and spirit, giving them power over all the earth with one warning of the power He had given them to CHOOSE to believe Him.

Nothing has changed in this since the Garden of Eden.
Every man is free to choose to believe God or not to believe God.

Adam and Even only knew good in their life, they did not know evil.

Not until the day they made a choice to believe their doubts.

Satan told them a truth and a lie mixed together.

He was telling the truth that Adam and Eve would learn both good and evil by disobedience, and was true.

To say they would not die is the lie.

Genesis 3:

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Fools will mock God, but they do nothing but strengthen the Faith of a real man or woman who believes God.

Who confirms His Power to all who will come to Him as he had said

re: Retired Geek, I
"The 'Singularity of the Big Bang', begs the question of several things."

The notion of God begs several questions.

1.) Who created God?
2.) Just because one supposes God created himself/existed always doesn't preclude God himself having a superior creator.

Draw the Universe as a circle. Think Venn Diagram. Now, God being superior would represent a super-set of the Universe. In this case the Universe is considered a sub-set of God. A circle within a circle, subset. Now, nothing precludes us from drawing an infinite number of ever larger circles even bigger than the previous. God could have an infinite number of parents.







re: Retired Geek, II
Christians have never been able to logically argue why stop at a single God. Why doesn't God have a creator? Christians argue that the Bible says so. The problem with this argument is that:

1.) It assumes that the God described in the Bible is actually the Creator. Rationally believing that odds exist the Universe has a creator is infinitely superior to the odds the God in the Bible exist. The Bible is a hoax and a fraud. There are many types of Christian arrogance, but the first is that "if God then Christian God". That's laughable. God in the Bible is an idiot. No other explanation for getting it wrong the first time and having to flood the world. Such an idiot could have never created the Universe. Then he gets it wrong again and begets a New Testament. Idiot.

2.) God in the Bible is telling the truth when he says he's the only one. God could be lying. As an atheist I see no compelling reason to assume God doesn't lie.

If one tells Christians they can't use the Bible to prove that the God therein is exclusive, then they fall back on "the Universe could not have created itself. God created himself. Other Gods are not necessary. Since a single God is the minimal needed, none other are necessary or exist."

Which sounds surprising a lot like those who argue the Universe doesn't need God to exist. Instead of stopping at the Universe, Christians stop at one God whereas scientists stop at the Universe. Personally, I don't rule out any explanation. The Universe could have an infinite chain of creators. That is actually the most rational position give the lack of evidence today of the character of the Creator. The Bible does not describe any Creator of this Universe. So far nothing has.

What?

talent scout wrote:
" Can any person
Accept Darwin's Theory without faith?"



alfred wallace replies with: 11:28 AM EST
darwins theory?!
=======================
What are you questioning?
Darwins Theory?
Or Darwin had a Theory?

You do not make yourself clear at all.


alfred wallace writes:
do you even know who i am?


I do not care who you are

alfred wallace
"DARN SCIENTISTS"

Yeah like Isaac Newton (classical mechanics, the Calculus), Johannes Keppler (laws of planetary motion), Blase Pascal (mathematical pioneer)--all Christians.

Seeing how tuned in you are to the scientific method, perhaps you can find a passage in the Bible that describes a flat Earth or where it says the Earth is the center of the Universe.

BTW, it's a myth that educated people believed in a flat earth before Columbus and Magellan...Archimedes had estimated the circumference of the earth to a pretty good degree of accuracy some 2500 years ago.


Since No Talent is now a Pastafarian

Don't you think he should stop quoting the bible?

Joel-De Oppresso Liber
(Love ya)


This Universe operates today just as God
Created it in the 6 days that had a morning and an evening.

Lets look at this together:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I believe He means it just exactly like He said it

What fellowship has light with darkness?

‘[Collins] also hopes to help fundamentalist scientists see the error of their ways.” –Kathleen Parker


Ms. Parker, by fundamentalist do you mean Bible believers? For your offer of help, we thank you, but is it the Bible believer who is in need of help or the unbeliever?

Jesus prayed to His Father as He faced the cross, “Sanctify them Your Truth, Thy word is Truth”. Could it be that our sanctification depends on believing Christ’s testimony regarding Genesis? For example…

“From the beginning, He made them male and female” and again, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it shall be at the coming of the Son of Man”.

Mr. Collins may be a geneticist and we give him credit for that, but he becomes a vain philosopher when he says common genes imply common descent.

The Bible gives us a framework for science. Collins denies that common design testifies of a common designer. No doubt the DNA sequence that codes an arm or a leg will be similar between a man and an ape. But men are more than DNA sequences. It is written that all men are made in the ‘image of God’. How does that code in DNA?

The strongest argument against the attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable is based on Biblical Theology. What does the Bible say about sin and death? Macro-evolution depends on death being the natural order; the Bible testifies that death is the result of Adam’s sin.

Accommodation to macro evolution undermines the reality of sin and its curse of death and thereby undermines the Gospel message that Christ came to put to death the curse of death. Having become an atonement for sin in the place of sinners, He redeemed men from their captivity to sin. What fellowship has light with darkness?


Vampire's Reflection
This is an honest inquiry, so don't bite my head off...

You obviously subscribe to ideas of "right" and "wrong" as in God "getting it wrong the first time and having to flood the world."

But can a true atheist harbor such notions?

I mean, if we're all just here by chance, and in a sense we're all our own "gods," then where does your idea of right & wrong come from? Did you just sort of work it out for yourself, or are you appealing to some external standard to which we're all supposed to agree? And if there is some external standard, then where did it come from and why should we agree to it?






talent
i'm questioning "darwinism", not darwins theory. darwins theory is the basis for modern evolutionary science. "darwinism" is a strawman constructed by the religious right. no one studies "darwinism". i (me, not alfred wallace) studied biology (not evolutionary biology specifically) and the classes i took regarding evolution mentioned darwin on the first day and never again. he is not important is modern understanding of evolution.
and if you don't know who i am you should google me. by admitting you don't know alfred wallace you are admitting you don't know the basics of the science you dismiss out of hand.
you are talented at remaining ignorant.

This thread is about Faith
My faith is unshakable, and my faith is in both science and God.

The more true science I have read about, the more knowledge of God's wonderful world I come to understand.

Its a truly wonderful world in passing through it by this precious faith.

This faith overcomes the world.

Its the victory over this world, a magnificent inner peace and love that passes all understanding.

For who has known the mind of the Lord to instruct Him?

The Creator of Life gives Life its meaning.

The God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

All those who reject Life follow the path of death.

Like shooting stars across the sky, their light of life will perish and they will die.

Life is more than the body, it is more than riches or vain glory, the spiritual values of people like Parker and masses like her.

Thinking herself wise, she and the others like her are fools.

Time is not a creator of life, it creates omne thing and that one thing is from new to old, deterioration, not evolutionary to higher degrees of intelligence or life forms.

Pyramids turn into sand.
Sand does not turn into pyramids.

This generation is in degeneration and dying having turned from the Giver of Life.

Jesus Christ

flimsey false argument, al
alfred wallace writes: 12:09 PM EST
talent
i'm questioning "darwinism", not darwins theory. darwins theory is the basis for modern evolutionary science. "darwinism" is a strawman constructed by the religious right.
=====================

Worth a roll of the eyes, good excercise.

Nothing modern or new in Darwinism or Darwins Theory.

As it makes a difference in the subject of Darwin's thoughts.

I am ok with calling his thoughts either one, chump.

Just another really stupid argument.

Meaningless bilge

You are brain dead and I am the doctor, the expert, the master of your ignorance

some created, some evolved
In all probability, there are two lines of creatures on this planet: One the prduct of divine creation. The other, a product of a demonically initiated process of evolution.

The created beings having the capacity to believe in the Creator. The lower, evolved creatures, without this capacity---with creatures such as Parker being of the lower, evolved line. Yet, trying to pretend they are of divine creation, by joining the two lines in theory.
ms

natural selection
not all mutations are negative or deleterious. if one happens to confer an advantage then that gene will spread. and after many generations if the descendants of the mutated gene are no longer able to reproduce with the original founder population then you have a new species. and natural selection only works on the here and now. it is not striving for anything. thats natural selection in a nutshell. i think what a lot of people don't take into account is the effect of deep time on this process. it happens over millions of years and millions of generations.

One Thing is Certain

Not only do I NOT have to answer for God - all men are incapable of answering for God.

Those who do NOT like God or what He has done - should take it up with Him.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
NIV

Reference is important
With this subject Joel

You write:
"If we go back to the oldest translations, there are references to the Creator living on a world that takes 1000 years to rotate. Thus 1000 years = a day to The Lord."

When this was spoken, the Prophet was not speaking of Creation, but of God's existence outside of and above time.

God Created time, time did not exist until God Created time for mankind.

He is outside of and above time and this is in reference to that, not Creation

Darwinism defined
I'm willing to differentiate between Darwin's theories and --dare I say it--the religion known as Darwinism, complete with its dogmas, persecution of heretics, etc. (I would recommend for viewing Ben Stein's film "Expelled." )

Kind of like how Communism in North Korea evolved from a political system into a personality cult deifying Kim-il-Sung (and later his idiot son Kim-jong-il)


One thing I have learned

Truth is NOT impressed with man's credentials or lack thereof.

Something is True because it is True, NOT because someone with a variety of degrees conferred by man, says it is True.


ROTFL!

" There were 2 reasons for the Flood.

1: The Earth needed to be baptized."


Ha ha ha hah ah aha haha ah ahhh (pause for breath) ha ha ha ah aha hah aha!

What a loser!

One thing I know

Judging God by man is a fools quest.

Religion is Mans way to God, Jesus Christ is God's way to man.

This very subject was addressed
2000 years ago in the New Testament.

Making it a very old subject that existed long before Darwin's Theory or "Darwinist Theory" as one brain dead person argues about.

2Pe 3:5 -
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,.....


God Created a full grown adult Universe.
He did not create a baby universe and patiently watch it grow up to adulthood.

It was finished ion day 6 when Even was created a fully grown adult.


roy
"i think what a lot of people don't take into account is the effect of deep time on this process. it happens over millions of years and millions of generations. "

That's the same thing I heard and read over & over again in my aforementioned Biology and Historical Geology courses, in answer to arguments about the odds of an amino acid forming and giving rise to DNA, genes and so on up the line.

"Well, given enough time it COULD'VE happened!"

Sounded like a step of faith to me back then and it still does now.

talent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

here is the wikipedia page for evolution. it is incomplete compared to textbooks on the subject but it will suffice for this exercise.
if you dare, (and i doubt it) look at this page. count how many times you see darwins name.

"dawinism", past the 19th century, is the ignorant religious folks way of linking evolution with social darwinism (see hitler and the jews or christians and the gays).
if you can give me an example of a modern evolutionary biologist who uses the term "darwinism" as another way of saying evolution i'll donate all my money to some crazy church of your choice.

Most Homosexuals Despise God

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. NIV


Hal Donahue
"They questions are over exactly how not if."

Wrong again, Hal. The OBJECTIONS are over how. It is only within the circle of those who accept the Theory that there are any arguments over how.

The rest have left the Theory as "inadequate".

Yeah,Vampire Man !

And you Could Be A Pimple On God's Rump and when He decides To squeeze You,KABOOM !
The Next Big Bang !

The Puss Galaxy begins It's Expansion !

And eventually , The Puss People Inhabit The Pussiverse !

Aaaaaand,God Loves ,even The Puss People And The First Puss Pimple,Vampire Man!