Book: Evolution, religion are compatible

Book: Evolution, religion are compatible

www.upi.com

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a new book arguing that acceptance of the theory of evolution does not require giving up a belief in God. The academy, the United States' pre-eminent scientific organization, previously published books on the subject in 1984 and 1999. Those books reported on evidence supporting evolution and argued against introducing creationism or other religious explanations for the origins of life in public school science classes, the newspaper said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

What I find fascinating about this story is that the book is written by evolutionary biologists. Also that this "academy" determines what is taught as far as science goes. So are they changing their minds on the introduction of creationism in schools or are they just offering another suggestion that includes everything? I think they are trying to avoid all of the backlash of late coming from religious folks about only teaching evolution in schools. Why are they publishing this now when they had previous books that only supported evolution? Seems like they might be backtracking. Personally, I believe creationism isn't "science" and that's why it can't be included in a science class. that's just my opinion.

www.upi.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Do they only teach evolution in compulsary school? When I took Biology 101 in college however many years ago, I remember evolution, creationism, and panspermia being taught. I'm trying to think back to high school, but can't remember..

I always figured they are compatible anyway. I don't believe in God, but I always thought that any rational religious person (are there any? j/k) could just reconcile the two by God being the one that created the process of evolution.

Personally, I believe creationism isn't "science"

I see you're point, but out of curiousity, what do you call the engineering of new species of bacteria and creation of "artificial life" ?

reply to post by benign.psychosis

I don't believe in God, but I always thought that any rational religious person (are there any? j/k) could just reconcile the two by God being the one that created the process of evolution.

I am with you there. Rational people in religion, I don't think there are very many at all.

I see you're point, but out of curiousity, what do you call the engineering of new species of bacteria and creation of "artificial life" ?

That is a tough one to answer. I feel that creationism has only to do with a "God" or higher entity. And seeing is how no one one this planet can fit into that category, my best answer would have to be that it is just the advancement of science. Although I am sure the religious folks would say that God gave them the ability to create these new things. Or they would call it the devils work because know one should be creatng new life except God. The key is in the word "artificial". God does not "create" anything that is artificial. To the religious, anything "He" makes is real and in his image.

I don't understand the fuss about evolution and creationism in a Country were Church and State are separate under constitutional law

Who ever wrote it is just regurgitating what Pope John Paul II said.

Many years ago he said that people of religion shouldn't be afraid of the truth that is found in science, and that science shouldn't be afraid of the truth found in faith.

He said evolution is possible and acceptable to believe in as long as you understand that God is the author of evolution.

reply to post by infinite

I don't understand the fuss about evolution and creationism in a Country were Church and State are separate under constitutional law

That is funny. Everyday it seems like the religious right is trying to bring religion into everything we do. We are supposed to follow constitutional law, but it seems more and more that it is slipping away. It starts with the argument about prayer in school and even leaving God out of the pledge of allegiance. There is a big fuss about what the children are supposed to be taught in science class. the newest thing is "Intelligent Design".

This book is written by a group of NAS scientists headed by Ayala, who is a theistic evolutionist.

It is an attempt to put a stop to the silly crusade found in school boards across the US. It attempts to show why evolution is science, and why YEC and ID are not.

If read and taken on board, it might just save a few school boards some $$$ as opposed to getting dragged into court for forcing religiously-motivated non-science into the science classroom.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]

evolution is a cheap crock for the unthinking
Would you believe dinosaurs and man cohabited in Mexico 3500 years ago?

www.bible.ca...

Why is it so difficult for most people to accept that both science and religion are correct?

We live in a world where everything must now be fast (ex: foods, solutions, services, cars, pc's, internet, women,...) for it to be accepted.
As a result people are now too intellectually, productively and creatively lazy to tackle anything that requires time, especially if it will require any type of dedication of time to research and investigate.

Athiests always ask for any type of evidence as proof of God's existence, yet they cannot to anyones satisfaction look up at the sky and even point to the exact location where the Big Bang originated from.
Point is, both may be impossible to proove but God exists and the Big Bang did occur.

The debate will continue as to whether we were created or just appeared and have evolved out of nothing but for all we know maybe we were created by God, but God is the one that just randomly appeared out of nowhere. Since we are all children of God, this satisfies the explanations presented by both believers of intel design and evolutionists.

Question: Will life forms that Man may eventually design and create will at some point no longer believe in Man?

reply to post by Alxandro

Since we are all children of God,

Who decided that we are all children of God? Is it that way because it says so in a book?

religion adopts evolution would this be like how christianity adopted pagan festivals, its an example if anything else of the evolution of religion you either change with the times or risk dying out, but if the bible is the word of god then surely it should be treated as such, no bending or removing of rules and certainly absolutely no doubt about creation unless adam and eve were bacteria in the primordial soup how are they compatible or are some parts of the bible untrue as someone who as very little knowledge on the bible id appreciate how it wouldnt contradict cheers

reply to post by palehorse23


Well, let's just suppose you are a top notch scientist that just discovered how to create a life form in your lab. Then you are able to program and tweak this life form to the point where it is able to reproduce, then it eventually begins evolving due to conditions you introduced to its environment and such. You monitor its progression then you notice one day your life form began creating other life forms from scratch.
Are you not reponsible for the creation of this second life form?

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by palehorse23

 

Are you not reponsible for the creation of this second life form?

You are confusing causality and responsiblity.

If you think that the first scientist is somehow "responsible" for the other life form's creation, then the first scientist would have had to have complete and total control over the second scientist and the reality that surrounds him - this, WE today don't even have - that is, 100% control over our situations or our lives. We are merely a product of our interactions. If I had complete control, I'd be teleporting and flying all over the place.

Responsiblity does not always intertwine with causation.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The National Academy of Sciences on Thursday issued a spirited defense of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology, arguing that it, not creationism, must be taught in public school science classes. The academy, which operates under a mandate from Congress to advise the government on science and technology matters, issued the report at a time when the theory of evolution, first offered in the 19th century, faces renewed attack by some religious conservatives. Creationism, based on the explanation offered in the Bible, and the related idea of "intelligent design" are not science and, as such, should not be taught in public school science classrooms, according to the report.

creationism not science

i had to offer up this new article from theNational Academy of Sciences.

There is no way that evolution and religion incompatible. I even challenge you to prove to me that they are. Liberal Christians (like myself) do not take the creation stories word-for-word literally, and thus the Theory of Evolution does not interfere with our beliefs. Furthermore, religion is not "adopting" evolution R-evolve, religion is accepting scientific fact. Religion does not deny gravity, why would it need to deny evolution to remain credible?

reply to post by Alxandro


VERY good post man! You raised tons of great points.