Americans Not Buying Evolution
Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 10:26AM Jon Miller of Michigan State University is befuddled. He conducted a survey, as reported in New Scientist Magazine, and it seems Americans are at the bottom of the “I believe in evolution” totem pole. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan shows that “only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.” The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005.
This has totally frustrated and confused evolutionists. Some of the insulting and arrogant sentiments expressed by Miller and his colleagues:
Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US.
"The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicized," he says. " Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."
Miller's report makes for grim reading for adherents of evolutionary theory. Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765). That's despite a series of widely publicised advances in genetics, including genetic sequencing, which shows strong overlap of the human genome with those of chimpanzees and mice. "We don't seem to be going in the right direction," Miller says.
There is some cause for hope. Team member Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, finds solace in the finding that the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution has dropped from 48 to 39 in the same time. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared, from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year. "That is a group of people that can be reached," says Scott.
Miller thinks more genetics should be on the syllabus to reinforce the idea of evolution. American adults may be harder to reach: nearly two-thirds don't agree that more than half of human genes are common to chimpanzees. How would these people respond when told that humans and chimps share 99 per cent of their genes?
Actually, it’s closer to 95%, but whose counting. Human DNA is also similar to that of the worms, mosquitoes, and chickens. There is a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man. The genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila genus and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. How should people respond to that, Mr. Miller? Common design is not common ancestry.
“Republicans” “politicize” “poor science education”. Meanwhile, evolutionists hope to evangelize the “unsure” Americans. Who says evolution isn’t part of the religion of liberalism as Ann Coulter claims? In her book GODLESS; the Church of Liberalism says, Coulter says, “If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (for that we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous)”.
Perhaps Americans aren’t buying evolution because we know better. To blindly accept what a mostly atheistic scientific community can only call a “scientific theory” that starts with the end result and attempts to reconstruct the math backwards to make it work is clearly problematic, as evidenced by the numerous revisions “science” has had to make over the past decades. America has been around longer than Darwinism. America has seen the success of her Judeo-Christian beliefs and the utter failure of cultures that embrace evolution. Heroes of Fascism, Marxism and Communism have all worshipped at the altar of evolution with tragic human results. America has witnessed the decline of Europe and its journey down the drain morally, culturally and economically in it’s rejection of religion and adherence to Darwinism.
Maybe in the end it's because America is largely a religious country that understands faith in a Creator God is more foolproof than faith in a Father Ape. Maybe Americans have seen "science" give proof only to take it back time and time again as the evidence changes, whereas the steadfastness of Creation remains logical and infallible. Maybe because it takes faith to believe that a Neandertal Man living 350,000 years ago first discovered in the mid 1800's with only 300 remains found worldwide is sufficient explanation for our evolutionary ancestry is why Americans aren't buying evoluntion, especially since we all personally know 300 people who look like the Neandertal man today!
In any case, the day scientists stop condescending to those of us who are "unsure" of scientific theory in favor of common sense is the day creationists might say, "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle."
RELATED POSTS:
Liberal Infallibility-The Gospel According to CoulterWorm Turds Prove Evolution 'It's the Demography, Stupid'
The Eugenics of Communism
Jesus on Trial
Moral Darwinism in the Anti-War Movement
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/653862
Amy Proctor
Pope Prepares to Embrace Theory of Intelligent Design
There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism.
A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".
Last week, at a conference in Rimini, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria revealed that evolution and creation had been chosen as the subjects for this year's meeting of the Pope's Schülerkreis - a group consisting mainly of his former doctoral students that has been gathering annually since the late 1970s. Apart from Cardinal Schönborn, participants at the closed-door meeting will include the president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Peter Schuster; the conservative ethical philosopher Robert Spaemann; and Paul Elbrich, professor of philosophy at Munich University.
Last December, a US court sparked controversy when it ruled that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution theory. Cardinal Schönborn said: "The debate of recent months has undoubtedly motivated the Holy Father's choice." But he added that in the 1960s the then Joseph Ratzinger had "underlined emphatically the need to return to the topic of creation".
The Pope also raised the issue in the inaugural sermon of his pontificate, saying: "We are not the accidental product, without meaning, of evolution."
A few months later, Cardinal Schönborn, who is regarded as being close to Benedict, wrote an article for the New York Times backing moves to teach ID. He was attacked by Father George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. On August 19, Fr Coyne was replaced without explanation. Vatican sources said the Pope's former astronomer, who has cancer, had asked to be replaced.
Amy Proctor
Coa's Blog provides these links in her article:
Rabbi defends show linking Darwin, Hitler
‘Darwin’s Deadly Legacy’ Gives Shocking Look at Social Impact
Also see this post at the ID Report
“Darwin-Hitler connection sparks attacks,” WorldNetDaily.com, Aug. 22, 2006
“ADL Furious Over Darwin Documentary,” NewsMax.com, Aug. 22, 2006
Why Evolution breeds monsters like Hitler, Trotsky and Stalin
Marx & Engels: writings quotes and parallels to today’s leftists
From Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience comes an excellent piece called Fascist Ecology: The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier,
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (518)
Excellant Post Amy and you are absolutely correct.
“Republicans” “politicize” “poor science education”. Meanwhile, evolutionists hope to evangelize the “unsure” Americans. Who says evolution isn’t part of the religion of liberalism as Ann Coulter claims? In her book GODLESS; the Church of Liberalism says, Coulter says, “If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (for that we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous)”.
It drives me nuts the way the Discovery Channel and BBC programming treat darwinian evolution like it's scientific fact, when it's nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated Victorian-age theory.
I think the reason secularists/atheists are such big believers in evoution is because they NEED it to be true... otherwise, they'd have to believe in God. Theists don't need to believe that evolution is false-- one can believe in God and still believe in evolution-- but atheists need to believe evolution is true.
But how about this: even if darwinian evolution were discovered to be scientific fact, we're still left with the question of who or what started the process...
That doesn't seem to be working either, if certain jr high and high school students in California are anything to judge by.
On a different note, it's funny how people say "religion has caused more wars than blahblahblah". Really, it makes me wonder how I could've missed the religious element in both World Wars. The Darwinistic influence is obvious enough though.
"...especially since we all personally know 300 people who look like the Neandertal man today!"
Its true!
EXCELLENT POINT!
There is only one irrifutable fact proven time and time again. God the Father is our creator!
They need all the luck in trying to dispute that fact.
Great post Amy, as always!
Karen, made several good points here to, she used to have a article on her blog that said if the evolutionists beleive that we came from fish, then why are there still fish.
Karen Writes: "It drives me nuts the way the Discovery Channel and BBC programming treat darwinian evolution like it's scientific fact, when it's nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated Victorian-age theory."
The reason for that Karen is that the Left do not beleive in GOD and they have to beleive in something so they preferr to beleive in something that is so obtuse that no one else could believe in no matter how many of the Leftist started nagging on that.
Another excellant point that Karen made here is: I think the reason secularists/atheists are such big believers in evoution is because they NEED it to be true... otherwise, they'd have to believe in God. That is so very True Karen. Also You went on and stated: Theists don't need to believe that evolution is false--one can believe in God and still believe in evolution-- but atheists need to believe evolution is true. Why is that It is because they need to beleive in something because to have nothing to beleive in is a very empty feeling.
This point here that Karen made hits the nail right on the head and it still baffles the Evolutionist today.
But how about this: even if darwinian evolution were discovered to be scientific fact, we're still left with the question of who or what started the process...
Johnny Writes: "...especially since we all personally know 300 people who look like the Neandertal man today!"
Johnny, Those that look like the Neandertal man of today are all Liberals. LOL
A whole series of mostly short essays can be found here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=darwin&submit.x=21&submit.y=13
I just finished reading ARCHITECTS OF THE CULTURE OF DEATH by Donald De Marco and Benjamin Wiker. It's excellent, and even I understood most of it. They have an essay on Darwin. They don't focus much on his theory in THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES but on the racist theories he drew up on its basis. This he did in a book called THE DESCENT OF MAN.
By the way, the full title of the Origin of Species is this: THE ORIGIN OF SPEICIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVORED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. Scratch an evolutionist and you'll find a eugenicist.
"Blah, blah, blah," is right. By all accounts America is a faith nation, but how many of its wars have been motivated by religion? If any nations wars should have been motivated by religion (assuming that religion leads necessarily to wars) it is this one. Most of our wars were in fact motivated by greed of some kind, such as land or natural resources. That holds true for most other wars. Also, political ideaologies are a major factor.
"War is hell, and you can;t refine it." (General William T. Sherman). Because war is so nasty and frightening people "get religion." There are few atheists or liberals in fox holes. My dad has many audio tapes of talks given by Archbishop Fulton Sheen. I recall him once talking about how during WW II the atheist communists in Russia began talking about "Holy Mother Russia" and began encouraging people to attend church. Even the un-devote will turn to their god or gods in a war. When people claim that religion has started more wars than anthing else they're looking at the facade rather than the facts.
In your article, you used the phrase "worshipped at the altar of evolution"... Now that's a bit scary, since I used almost that exact same phrase in the manuscript of my book (never published) back in 1982, and concerning the exact same subject! (Goose bumps now going up and down body!)
Perhaps we can attribute this "coincidence" to the Holy Spirit who may enjoy using this particular phrase??
God Bless...
http://victory.envy.nu/index.htm
I would appreciate any comments you might have for how to improve the site, etc.
Best regards to you and Johnny...
I was quoting Trent above in the 'war...' remarks, so your very astute remarks belong to Trent, not me. you can call me Johnny, that's fine.
Your Dad is a Catholic theologian, or just a Bishop Sheen fan?
Who are et and al? Freak and Sick aren't going to like your trying to replace them, HEHEHE.My dad's a theologian and a Bishop Sheen fan. it was his books that got my dad started down that road, along with an old nun who fed his reading habit by letting him borrow books from her.
Amy,
someone just sent my family an great story about a woman who lost her son in Fallujah. She is the anti-Sheehan. Maybe you posted on this before we came to your site but if not I've posted the story on my blog, with some pictures. I'll bet you could turn it into a great post. http://divinelamp.blogspot.com/
I would love if you guys would post separately so I could know who is who. :)
Here is the true story about my experience with the internet, true I am opening myself up and being quite humble about it and I hope that it will make you laugh, but I am admitting it anyways and it is true story that happened to me back in the summer of 1995.
I remember when I had received the original CD from a company who was my Internet Service Provider? "At that time I didn't know what a Internet Service Provider meant all the CD said was just insert and in a few minutes it would be all installed and setup." So I did, my nephew called me about that same day and after I had told him that I have just gotten on the Internet, he says great I will let you know what my email address is so that you can write to me. I said ok so I wrote down his email address. Guess what was next, you got it, I wrote a letter and on the envelope I put the very email address that my nephew told me. The next few days I got the envelope back in the mail saying right accross the envelope that this is not filled out properly. So I sat there in front of my computer for a while and then a little over a week went by, then my nephew came over and he said how come you haven't wrote me an email, I said that I did and sent it but it came back stating that I didn't fill it out properly. Then he sat there at my computer and looked at my webbrowsers history, he said you haven't even used the browser either, I said oh yes I did but the problem is that the screen never changes, no news, no nothing, nothing new happens after I start it, it just stays the same screen and no volume control on the screen so I can't tell if the channel is even tuned in. All my nephew could do was to laugh at me, I said what was so funny, he said that I was the first one that he ever heard of doing such a thing, I sighed and said well how do you know all about this stuff, he said that he had learned this in school, I said fine I didn't have Personal Computers much less Internet in my high school all we did back in those ancient times was to go to the Auto Repair class to have some fun.
So that was yours truly first time experience on the Internet.
I find it ironic that you think acceptance of evolution is 'blind'. There certainly are people who believe in evolution simply because they trust biologist more than the Bible when it comes to biology (duh!), after all not everyone can be a scientist. However, those who study evolution do not accept it blindly, as you might suggest. There is far more self-criticism in science then there is in religious dogma.
Tom,
there is abolutely no inherent purposelessness or moral futility embedded anywhere in the theory of evolution. Nada, nil, zero. The theory is about how life came to be, not why. I currently work in the field of Bioinformatics and the amount I've learned has only strenghtened my religious views. Studying the history of life from a scientific point of view is in no way contradiction to God or any other sort of religious belief system.
How old do you folks think the earth is?
--Cobra
I'm posting alone tonight. Sorry, I should change the names when I do that but I don't like to work that hard.
It's geting late so I can't look up info for you. Since I'm going fishing tomorrow morning I'll try to post some links in this combox tomorrow afternoon. You might want to look for info in HUMANI GENERIS on the Vatican web site. I think I spelled the title right. The Catholoic Church has always held that certain points of the creation narrative are not literal, but there are others that are. You might try these sites for info. Type into the search box a word like "creation," or "evolution:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_browse.cfm?browseby=author
http://www.catholiceducation.org/
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp
And the whole discussion on both sides sounds like something being broadcast from the tower of Babel.
I do agree that some "elites" (whether they come from the scientific community, the religious community or the political sphere) should get a life.
In any case, Republicans in KS. did not much like it when academic standards "calling evolution into question (bad choice of words) were put in place in public schools and they voted their compatriots out of office in the primaries." Pro-evolution Republican Jana Shaver picked off a conservative incumbent and won the primary for the open seat.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-01-kansas-evolution-vote_x.htm
And I'm sure you all know what happened in Dover, PA.
===========
I think it's best to end the culture war myself.
===========
Also, I hope those that feel that evolution is "amoral" feel the same way about the "free market".
It used to be the conventional wisdom that one man's employee was another man's customer and that everybody had to pay their people enough so that everyone could buy stuff.
Now the conventional wisdom is that employees are cost items and should be treated as such. That's to say that we need to find the least acceptable employee and pay them the lowest acceptable price.
And if life has dealt someone a hand that makes them unemployable = too bad. That's how invisible hand that moves the market work.
The GOP in KS has a lib bias I guess. Bummer. :(
How about we just say that God created evolution and maybe move on to figure out how we can bring down the cost of health care, Trent?
Does that work for you?
Wow! You think that you and others on this blog can "figure out how we can bring down the cost of healthcare." That's some faith you got there dude.
Sorry, don't take it personal, I'm just screwing around. I'm sure you probably meant "discuss" how o bring down healthcare cost.
My mom just said she thinks figuring out an end to the evolution-creation debate would be easier than figuring out the healthcare prblem.
No, not really. Health care has nothing to do with this conversation.
In terms of God creating evolution, I don't think you could make that stick. It's pretty much impossible to to reconcile evolutionistic theory with Genesis. That's not saying some Christians haven't tried, but it *is* saying they haven't succeeded. There is a God and He created man. It's the foundation of my faith and I'm not going to turn my back on that for anybody or anything.
another clear example of the near fanatical support for darwinism by many is the open hostility to scientists who propose differing theory's, if science is all about searching for the causes of observed effects, why the hysteria over differing views?
here's links to a couple of Bill Dembski's sites, He's kind of the eye of the intelligent design storm.
http://www.designinference.com/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
Is your guys' (and gals) belief in God based solely on what is written in a book thousands of years ago? That might explain why you think evolution and God are not compatible. I am just wondering why your quest is so targeted at evolution. Genesis is also incompatible with the theory of relativity, quantum physics, and some parts are even incompatible with Newton's classical physics, not to mention thermodynamics. Why aren't you trying to remove references to those disciplines from our schools?
The problem isn't with evolutionary theory, which is acceptable on the same level as other (unproven) theories; the problem is with the rabid intolerance of any other system of explanations of origins. Then there is the issue of scientists positing evolution as a cosmology, which is an existential/metaphysical property, not a pure science. So, evolution as an intolerant atheistocracy is a religious heresy hostile to all other religious beliefs and a political enemy of the Consitution of the US.
If you guys want a laugh, the Discovery Channel as we speak is airing "Walking with the Prehistoric Beast."
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-21701.html
It's so refreshing to see my nanna up on 2 feet now. She's still kinda hairy. Give it another 200,000 years and she'll be looking good.
L.A. 10,000 BC is good for a laugh, too.
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56733.html
What's truly ridiculous about these evolutionary series, like the one I saw about the Neandertal man on Sunday, is how scientists reconstruct everything from the emotional life to the social skills to the bathroom and mating behaviors of these Neandertals based on 300 skeletons.
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
Theistic evolutionists, such as my priest, deny the inspiration of Scripture EXCEPT for in circumstances that they wish (like John 6, which is where the Church derives her doctrine of the Holy Eucharist being literal with the real presence of Jesus in the wine and bread). Again, this is hypocritical and a big problem. WHAT OTHER RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD DISHONOR THEIR OWN HOLY BOOK TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF SCIENCE WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT?
Evolution is different than gravity or electricity in implication because it involves issues of life, origins of humanity, the human soul, the human being and God. True science can never contradict truth, yet there is undoubtedly a movement (the majority of scientists combined are secularists, atheists or agnostics, I understand)
The Catechism says this about Creation:
*********************************
I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION
282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121
284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?
285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.
286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123
287 The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator,124 God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone "made heaven and earth".125
288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God's all-powerful love.126 And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.127
289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.
*************************************
and
*************************************
296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely "out of nothing":145
297 Scripture bears witness to faith in creation "out of nothing" as a truth full of promise and hope.
301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:
For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured, if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.160
317 God alone created the universe, freely, directly and without any help.
318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing")
*************************************
This statement is often used as "proof" that evolution/science is correct: "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers."
Of course they do! Science and scientists have unraveled for us the intricacies of the world and living things, and the complexities of living organisms. Science has offered us enlightenment and understanding, and we should all be grateful for it. But that doesn't mean that scientists are right about their theory of evolution anymore than they are about the Big Bang Theory, which is in direct contradiction to Christian teaching.
Finally, Catholic Thomas Sieger Derr, Professor of Religion and Ethics at Smith College and the author of Environmental Ethics and Christian Humanism, wrote this about scientists and global warming:
****************************
Consider the unguarded admission of Steven Schneider of Stanford, a leading proponent of the global warming theory. In a now notorious comment, printed in Discover in 1989 and, surely to his discomfort, often cited by his opponents, Schneider admitted:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
This sort of willingness to place the cause above the truth has exasperated Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, who is one of the authors of the science sections of the report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body responsible for an increasing crescendo of dire warnings. In testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, he called the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, which loudly sounds the warming alarm, "very much a child’s exercise of what might possibly happen . . . [which] conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence."
******************************
In applying the same idea to evolution, many (if not most) scientists look for evidence to support their theories instead of finding what science actually says.
Judaism for one. We've been over this before. Maimonides established the following doctrine in the 12th century: When science and the Torah are in conflict, either science is mistaken or we are mis-interpreting the Torah. If science is corect, we must re-interpret the Torah to agree with science.
The vast majority of jews reject a literal interpretation of genesis and accept theistic evolution. While it's true that some ultra-orthodox Jews believe in creationism, they are only a tiny minority of the Jewish population. A large number of these people also believe in geocentrism, since a literal reading of the bible also teaches that the sun orbits the earth.
And we don't believe that reading the bible figuratively is "Dishonoring" it.
First off you are wrong about the amount of orthodox Jews, there are more of them than of the not so holy jews like yourself. You none orthodox Jews do not believe that the Torah the first old testament books of the Bible are Gods Words so you don't pay any attention to scripture.
In fact I place before you a bet, a bet in which I would put to you that you will guarentee loose. I bet you that you couldn't argue this out against Michael Medved or Dennis Prager, of which I would gladly see you go down in a flame. Because they know more about Judism more than can fit in that little pea sized evolution brain of yours.
I have no idea where you get your information from. Where do you think the early Christian Church derived her view of creation? From not only the Jews, but the Torah. Jesus was a staunch believer and preacher of the "Word of God", "Holy Scripture" in very literal terms. Search the Gospels..... Jesus constantly talked about the prophets and the Law, the miracles, signs and wonders in very literal terms. He spoke of a literal Adam and Eve, literal Noah, He talked about Jonah and the whale...... literally. It's there, read the Gospels for yourself.
Our Christian Iraqi friends don't believe in evolution. The priests we know from Iraq, as well as priests from Africa, all reject evolution. Iraq is the cradle of civilization so Christian belief about this topic is very significant to their belief in a literal creation account. St. Thomas, one of the original disciples, is the patron saint of Iraq who had his ministry there.
The Catholic Church didn't begin to entertain evolution until the late 1800's and early 1900's, and that wasn't because of knowledge but relativism and humanism.
PS... didn't I previously ban you for bad behavior?
Amy is correct scohen it is dishonorying the Torah, Jesus did talk about all of that as litterally not figuratively.
That is why I love listening to Michael Medved and Dennis Prager when they have a lot of people like you on the left call in to either of their shows and you all go down in flames so fast you don't even have time to say "What Happened" while I sit here and laugh at you all.
Yes in deed when you mess with the BEST your going to sink like all the REST.
Most orthodox jews don't believe in creationism. Only a small number of believe in literal creation. There are also many more Reform and Conservative jews than Orthodox. Reform Judaism is the largest branch (at least in the US), so your statement that Orthodox judaism is the largest branch isn't correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism
As for you personal attacks, they don't carry much weight with me. I don't really need someone who can't even properly spell 'Judaism' giving me lectures about it or which branch is more 'holy'.
Amy, I get my information from, among other things, Temple, research online (do a google search for judaism and evolution if you want to be informed) and personal experience. I've lived my life being Jewish, lived around Jews, went to Israel, etc.
I'll give you a couple links from wikipedia. From them, you'll clearly see that there is some debate over evolution in Orthoodx Judaism, but a consensus has emerged in the other two branches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides
"The Catholic Church didn't begin to entertain evolution until the late 1800's and early 1900's, and that wasn't because of knowledge but relativism and humanism."
Well, I don't see how they could have gotten on the bandwagon any earlier, since evolution wasn't a proper theory before the 1850's. But it's nice that you acknowledge that the catholic church accepts theistic evolution.
I also don't speak for any Christian, Iraqi or otherwise. I was simply providing a counterexample to your earlier statement.
"PS... didn't I previously ban you for bad behavior?"
What bad behavior was that? I don't think I have attacked people (as Phil does in almost every comment) or used foul language. At most I corrected (or at least tried to correct) your statements about Judaism. I don't recall you banning me, or even saying you would.
Why would you do that? What have I said that could possibly merit banishment?
"Amy is correct scohen it is dishonorying the Torah, Jesus did talk about all of that as litterally not figuratively."...
Amy is not a Jewish philosopher and her opinions don't carry any weight in Judaism. Neither do Dennis Praeger or Michael Medved, and unless you consider two 21st century radio personalities greater Jewish philosophers than Maimonides, you are on thin ice regarding dishonoring the Torah. Also, Jesus isn't in the Torah, so his opinions aren't particularly relevant when discussing Judaism.
First of all, I am a Christian and I can tell you that there is nothing in evolutionary theory whatsover that is anti-theistic. Science is not anti- or pro- deity, it is agnostic. And real scientists will tell you that.
The issue I have with creationism has little to do with the doctrine itself, but with the fact that some people want it taught in science class, a place where it clearly does not belong. A class on cosmology or phylosophy is far more suited for discussing belief systems in which God created the world. Most importantly, there are an infinite number of creation stories out there, and if you want your child to believe one of those, than it's your job to do so, not the public education system.
Amy,
As I just mentioned, I am a Christian. I realize that I might not fit your definition of one because I do not follow the literal translation of the Bible when it comes to creation stories.
Two main reasons for that: I have read (at least portions) of the Bible in 3 different language from 3 distinct Christian traditions (and no, I'm not talking about all the protestant versions we have here in America). There are some differences that are simply amazing - if I am to accept that there exists one perfect version that is the literal word of God, than I would simply be playing the lottery. If you do some research regarding how the Bible was put together as one book in the first few centuries AD, you'd know that there are plenty of biblical texts and gospels that never made it in, and that the selection process was largely influenced by individual humans, not a divine deity.
The second reason, is that empirical data is incompatible with countless of literal statements in the Bible, including many in Genesis. It is not just evolution - the same is true for almost any other major field of science. The fact that the people who take Genesis literally only attack evolution (as supposed to classical mechanics) testifies to the weak ground they stand on. Of course I can still blindly accept that the laws of physics might have been different at the time of events (at which point I'd still be left picking a Bible version to accept as the literal word of God). However, in the absence of empirical data, it is best to assume that those laws remained constant. The object of much of the scientific research is to come up with the simplest possible theories which have both explanatory and predictory power. While a theory in the order of "God did it!" might have 100% explanatory power, it has absolutely no predictive ground, and as such is utterly useless. This is precisely why such theory is not a scientific theory - plenty of scientists, including myself, belive that God exists and is behind what we observe in the natural world. However, God is not the subject of our study, the natural world is.
In any case, you're mistaken if you think I am criticisizing Christianity or have some bias against it. I think most of your guys' negativity towards evolution is a simple result of a lack of understanding of what science is about. Sorry, I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you honestly believe that the scientific theory of evolution (as proposed and presented by scientists, not yahoos) has the INHERENT characteristic of being atheistic, anti-moralist, or anything else of this sort, than the American education system has clearly failed you somewhere along the way.
If you're interested, here is a link that tries to explain what I was trying to say in more detail:
http://www.progressivetheology.org/principles/Science-Bible.html
How OLD do you believe the Earth is?
--Cobra
On day 1 God seperates LIGHT from DARKNESS. This parallels day 4 on which God creates the LIGHTS in the sky to seperate day from NIGHT.
On day 2 God makes the DOME (FIRMAMENT) called SKY. He also divides the WATERS of the heavens from the earth. This parallels day 5 when he creates fish in the WATER and birds to fly beneath the DOME (FIMAMENT) of the SKY.
On day 3 God gathers the waters of the sea and causes the EARTH (DRY LAND) to appear. He also creates PLANTS. This parallels day 6 when he has the EARTH bring forth animals. He also creates man (asymmetry. not paralleld by anything on day 3). He then gives to man all seed bearing PLANTS.
On day 7 he rests. Nothing about this day parallels the other days at all. It is completely asymetrical, highlighting its great importance for the author.
"Either God created the world according to traditional semetic literary patterns; or, what we have here, is not a scientific presentation of creation, but an early Jewish catechesis of faith designed for easy memorisation. A catechesis concerned not with HOW God created; but with the fact that he DID create."
The outline I gave above can be found in THE STYLE AND STRUCTURE IN HEBREW BIBLICAL NARRATIVE by Jerome Walsh.
http://www.litpress.org/Detail.aspx?ISBN=0814658970
I couldn't have said it better myself.
While maybe only 40% of Americans accept the basic tenents of evolution, the percentage in the scientific community is at least 95%+. What does this tell you?
But then again, what's the opinion of working scientists compared to the wisdom of that nobel winner Ann Coulter?
Science's theories are open to everyone to test and explore. There is a reason why there are very few, if any, papers "debunking" basic evolution that are submitted for peer review.
Since you are so sure of yourself then why don't you debate either Michael Medved or Dennis Prager, I dare you, no I quadrupal Dare you.
What exactly were your heros "debating" and with whom?
All due respect to your profession of faith, I haven't heard anything in your comments that witnesses to the Spirit of Christ.
Your epistemology amounts to canned talking points from 19th century German redaction criticism, which, like your peculiarly unsubstantiated cosmology, is at odds with the testimony of Jesus of Nazereth, the Hebrew scriptures, the New Testament, the Apostles, the primitive Apostolic Fathers, the Doctors of the Church and the Roman Magisterium.
You are no theologian. I am a minor theologian, but my credentials are my service to God and the Church, which I will let others testify to. The type of religion that accepts evolution is spiritually impotent because of its tacit acquiescence to the antichristian ethics that flow from evolutionism (social darwinism). It is deceitful and wicked to claim the cloak of Christian discipleship while ravaging the revelation God has given to his people in Scripture and Holy Tradition. It does not take a theologian nor a historian to survey the vast destruction wreaked upon the human family through Darwin's disciples: Marx, Engels, Lennin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kruschev - all strident evolutionists, all mass murderers, and the jaws of hell swallow them hungrily.
Jesus said, "I thank you Father, for you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and have revealed them unto babes." (Mt 11) Paul also testifies to the vanity of human learning that is corrupted through its own rational conceit:
"For man through his own wisdom did not know the wisdom of God; ...else they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor 1).
If all your scientific learning has not more vividly revealed the Almighty Creator God to you and His unfathomably wondrous creation in nature, then you are to be pitied more than all men for your abject blindness.
I just dared scohen that if he is so sure of his position that I bet him that he couldn't go very far debating either Michael Medved or Dennis Prager on the issue of Judism.
But how about this: even if darwinian evolution were discovered to be scientific fact, we're still left with the question of who or what started the process...
Say grumpy of fart no one not even the Scientist of Evolution will debate that issue above either.