Evolution Sunday

According to Answers in Genesis, over 400 churches in 49 states will be celebrating the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin.

Two years ago, Prof. Michael Zimmerman at the University of Wisconsin (its Oshkosh campus)—and also its dean of the College of Letters and Sciences—began what became known as “The Clergy Letter Project.?

Using the university’s website, Zimmerman encouraged clergy across America to sign a letter that supports evolution and rejects the Genesis account of creation as literal history. As we posted this, over 10,200 clergy had signed this awful letter.

This short letter states:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others? is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Where to start?

“Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.”

Huh?

“Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation.”

The Creation account and Noah’s Flood could not possibly have happened the way the Bible says? If these clergy deny biblical accounts in favor of taking on belief in a “science” which has divine intervention coming in the form of enormous amounts of time, what do they do with the parting of the Red Sea, a Virgin Birth, water turned into wine and the resurrection of Christ?

“…the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.”

The Bible isn’t a science textbook. Teaching science is not the purpose of the Bible, but if we believe it is divinely inspired, why would we believe God made mistakes when He touched on sciences that He created? It just doesn’t make sense.

Entertainingly, while this professor is pushing the agenda that evolutionary “science” and religion can get along, leading evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins is on TV in the UK stating the exact opposite:

Dawkins (visibly angry at the Christian faith throughout his two-hour TV diatribe) stated: “People like to say that faith and science can live together side by side, but I don’t think they can. They’re deeply opposed. Science is a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questing with logic, evidence and reason to draw conclusions. Faith, by stark contrast, demands a positive suspension of critical faculties.?

Dawkins added, “Charles Darwin hit upon a truly brilliant idea that elegantly explains all of life on earth without any need to invoke the supernatural or the divine.?

Do you see the irony? The clergy supporting evolution, but the evolutionary, secular humanist insisting such a position is untenable. Dawkins has stated that evolution led him to his atheism.

More goodies from Dawkins’ TV special:

* “I want to examine that dangerous thing that’s common to Judaism and Christianity as well. The process of non-thinking called faith.?

* “The scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish.?

* “I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.?

* “When we look closely [at the Bible], you find a system of morals which any civilized person today should surely find poisonous.?

* “The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction—jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide.?

* “In the New World [America], religion is free enterprise. Rival groups set up shop on every street corner competing to save people’s souls and collect their money.?

* Attending the service of a large church in Colorado which has an animated congregation, Dawkins says that he was almost reminded “of a Nuremberg [Nazi] rally … that [Nazi leader and propagandist] Dr. Goebbels would have been proud.? He later calls Christians who are involved in politics “Christian fascists.?

* “Evangelicals … are foisting evident falsehoods on their flocks. The evangelicals are denying scientific evidence just to support Bronze Age myths.?

In an article
by Answers in Genesis’ Pam Shepherd, the question, “So, why are there such differences between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists if both groups have the same evidence?” is asked and answered. Other gems from the article include:

“It is because a logical God created and ordered the universe that I, and other creationists, expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation and experimentation,? Lisle explains.

Lisle concludes the chapter by posing the question, “Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver??

“If our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true,? says Lisle.

Happy Evolution Sunday!

7 Responses to “Evolution Sunday”

  1. Josh S Says:

    How come you’re not a geocentrist? Confessional Lutherans testified unanimously until at least the late 1920’s that the clear witness of Scripture is that the sun, not the earth, is what moves. The evidence for a heliocentric solar system is no more conclusive than the evidence that the universe is billions of years old. How can science compete with the clear word of God? Just because you don’t know astronomy or mathematics doesn’t mean that you can’t silence the mouths of know-it-all scientists with the Scriptures.

    The rest of us have simply accepted that astrophysicists, geologists, and biologists do largely know what they’re talking about and have dealt with it. Be thankful that not all of us abandoned the Christian faith after learning that science really isn’t a conspiracy of lies and misinterpreted information.

  2. Elle Says:

    Josh, an article you might be interested in is located here.


    The evidence for a heliocentric solar system is no more conclusive than the evidence that the universe is billions of years old.

    I hope you’re being sarcastic here. The difference between the two is that one of them is being observed and repeats itself on a regular, reliable basis so we can continue to observe it. The other is impossible to observe. We can cearly observe the passage of time and the position of the stars, planets and sun. We can’t however go back in time to observe the billions of years. We can’t reproduce it in a labratory experiment and the tests we’ve devised to discern it are unreliable. Claiming that the earth goes around the sun is a result of hard, observable repeatable science. Claiming that the earth is billions of years old is historical science.


    How can science compete with the clear word of God?

    Good science doesn’t need to compete. It compliments.

    Just because you don’t know astronomy or mathematics doesn’t mean that you can’t silence the mouths of know-it-all scientists with the Scriptures.

    I know you meant this in jest, but you’re absolutely right. Know-it-all scientists would laugh in your face if you tried to explain the Real Presence to them. How can you believe in that stuff when it is so obviously contrary to science? At least creation scientists can find some evidence to support their theories. Show me evidence when it comes to the Real Presence.


    The rest of us have simply accepted that astrophysicists, geologists, and biologists do largely know what they’re talking about and have dealt with it.

    I do think they know what they are talking about. I also recognize that evolution scientists and creation scientists have the same evidence but begin from completely different world views and fill in the gaps in historical science with different information. That doesn’t mean I think they don’t know science. It means I think they don’t know history.

  3. Simon Says:

    Just curious (not argumentative): how do you, personally, account for the fact that carbon dating techniques find some things to be older than 6,000 years old? I take it that you think the techniques are flawed, but they are based on empirically-proven principles regarding the activity of the carbon-14 isotope? So where have the scientists gone wrong?

    It doesn’t seem that, if they have gone wrong, that the cause would be that they “don’t know history,” as you boldly assert (as if knowledge of history rationally demands faith in the inerrancy of the bible — a strange possibility, given that faith is not ever thought to be something that could be rationally required, since it then wouldn’t count as faith). If they have gone wrong, they must have gotten the science wrong independent of their historical beliefs. After all, they’re claims are based on their observations of the behavior of the carbon-14 isotope.

  4. Simon Says:

    shocking. no reply.

  5. Daniel Sellers Says:

    Simon,

    How come it took you nine days to post a comment? Maybe you were busy at work, had family obligations, or many other good reasons. Your world probably doesn’t revolve around blogs, and you shouldn’t expect Elle’s world to revolve around her blog either.

  6. Simon Says:

    fair point. my apologies.

  7. Elle Says:

    Simon, I would point you to those who know much more about the topic than I do here and here.

Leave a Reply

 
 

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots. (see: www.captcha.net)

You must read and type the 5 chars within 0..9 and A..F, and submit the form.

  

Oh no, I cannot read this. Please, generate a