Comments for: “Good Book: Science Academy Says Don’t Confuse Religion With Biology”

There are creatures with intermediate features alive today.

Walruses and seals clamber across land on fins that double as rudimentary legs.

They are the best living examples of a transitional form between land-dwelling animals and animals such as whales, who evolved from land-living ancestors to the seafaring way of life that we see today.

Or penguins, birds that have retained the ability to fly — only underwater. Or species of Arctic birds that can fly in air — but just barely. They are examples of evolution from primarily airborne life to a seafaring life as well.

The evidence for evolution is irrefutable and undeniable. Only people whose claims to “moral authority” depend on evolution being false insist otherwise.

Not to mention the ‘germ theory of disease’. And that certain bacteria are becoming resistant to treatment because of the ‘e’ word….

And while we’re at it, how about the science behind what we’re typing on?

But then, for fundamentalist beliefs to make any kind of sense, blindness must be selective.

Which doesn’t make any sense at all.

This is GREAT news! I think that top tier scientists should make their voices heard, both collectively or individually. I believe the biological sciences, especially genetic engineering, are going to become the 21st century’s principle area of revolutionary scientific achievement. The United States stands to be the world leader in this area, just as we are in other areas of science. But in other areas our hands aren’t tied by fundamentalist creatons who insist that their minority faith be treated as “scientific knowledge” and be taught as science in our schools! This has got to stop.

While the American public is very sympathetic to religion, we are also very proud of our standing in the world of science, technology and engineering. We are very proud of our world economic leadership. We need to remind ourselves that the anti-scientific fundamentalist world-view threatens that standing, and isn’t a threat to religion in general.

In case anyone is not aware, Discovery Institute has a “guidebook” pamphlet designed for teachers. It was developed in response to NOVA, and probably this booklet as well.

“The Theory of Intelligent Design: A briefing packet for educators to help them understand the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design.”

It is downloadable here: http://www.discovery.org/a/4304

It would actually be humorous if the quality of our children’s education wasn’t being compromised in the way that it is.

Combating fake science is essential, and so is the fight against fake history…

http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....895/430331

The irony of all this religion: can’t anyone argue their case for teh bible in American culture without lies and distortion? A religion of ‘truth’ indeed….

I haven’t had the chance to read through the entire NAS document yet, but I think it’s great to see this kind of collaborative effort. Showing how evolution informs and is informed by other sciences is a vital part of the picture, one that IDers seem to deliberately ignore.

Rick, putting an end to revisionist history is also essential. I read a few months ago that the first task facing college history professors when teaching freshman history is to disabuse their students of the misinformation they received in grade and high school. History at those levels was/is intended to teach citizenship, rather than the full spectrum of American history. It’s no wonder so many people are ignorant of the founders’ true spiritual leanings.

RE: Fake History

The resolution number is HR 888 - shouldn’t that be 666?

It happens that one of the committee members is MY representative. I sent him a strongly worded e-mail.

Lawsuit targets history teacher’s comments
Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

By David Haldane, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 13, 2007

Excerpt: Teresa Farnan said her suspicions were aroused on the first day of school when her son — a sophomore honors student required to take Corbett’s class for college admission — asked her whether America was founded on Christian values, which he said his teacher had denied.
“He had learned in the eighth grade that our country was founded by persecuted Christians,” said the mother, who describes her family as nondenominational Christian, “so I sent him to school with a tape recorder.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/lo.....7013.story

From the article: “The teacher is a representative of the state and the Constitution requires government neutrality toward religion,” she [the student's mother] said. “This teacher’s conduct and words clearly show he is hostile toward religion and is indoctrinating these kids, who are a captive audience.”

Whether the allegations are true or not, this is a very clear and precise statement of separation principles. Maybe the message is getting across that separation is good for EVERYONE involved.

If the parent’s complaint is legitimate, and it could well be, it’s all the more reason for the RR to knock off the siege-mentality whining about “anti-Christian bigotry” whenever the targets of their own hatred utter a peep in return.

As long as they keep up the mindless whining — and thus make people tired of hearing it — then REAL cases of anti-Christian bigotry are more likely to be brushed aside with “yeah, yeah, how many times have we heard that before?”

(Come to think of it, it’s obvious that the RR has patterened their own whinings after way that the word “racism” is recklessly thrown around by some — with considerable effectiveness in the shorter run, and the same sympathy-deadening results in the long run — the claims lose so much force through vain repetition that *real* cases of racism go unheeded…)

If they want us to take claims of genuine anti-Christian bigotry more seriously, then they best cut the vain whining.

Comment from another article:

The lawsuit set off passionate reactions from both sides. More than 260 comments were posted on OCRegister.com in response to ongoing story.

“Corbett has been a powerful reminder to me that we ‘Christians’ do not have the monopoly on truth,” Capistrano Valley High geography and history teacher Tom Airey wrote in the Orange County Register’s opinion… Corbett is training young students to think critically.”

Alan, years back there was a “project” called Exodus 2000. It was the plan to get all the Christian children out of the “ungodly” public schools and into homeschools or private Christian schools. When that failed, the mantra became, “Take back the schools.” Like everything else, in this rise to power of the RRR, there is much organization. For some, the “takeover plan” is inadequate - not happening fast enough, too many children are not capable of “battling” the forces of the secular world, etc… The Wedge Document, IMO, is but one element, one part, designed, if you will (pun intended), by those who are part of the “take back” side vs. the remove them all together side.

You can google Exodus 2000, Exodus Mandate Project, E. Ray Moore or just Ray Moore (considered “The Father of the Homeschooling Movement”)for a taste. Names like Michael Farris, HSLDA, Patrick Henry College, etc. will appear. In the public schools, ID advocates, Bible study advocates, and history recontructionists are all part of this movement that could not, or chose not to remove their children from the schools, but chose to organize and take the schools away from the secular humanists who poison the minds of their kids.

It is my opinion that while this teacher certainly may have crossed the line, if he did, in fact, denigrate a religion, he might simply be part of a group that is and should be resisting those who are attempting to “take back the schools.” They are the “We are a Christian Nation” mindset group. As with the science, there should be a history academy that says, “Don’t confuse history with reconstructionist ideology.”

David, Alan, excellent points. Separation is meant to protect everyone. If these complaints are legitimate, action should be taken. If they’re not, it’s likely this will be seen as another case of “the boy who cried wolf”.

One thing that I found very interesting was the mother’s statement about her son’s previous history curriculum: “He had learned in the eighth grade that our country was founded by persecuted Christians,” said the mother.

Does this mean that this boy only learned about the Pilgrims in 8th grade? Was he subsequently given to believe that American independence was just an easy jump from Plymouth Rock? I hope that is not the case. If so, the teaching of American history in our schools is in worse shape than I imagined.

Here is the complaint/transcript of what the teacher said:

http://www.faith-freedom.com/u......11.07.pdf

Nice find. I see a few legitimate grievances mixed in with a metric ton of whining.

Okay, the “Jesus glasses” comment was over the top and warrants a good reprimand. As much as I dislike the RR, I would never 1) say something derisive like that in a public school class, and 2) by so doing, imply that all Christians are unthinking bigots, because it’s simply not true.

The attack on the Boy Scouts, though entirely true, is borderline over-the-top and also out of place in a public school setting.

I give the complaint two legitimate points.

The rest is just whining. Sometimes facts aren’t what we want to hear.

I’m GLAD that the teacher pointed out the correlation (with or without causation) between religiosity and violent crime.

For goodness’ sake, they have the entire span of the AM radio band, and entire TV cable networks blaming “evil secularism” for all known evils — yet when one renegade professor puts forth a counter-argument that will only be heard by a roomful of students (compared to hate radio and Faux News’ national audience of millions), the RR can’t stop whining.

They won’t stop whining about “liberal bias” and “anti-Christian bigotry” until every last voice of dissent is silenced.

From the looks of the political spectrum in major mass media, they’re doing a mighty fine job of it.

Albatross, over all I share your concern.

There definitely is an religious /idealogical movement afoot that is both separatist (the home-schoolers + fundi colleges) and subversive (the Discovery Institute, and ICR’s master of science education degrees). I think this is a very real threat, and, just as in science education, the integrity of history, the social sciences, etc. must be protected. Rest assured, I take it seriously.

I think it is appropriate, in fact it is a duty, for high school teachers to teach the truth and to teach critical reasoning skills to protect our young adults from demagogic manipulation. Even if it means some students might be a little uncomfortable with what they are learning.

But, of course, it has to be done with respect for the students, for their parents, and for the constitution. I used to tell my son, “no matter what you have to say, there is a way to say it that respects the other person.” I haven’t always lived up to this myself, but in the classroom a teacher should be able to - in fact, for a teacher, it should be a professional duty.

I’m pretty sure you would not have any serious disagreement with any of this, so sorry for the lecture. I just want to state it for those who might not be familiar with our discussion. I agree we should not let our guard down.

Albatross, thanks for the complaint/transcript. Over all, I agree with David.

The only real issue in the whole thing is the “Jesus Glasses”. While this wasn’t exactly the right thing to say, he wasn’t talking about contemporary religion, or denigrating the students, he was talking about the serfs in the middle ages. In the newspaper the quote made it sound like he was belittling the students themselves for their beliefs. He wasn’t.

So, I guess this teacher should clean up his act a bit, but if this young man wants to go to a top-notch, selective school, he better be ready for much more than this.

Forgive me for being the only person NOT preaching to the choir here(haha), but there is a difference between what various people understand the word ‘evolution’ to mean. Christians generally do not deny that evolution happens or occurs - no educated person would deny this. What Christians have an issue with is the foolish assertion that initial life was created on it’s own through evolutionary means, and did NOT find its start/beginning with God in Genesis 1. Because of the rules that scientists and the scientific community has placed on itself, it cannot come to any other conclusion then it currently has come to on the issue - i understand this - it’s just where the current facts and evidence appears to point. Science just needs some time to come to the same conclusuion as creationism that’s laid out in Genesis. Science will get there eventually; it will just take them longer because they have to follow the rules for good science. That’s all this tension is really about, seriously. The faith community simply has the benefit of knowing and understanding that God has never been wrong before, and he’s not wrong here. It is the arrogrance of some that appear to think that the Bible is nothing more then a myth and therefore not a valid consideration. Science and the Bible are not at odds; if they appear to be, we just need to give it alittle more time. And learn how to model Jesus’s patience in the meantime

peace

Fair enough reply, Trevor. If we wait long enough, science will find its way to what you believe is the truth?

Fair enough stance, but I must caution you — you’ll be supernova food before that ever happens.

You are, of course, begging the question Big Time by using the word “God” and “Bible” as equivalent. “God says” what YOU think He says… right? All those other people, who believe (i.e. have “faith”) that God says something very different, just CAN’T be right, and you wrong, eh?

I’ll give you one valid point: the scientific community behaves a little too much like a closed society for its own good.

But aren’t you doing the same — and ten times worse — by just “defining” your religion as “the truth,” and a priori excluding the possibility of anything contrary to you being true?

Your point about the scientific community has a bugget of merit. But you, my friend, need a full-length magnifying mirror before you throw stones their way.

“bugget” = “nugget”

RE: Christians generally do not deny that evolution happens or occurs - no educated person would deny this.

I wouldn’t argue with this - but I think the more educated Christians need to enlighten their less educated brethren about the value of science and education and that they are not in conflict with their faith. Hopefully, this book will help in that regard.

RE: Science and the Bible are not at odds.

It is claimed that science and religion are not at odds, but this claim seems to be biased on the insight that they are concerned with very different questions - the “meaning of life” rather than the “mechanics of life”.

If that is so, science will never come to the same conclusions laid out in Genesis because scientific conclusions have nothing to do with the insights to be gained by reading Genesis. I believe that Genesis is about humankind’s place in the world, our spiritual nature, and our relationship with God, not about how God “manufactured” us. Science can and does inform our understanding of the meaning of life, but it is basically about the mechanics. And Genesis isn’t.

In any case, Peace!

Thanks, Alan. I did not perceive your response as a lecture :-), and I agree that respect is fundamental, though there is probably not a single soul that adheres to this admirable quality all of the time. Hell, there are those that will be offended even when others walk on eggshells in order to NOT offend.

Trevor, go right ahead and call me arrogant. I do believe in God, however, I think Genesis, most of the Bible in fact, a 6-day creation that occurred 6,000 yrs ago, is a crock of poo-poo. I also disagree with your idea that scientists will eventually concede that their findings are wrong regarding the age of the earth, and I think this has very little to do with “rules” that scientists have placed upon themselves, and more to do with analysis of the evidence that they’ve found.

Speaking of arrogance…”The faith community simply has the benefit of knowing and understanding that God has never been wrong before, and he’s not wrong here.” Very good demonstration of it; thanks.

Oh, one thing further to Trevor, perhaps your God has never been wrong, but He (I presume) is a very fickle, moody, and indecisive soul to say the least. He (I presume) also has a mean, vindictive streak on occasion.

God may never be wrong, but the Bible is. Alas, I fear though, that my protons will decay before some people are able to make the distinction between the two.

I gotcha, David.

I personally have always viewed the Bible as a morals based storybook. I liken it to Aesop’s fables - I personally think there is a lesson to be had from the stories, though I think each man’s lesson/interpretation is his own personal journey through this thing called life, and I can fully understand why some completely reject it. I also consider the Bible to be little more than a particular person’s (whomever the story’s particular author may be) desire to control another’s actions using the mysterious as a method, control - the means, carried on and evidenced, I believe, by today’s Bible thumping evangelical radicals. They hold mere beliefs.I could never conceive of making belief in mere beliefs mandatory by law for others. I will stand against that ideal every inch of the way. (My unicorn wants to be let out, BRB.)

There is no man, woman, or collective body that holds the “truth,” however much as one may deceive themselves into believing that they do. The forcefulness with which fundies push their Biblical “truth,” this blatant arrogance they hold as being keepers of truth, make them a repulsive sort of people.

“Speaking of arrogance…”The faith community simply has the benefit of knowing and understanding that God has never been wrong before, and he’s not wrong here.” Very good demonstration of it; thanks.”

Alba, Trevor’s post also demonstrates why I regularly refer to the RR as narrow-minded. His solution may suit him, but it is very naive of him to expect it to suit others.

A general ignorance of human nature seems to be one of the underlying causes of RR arrogance and narrow-mindedness. Some of them actually seem confused when others don’t do away with critical thinking and immediately jump to agreement with them. They are so certain that they’re right that they can’t grasp why others don’t see it. I think that’s also partly why they blind themselves to contradictions and inconsistencies, in biblical texts, and in general. It’s easier to gloss over them than to actually look at them.

Of course, it must take a good deal of courage to open your mind after being steeped in that kind of indoctrination. I can understand why so many don’t. I just which they’d limit their close-mindedness to their houses of worship and their own lives, rather than trying to inflict it on the rest of the world.

David says: God may never be wrong, but the Bible is. Alas, I fear though, that my protons will decay before some people are able to make the distinction between the two.

A Christian friend of mine often says “It’s not God’s word I doubt, just the men who wrote it.”

Regardless if science and the Bible ever “catch-up” with each other, as one poste intimated, evolution is the best thing we have going in terms of biological science and the survival of ALL species–human, animal, plant.

Evolution explains so much, so superbly. It explains why we humans are so attracted to foods that are so unhealthy for us today. (Fatty foods helped us ride out famine because there is so much energy per gram, and it’s so easily stored. We didn’t evolve in an environment where all the meat we want could be kept behind a freezer door.)

It explains the tribalism that keeps fueling war between human societies, and explains how these seemingly irreconcilable differences so often express themselves in religion — thus the dependability of religious war.

And it explains the “sins” that Christianity has been trying to stamp out for as long as it existed. Monogamy is not natural and likely never will be. Homosexuality *does* arise naturally in certain environments. They keep believing that they can beat human nature out of us, and they haven’t advanced an inch in that regard since their inception.

What’s the old saying about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results?

(The fact that we’ve had as little success beating the tribalistic streak out of our natures as the RR has had in beating the sexuality out of us, is another vote for the vital importance of church/state separation. Separation greatly limits triblaism’s damage potential.)

“”evolution is the best thing we have going in terms of biological science and the survival of ALL species–human, animal, plant.”"

If 99% of species which have ever existed are now extunk (so I’ve read), how is evolution the “best thing” in terms of survival for ALL species?

RE: how is evolution the “best thing” in terms of survival for ALL species?

It’s the best explination for what we observe.

Leave it to J to nitpick a few select words and be obtuse on purpose. Dealing with the actual matter at hand would be too perilous.

Notice that I never charged J with being a Christian — I reserve that label for people who manifest some Galatians 5:22-23 fruits.

But if we’re defending creationism and Intelligent Design here — implying that everything has a purpose — I have a few tough questions.

Like what is the purpose of tapeworms… fleas… you get the idea…

I apologize if I was arrogant in that statement - but in the end, God and the Bible can only be accepted and understood by those who will give it a chance. Faith is what activates/initiates a relationship with God - and God himself says he wants EVERYONE to be in a love relationship with him. It’s radically inclusive; He wants noone left out. But its a choice that’s up to us; God does not force us (obviously, b/c forced love is not true love). And so I didn’t mean to be arrogrant; I was just coming at it as a person of faith, which may not be the same for everyone here.
I take offence to the idea that Christians are narrow-minded or lack critical thinking; the number of pastors and Christian leaders in this country alone is astounding, and many of them have graduate &/or Phds. These are not stupid people; or people bent on propping up a ‘make believe’ religion. I know in my case - i have a relationship with Jesus; a very intimate one where he loves me and I try my best to love him back. That’s what causes me to have certainity about God and his trustworthiness. And so, as i said in my other post - the issue for most Christians is not whether or not evolution exists; it’s the denying of God’s role (who is real and loves them) that upsets them. It’s like admiring anything that is really kewl or impressive, but refusing to give credit to its creator/manufacturer…
Im just trying to show what I believe to be the heart of the tension between evolution creation/ID debate. I realize that there are a small number of narrow-minded Christians who will say evolution doesn’t exist, period. And I also realize that there are a small number of narrow-minded scientists who cannot fathom the exsistance or role of God in the process, period. Am I wrong when I say that this is the heart of the tension? And then I would ask another question - how certain are scientists on the creation (the exact beginning) of the universe (which I believe is the tension point of this debate). Are scientists any more certain of the universe’s creation date/method/orgin then those who believe God is responsible for starting it all? And if they are not, then why the debate? That God was behind the inital creation doesn’t change or deny evolution’s role in our ever-changing world. These are honest questions; please comment if u have answers…

David; Alan - thanks for your kind and thoughful replies. I addressed David’s reply previously. Alan, thanks for what you said on Genesis being about the “meaning of life” rather than the “mechanics of life”. Very well stated. I struggle with WHY God would say what he did in Genesis 1, if it was not to be taken literally. But what you say is wise to remember, and far more important…

Quoting Albatross - “Oh, one thing further to Trevor, perhaps your God has never been wrong, but He (I presume) is a very fickle, moody, and indecisive soul to say the least. He (I presume) also has a mean, vindictive streak on occasion.”
Dude, no. Those are characteristics of our enemey, not God. And occasionally (too often actually), those of his followers who are not yet mature (kind of like the terrible two’s or puberty, lol).

Trevor wrote- “And so, as i said in my other post - the issue for most Christians is not whether or not evolution exists; it’s the denying of God’s role (who is real and loves them) that upsets them. It’s like admiring anything that is really kewl or impressive, but refusing to give credit to its creator/manufacturer…
Im just trying to show what I believe to be the heart of the tension between evolution creation/ID debate.”

Trevor, I have read much about the ID debate (I think it’s actually more accurate to call it a war) between scientists and the Discovery Institute, and the facts are not what they seem.
Contrary to popular perception, science is NOT ‘anti-God’. The question of ‘who’ created the universe is irrelevant to science. Science can only concern itself with the evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Natural PROCESSES are the province of science. What that evidence ‘means’ is for philosophers and theologians to debate.
The trouble begins when theologians confuse the role of science. They assume since science is not concerned with ‘who’ (if anyone) is behind natural processes, that science is ‘anti-religion’ or ‘anti-God’. And the theologians who pick this bone are universally fundamentalists, who demand a strict literal interpretation of Genesis. And from what we’ve discovered so far about the age of the earth and other evidence in the natural world, that interpretation doesn’t fit the evidence.
Now, a religious person can do two things- he or she can look at the facts and adjust their interpretation of scripture, or they can attack the validity of the scientific method, and/or the motives and integrity of the scientific community.
And this is what the RR-backed ID ’scientists’ invariably do. (I put scientists in quotes because so far, the creationists of the ID community have not published one iota of their own evidence to refute current scientific findings on the origin of species.) They use what’s called a ‘gap’ argument- science science hasn’t observed and answered every question that evolution, the ‘gaps’ in that knowledge must be filled with God. “God did it” is their assumption. But if I came home and found my house a burned out ruin, an investigation would need to be carried out. And until that investigation is concluded, it would be unhelpful to simply declare that “God burned my house down”. Even if arson was discovered, you could still conclude “God MEANT for me to lose my house.” but that is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

Questions of motive are just not the province of science. And scientists don’t like having their integrity and stringent application of scientific method challenged by non-scientists who seek to discredit their work for purely political reasons.

^^^Correction to above^^^

They use what’s called a ‘gap’ argument- since science hasn’t observed and answered every question that evolutionary theory poses (yet), the ‘gaps’ in that knowledge must therefore be filled with God. “God did it” is their assumption.

^^^And I want to adjust my metaphor for clarity^^^

But if I came home and found my house a burned out ruin, an investigation would need to be carried out. And until that investigation was concluded and all the evidence gathered and analyzed, it would be unhelpful to simply declare that “God burned my house down”. Even if a LIGHTNING STRIKE was discovered to be the cause of the fire, I could still conclude “God MEANT for me to lose my house.” but that is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

Forgive my multiple posts. It’s late, and I’m collecting my thoughts. And I’m out of coffee…

Consider Oncology, the medical study of tumors. Oncologists study tumors, the different types and classes, their growth patterns, and if possible, their origins. Oncology is a very important field of study, and we all benefit from their discoveries.
But nowhere is Oncology seeking to answer the question “what does it MEAN to get this or that tumor? Is a tumor diagnosis God’s will?”
When a patient is diagnosed with a serious illness such as a tumor, they may seek spiritual guidance and support on the long road to recovery. But they don’t look to their Oncologist for support of this kind. They don’t ask their Oncologist what their illness ‘means’ in terms of God’s plan for them. They don’t confuse Oncologists with Priests.

Neither should we confuse evolutionary biologists with Priests, or condemn them for being ‘bad priests’ for not attempting to answer religion’s questions.

What killed ID for me…

The geep. Some scientists took parts of an embryo from a goat and combined it with an embryo from a sheep. This thing grew up and wound up having some goat organs and some sheep organs. It was a chimera. The thing looked bizarre. But it lived and grew up.

This initially surprised me. I have built computers from parts and know that if not all the pieces are compatible the thing will not work. So how could these different organs hook up and still function? Computers are intelligently designed objects, and I was assuming that goats and sheep were similar.

But goats and sheep have had to evolve over time to ever changing climate and competitive pressures. So the organs of such animals must be made flexible enough to allow for changes in other parts of the animal.

Under evolution, it makes sense that a goat-sheep hybrid should survive. But it makes no sense if they were made by ID, since there would be no need for such flexible compatibility between organs of different species. Score for evolution!

Alan, thanks for having my back. J conveneintly forgot about natural selection and of course that the ALL in my previous post would obviously mean those that are alive NOW.

And Davie, yeah, what’s up with parasites.

Trevor, when most posters here refer to Christian, they are usually referring to the far right variety such as Dobson, Robertson, et. al. That is why you will often see RR or even RRR used. This differentiates between the typical Christian who is seeking a relationship with God through biblical scripture as opposed to Christians who wish to force everyone to follow those same scriptures.

I think Rick R. did a good job of explaing why evolution should not be a threat to the Christian religion. Science, and therefore evolution, are not in the business of proving or disproving God. It may conflict with some biblical scripture, as written and interpreted by men, but it neither proves or disproves God’s exsistence or role in the origins of the universe.

“”ALL in my previous post would obviously mean those that are alive NOW.”"

Does evolution not necessarily include extinction, or has it NOW stoppped working? What is the purpose of keeping every organism alive? We could do better without many of them, as has been referred to herein. Do you want to keep those tapeworms alive? And is the purpose in learning the mechanisms of life to circumvent then and make them invalid after all?

Trev,

I hope this isn’t going too off topic,… (Nope, just checked the page title, it discusses the relationship of faith and science.)

When I was an evangelical Chrisian, I saw in Genesis a treasure trove of insight that is often missed by people who take it literally. Jesus is reported to have spoken in parables many times; could it have been that the creation accout is best read as an instructive parable, too?

I saw in the Genesis story a parable of God giving us the perfect world with everything that we needed. (Theistic evolutionists can read the creation of Adam and Eve as the point where the first true humans came into being.)

But we thought we could do better. We thought what God had given us wasn’t good enough. Rather than accept God’s creation, we began destroying it and our environment — and ourselves — in an impossible pursuit of something better.

By rejecting God’s design, we eventually came to reject God Himself. Our rejection of God in complete form came to be symbolized by Adam and Eve becoming ashamed of their bodies (God never said it was wrong or sinful) — a total rejection of God’s original gift to us forced us to reject even ourselves — that beautiful creation that was, after all, in God’s image.

A&E rejected God, and in so doing, rejected their very own beings.

That’s one way that a Christian can read Genesis as a parable.

And my, what an instructive one it is.

David, I like your interpretation. Many people “mirror” how the feel about themselves onto people around them or even their environment. Then the try to change that environment by rearranging it or buying a bunch of stuff they don’t need.

I must disagree with the book’s view that science and religion aren’t opposites. In deed they are and a person of science must put on his or her blinders to have faith-based beliefs. In this respect, the book does a great disservice to perpetuate the myth that science and religion are compatible.

Bob- I would amend your statement as follows:

“In deed they are and a person of science must put on his or her blinders to have MY faith-based beliefs.”

There are plenty of scientists and people of faith who would disagree with you.
As to what should be done, see my comment above-
“Now, a religious person can do one of two things- he or she can look at the facts and adjust their interpretation of scripture, or they can attack the validity of the scientific method, and/or the motives and integrity of the scientific community.”

The choice is yours. My question to you is- who is telling you that science and faith are ‘opposite’ and ‘incompatible’, and what is their motive for doing so?

I found this quote on a science blog, concerning the intelligent design controversy outside the U.S., specifically in Great Britain.

“The issue in the UK is very different from the USA. ID is basically largely irrelevant because it’s not needed. There is no separation of church and state in England and teaching religion is compulsory in state schools. (As are religious services.)

The main organisation that has pushed ID is Truth in Science and all of its members are known YECers. (”Young Earth creationists)

Moreover, all the other creationist organisations in the UK are openly YEC. We have no Hugh Ross, for example.

I doubt whether more than ten people in England have publicly advocated ID. The DI is widely perceived as yet another bunch of American religious wackjobs alongside Scientologists, JWs, Mormons, Prosperity Gospel charlatans, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones and “Hallelujah brothers” types waving their arms in the air. Even the term “born again” is treated with disdain.

You have to remember that the dominant church in England is the Episcopalian church and the British are simply nowhere near as religious as Americans.”

http://pandasthumb.org/

This should tell us all about the true nature of this battle- politics. If it were about truth, scientific or otherwise, ID advocates would be waging their battle everywhere. But not in Great Britain (or many other nations outside the U.S.) because the real goal is power, not wisdom.

And to all those who seek to break down the church/state wall, he gives a preview of what you can expect-

“You have to remember that the dominant church in England is the Episcopalian church and the British are simply nowhere near as religious as Americans.”

“It’s a bit disheartening that science education has devolved to the point that makes this book necessary..”

Devolved? So you believe that at one time science education was in a better position? This is not the result of creationist rising up against long established, nation-wide principles of education. This debate is the result of people ignoring the conflict. Both sides are guilty. They ignored it, didn’t have open communication, started dehumanizing one another, dug foxholes, drew lines in the sand, and now there is little room for understanding. That is the definition of war. Now children are being raised to hate one side or the other. I’d really like for both sides to admit that we are human and not really as smart as we pretend to be. That is both a scientific and religious fact.
If evolution is an “good science” and if scientist do a good job presenting and proving that science to the public, then the problem will soon take care of itself. Trying to push it through public school against the public (in some places) will makes it seem like they have a weak case and are looking for an easy way to win converts.

Christians should focus on the important tenants of following Christ, notably, sharing Christ’s message of redemption through loving a world estranged from its creator. Christians should not expect “lost people” to accept God’s ways before they even really know who God is.

I’m glad this is still a debate. I just hope it leads, somehow, to more communication and understanding on BOTH sides, instead of further division between us.

It’s nice that the NAS stepped up to defend evolution from the fundamentalists, but this book is surely preaching to the scientific choir.

It’s also another example, of “framing” science, which means obscuring the deeper meanings of science to make it more palatable to people who are too afraid to take a hard look at religion.

TK Kenyon, author of RABID and CALLOUS, novels that are: “quite unlike most standard commercial fare, a genre-bending story–part thriller, part literary slapdown with dialogue as the weapon of choice.” –Booklist starred review
http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/
http://rabidatheists.blogspot.com/