Religion, science and public policy
Almost half of Americans believe the evolutionary science is incompatible with religious teachings -- how this impacts issues like global warming.
The following is a partial transcript; for full story, listen to audio.
When he announced that the Earth revolves around the Sun, Galileo was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. But that was 400 years ago. The modern Vatican, as it is, has argued that Christian faith and science are not at odds after all, but compatible and complementary, especially regarding Darwin's theory of evolution.
Traditional Protestants are fine with that, but almost half of Americans believe that the book of Genesis is incompatible with "The Origin of Species." What are the consequences for dealing with global warming, pandemic disease and stem cell research?
John Haught, Senior Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center has a simple answer: Don't look to the Bible for answers to scientific questions; look to the Bible for answers to other kinds of questions.
"The Catholic Church itself has emphasized and learned its lesson from Galileo, but Pope Leo XIII ... instructed Catholics not to look to the Bible for scientific information, and that simple instruction really serves to prevent a lot of needless anxiety about trying to map onto the Bible the picture of cosmic development that modern cosmology and evolutionary theory, geology has given us.
"So just don't look to the Bible for scientific information; look for other kinds of truths. For example, in Genesis you look for answers to questions such as, 'why is there anything at all, rather than nothing; why should we trust in life; is there a basis for hope and confidence in the future?' Those are the kinds of questions that Biblical text needs to respond to, not scientific questions."
Gerald McKenny, Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at Notre Dame University, is one of the organizers of a three-day conference on the subject of science and religion. He is trying to present a position on science and its relationship to faith.
"We think that in the past understandings of evolution, due to certain evolutionary theory and the ways in which they were usually presented, made it difficult for many people in the fields like theology, philosophy and even the social sciences, to look to evolutionary biology as a source of truth," said McKenny. "It seemed to be telling us things about human nature, for example, that made it difficult to understand humans in all their fullness. But we think there are a number of changes that have occurred in biological sciences, evolutionary theory in particular, in recent years that open up new dialogs for science and theology, science and humanities and so forth."
McKenny adds that the Catholic Church has patronized the area of science for centuries, and still does. "Other people assume that there's simply a conflict and you're force to choose one or the other. And I think that's what we're in the business of trying to overcome."
Terry Mortenson, Lecturer and Researcher at Answers in Genesis, an organization supporting the idea of young earth creationism. He says absolutely there's truth in science, but he doesn't believe there's truth to the science of evolution.
"We would dispute that it is a science. It is a story of about the unobserved past. You can't recreate it in the laboratory, like you can analyze cancer cells. It's a story about the past, it's based on assumptions about the past that cannot be proven scientifically. So while it has an appearance of being scientific, it's in the realm of what we like to call historical science, or origin science, which is trying to reconstruct the unobserved past, which is a different enterprise than trying to develop new technologies or cures for disease in the present."
Mortenson believes the earth is 6,000 years old, based on the Biblical information provided in Genesis. He says carbon dating and other radiometric dating methods are based on certain assumptions that creationists dispute. He adds that Genesis rules out the idea that people evolved from animals.
Chris Mooney, Fellow in Science Journalism at the Massachusetts Institite of Technology, says people shouldn't put the same meaning into scripture that they put into scientific text. "Traditional ways of reading scripture recognize various levels of meaning. Scripture could be saying something at a different level from what science says at its level -- both can be right."
Mooney thinks "scientific illiteracy" is threatening our future. "Most literally it means Americans not knowing basic facts about science; but I would expand it to Americans not knowing about the scientific process or how science affects their lives or public policy. In a modern age like ours, if you have a society that isn't plugged into the scientific world at a time when science really determines a lot of the major choices in public policy, then you're not going to make the best choices, and I think we see that on the issues like climate change and many others."
He says on climate change, there's a "gigantic" gap -- like with evolution -- between what the scientific community believes and what the public believes.
As for creationism, Mooney thinks it "undermines" the science being taught in schools. "Teachers are afraid in many cases, in many communities, to teach evolution the way they might want to because they know there's possibly going to be some creationist backlash, so that undermines our citizens' ability to process science too."
Hosted by award-winning journalist Warren Olney, "To the Point" presents informative and thought-provoking discussion of major news stories — front-page issues that attract a savvy and serious news audience.














Partial quote:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII) . . .
- St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302) . . .
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis). . .
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings. . . .
- Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field. . . .
- There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.
For the full article, see:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
What Does Cutting- Edge Science Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
See also:
Genesis 1-11
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11&version=NIV
the global Flood of Noah
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis6-11&version=NIV
Most do not understand nor properly apply the scientific method today. In testing an hypothesis we look for ways to prove it wrong, not for evidence to support it, which is what the majority of evolution research consists of today.
The Bible can absolutely be looked to for scientific information. Many scientific discoveries would have happened much sooner if scientists would have looked to the Bible first, and correctly interpreted it. For example: Isaiah 40:22 clearly indicates that the earth is round, not flat. Ocean currents, the water cycle, the types of flesh, etc. are all revealed in scripture.
Everything comes down to whether the Bible can be taken literally, if you also apply common sense and reasoning in the process. Matthew Maury, the father of oceanography said: "The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other."
The list of scientists with at least a P.h.D. in their field, who have rejected Darwinian evolution for scientific reasons, is over 700 and growing at about 4 signatures per week. They believe it is so flawed it cannot be repaired.
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator."
The complete statement and the full list of 12,000 signers, with names and church affiliations, is found here:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
Anyone rejecting evolution for Christian religious reasons should contact one or more of the people on the above list and have a talk.
There is an abundance of scientific evidence that the earth is young, and that the rock layers and fossils were formed by a worldwide flood.
For the clergy that signed the statement accepting evolution, there are hundreds of scientists with at least a Ph.D in their field that have rejected Darwinism for scientific reasons. But you are certainly welcome to compromise the Word of God if you like. It isn't the healthiest thing to do, nor the wisest. Eternity is a long time to be wrong.
The Bible indicates that God spoke the universe into existence from nothing. I just don't believe "nothing" can do it by itself without help. But you are welcome to hold that opinion. Just don't call it science.
True. Someone needs to correct them.
Post your comment