Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Very objective and respectful. The way scientists should be :) i gave a talk on this and i hope you will all be enlightened as i have :)

For the purposes of this blog (hehe!) and my target audience, i have focused on why faith need not be in conflict with science and excerpted selectively. The actual book and details are as follows:


Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Latest edition released 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine (both US-based)

Download the free PDF book here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
(Summary, Podcast, Book Orders, and so on also available on this site)

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the Web address of the online, full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the National Academies Press.

==================================================================

Book Description [found in website]:

How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.

Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.

==================================================================

[Why only evolution in the classroom?]

Hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. [The beliefs of creationists] cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.


[Why (not) creationism?]

But science cannot test supernatural possibilities...

Such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry and cannot be a part of science.


[Why (not) intelligent design?]

"Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested."

==================================================================

1968 US Supreme Court ruling

"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of non-religion, and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite."

==================================================================

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith.

Science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science.

Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

[Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science] --- click here

[Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science] --- click here

==================================================================

FAQ: Aren’t evolution and religion opposing ideas?

Newspaper and television stories sometimes make it seem as though evolution and religion are incompatible, but that is not true (see excerpts).

To be sure, disagreements do exist. Some people reject any science that contains the word “evolution”; others reject all forms of religion. The range of beliefs about science and about religion is very broad. Regrettably, those who occupy the extremes of this range often have set the tone of public discussions.

Evolution is science, however, and only science should be taught and learned in science classes.


FAQ: Does science disprove religion?

Science can neither prove nor disprove religion. Scientific advances have called some religious beliefs into question, but many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings.

Both science and religion are weakened by claims that something not yet explained scientifically must be attributed to a supernatural deity. It confuses the roles of science and religion by attributing explanations to one that belong in the domain of the other.

The study of science need not lessen or compromise faith.

==================================================================

CONCLUSIONS

Science and religion address separate aspects of human experience. Needlessly placing science and religion in opposition reduces the potential of both to contribute to a better future.

No Conflict Between Faith and Science :)

The following are copied verbatim from:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Latest edition released 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine (both US-based)

Download the free PDF book here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
(Summary, Podcast, Book Orders, and so on also available on this site)

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that thi s notice appears on the reproduced materials, the Web address of the online, full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the National Academies Press.

==================================================================

Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science

Scientists, like people in other professions, hold a wide range of positions about religion and the role of supernatural forces or entities in the universe. Some adhere to a position known as scientism, which holds that the methods of science alone are sufficient for discovering everything there is to know about the universe. Others ascribe to an idea known as deism, which posits that God created all things and set the universe in motion but no longer actively directs physical phenomena. Others are theists, who believe that God actively intervenes in the world. Many scientists who believe in God, either as a prime mover or as an active force in the universe, have written eloquently about their beliefs.

“Creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained.”
— Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Religion. Quote is excerpted from an interview available at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html.

“In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul.”
— Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Excerpted from his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (p. 6).

“Our scientific understanding of the universe . . .provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs.”
— Father George Coyne, Catholic priest and former director of the Vatican Observatory. Quote is from a talk, “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution,” at Palm Beach Atlantic University, January 31, 2006. Available at http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-Evolution.htm.

Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science

Many religious denominations and individual religious leaders have issued statements acknowledging the occurrence of evolution and pointing out that evolution and faith do not conflict.

“[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.”
— General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

“[S]tudents’ ignorance about evolution will seriously undermine their understanding of the world and the natural laws governing it, and their introduction to other explanations described as ‘scientific’ will give them false ideas about scientific
methods and criteria.”
— Central Conference of American Rabbis

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. . . . Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
— Pope John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.

“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. . . . 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.”
—“The Clergy Letter Project” signed by more than 10,000 Christian clergy members. For additional information, see http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm.

Sinners not allowed?

i have some misgivings about this article (enough to abruptly break my over-three-month-old "blog fast"!):

Vatican ‘corrects’ Couples for Christ’s ‘GK’ focus

(i'll reprint the entire article here only when it is no longer stored in the Inquirer archives.)

(1)

Reyes further said the [Couples for Christ] had always been against artificial family planning but that Gawad Kalinga had been receiving funds from companies manufacturing contraceptives.
“If you do that, you are forgetting Christian values,” Reyes said.
“You can always work with everyone—Muslims, Buddhists—but still not forget Christian values. We can remain Christians. We should not forget our Christian values,” he said.

---> There was a good disclaimer about being able to "work with everyone" but maintaining high standards for "Christian values". But how do we draw the line? How different would refusing donations from contraceptive manufacturers be from, say, *not* greeting an adulterer or *not* praying for the corrupt politician? Even if we have God's standards of holy living, we must be careful not to judge others because we have all sinned anyway.

Without going into a debate over the immorality of contraceptives (a 'bad' thing, according to the Catholic Church), shouldn't the companies who manufacture them at least be lauded for supporting GK (perhaps we would all agree is a 'good' thing)? Are we keeping 'sinners' from doing the little 'good' that they can still do? Do these sound like "Christian values"? Shouldn't we rather work together and even encourage each other to do good? Each deed is a good place to head in the right direction.


(2)

According to Reyes, the letter carried a quote from Pope Benedict XVI that said: “Whoever does not give God, gives too little.”
“That’s before the part where it says CFC should counterbalance the overemphasis on social work,” the bishop said, adding:
“Overemphasis on social work is not good when you are already neglecting your relationship with Christ.”

--> Truly we must have God as the God of our lives, whether we serve the poor or work for the rich and so on. It's important to be reminded to put "your relationship with Christ" first.

But that relationship is personal and cannot be judged by others on the basis of appearance or behavior. Just because someone is helping the poor doesn't make him less spiritual, or distant from God. On the contrary! The one who helps the poor is actually more likely to be following the God of mercy and compassion; and one who says he follows God should be obeying what He says about unconditional love and goodness.

Are the Pope and other leaders signifying that GK should do less social work and instead preach more (and/or pray more)? I've learned that there are different approaches to sharing about God, because people have different personalities and different needs (financial or otherwise). Can a homeless man listen to a preacher above the growling of his stomach?

Serving God entails feeding His sheep. Even if the most important aspect of this context is spiritual, will we merely say "God bless you" to a hungry man before walking away?