The Clergy Letter Project
There are 12,672 signatures from clergy as of 9/12/10. The Clergy Letter Project has been officially endorsed by The United Methodist Church, the Southeast Florida Diocese of the Episcopal Church and the Southwestern Washington Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Soooo, what I want to know is that if evolution is a godless "theory" then would some intelligent person tell me why these sincere Christians embrace it? Could it be because the evidence for evolution is there and that it has the capability of convincing even people of faith? Read at least one book on it, Why Evolution Is True.
28 comments:
I don't believe common decent is necessarily a godless theory (and I say common decent because even young earth creationists believe in change over time and some even believe in speciation even though there would be limiting biological limits as to how far that would go).
But if it is at odds with the truth, the reason why people believe in it is because much (but probably not all) of the evidence is flexible enough to fit evolution and most of the worlds experts are always tweaking the theory to make it fit.
One could frame it more darkly this way: we are that good at decieving ourselves.
Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.
Perhaps it is mostly. It's like everything else. their are definitely some things that are primarily religious and some that are primarily scientific, the lines between one and the other can indeed blur.
While religion can answer questions with which science is inept and ill suited, Science can deepen religious understanding into the nature of humanity with the social sciences. Some of the social sciences can help deepen our undersanding of the very meaning of religious texts written under different religious contexts.
e believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth,
I will grant that evolution might be true. The idea that it is "foundational" as if we couldn't do science without it continually remains one of the dumbest claims ignorant of the history and nature of science that I have ever heard. Evolution is a conclusion. Once you make it a priori to science, it is no longer a scientific theory.
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.
I was once a fanatic about this issue as a young earth creationists. Then I learned my place. I don't have an advanced degree in the biological sciences (though I have way more formal training than the typical non science graduate of college, but perhaps not as much as a science grad... but most likely most of those clergy as well). I just don't buy that these 12,000 clergy have the authority to say what constitutes scientific ignorance, and if the largest poll to date on the topic holds an accurate representation of the scientific community as a whole, even more scientists, 13 percent, disagree with these clergy on evolution, let alone what constitutes the scientifically educated.
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.
Now this is just a cheap shot insult and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for painting those who disagree with them this way.
There are people who think this way (ironically, many of those clergy would probably actually say our reasoning is thus limited with thinking about God, and they'd be amongst the crowd that way overemphasizes ineffebility and mystery).
Rob, I suggested a book to read on the topic. Which ones have you read?
John, I have taken several classes in the biological sciences and have extensive discussions with biologists on the issue at the college level and I have read several of scientific articles on it.
I have also taken a class designed with the purpose of debunking young earth creation science and promoting theistic evolution. It didn't work completely though I did learn why evolution is indeed a scientific theory contrary to ken ham's view, why it is more scientific than young earth creationism, and yet why that distinction still isn't rooted in the objectivity of science itself (which I learned was more tenuous than I thought from even my YEC "indoctrination").
I know that case is strong which is only one reason why I don't put my eggs in this basket. (that strong case for a non-literal approach to Genesis is another, and that doesn't exhaust my reasons either). But I also retained what I have always known, what the history of science has always proven, that science is tentative.
I have Ernst Mayrs "what evolution is" sitting on my shelf only partially read, not because of willingness, but because I am limited on time and short on attention span with other pressing.
You certainly know that I am not unwilling to read things I disagree with (or in this case, material to which I'm not really opposed!)
Does the lack of reading through such a book really disqualify me or is this a ad hominem, circumstantial fallacy?
Rob said "..that science is tentative."
Of course it is, but we're also not going back to a geocentric model any time soon.
So I think your position on evolution may have more to do with desire then with honest skepticism.
Of course it is, but we're also not going back to a geocentric model any time soon.
Really? NASA still uses a geocentric model when they shoot rockets into space. I use a geocentric model when I interpret my speedometer in my car which assumes a stationary earth.
But although your example is bad, that's beside the point. If you mean by parallel that young earth creationism will never be revisted, fact is, it was never a scientific theory to begin with. And that has nothing to do with whether or not it could find it scientifically valid.
So I think your position on evolution may have more to do with desire then with honest skepticism.
Skepticism that doesn't acknowledge the role of desire isn't honest (or, perhaps in most cases, it's just oblivious).
Rob; I think you are being disingenous about the geocentric model and grasping at straws.
However, I couldn't disagree more about your idea that skepticism relies on desire. It's not true skepticism to me if you aren't willing to entertain ideas you hope not to be true.
Rob; I think you are being disingenous
Everyone who doesn't think like the atheists (or whatever the view defended happens to be) is disengenuous. But that kind of thinking is insular.
Fact is, what I said of geocentrism holds true for many scientific theories that have been replaced. like newtonian physics. It's still more useful to use in some contexts than the potentially more accurate relativity or qm.
But this is all tangential to the topic.
The answer is clear to me: these people aren't "true" Christians. :)
I remember once attending a service whereby a Southern Baptist minister gave the odds for macro-evolution to occur-- they were astronomical! He intended to offer the statistics to dissuade ppl from embracing evolution as an observation of divine expression, but when I heard the odds I thought of it as another one of God's creative expressions being unveiled. In summary, I don't see an acceptance of the theory of evolution as a disqualifier for the existence of the divine. For some, the acceptance of such poses a stumbling block in their image of God and His abilities.
Rob; ok, in two posts you've managed to not really address anything I've said. That's what I meant by 'disingenous' and 'grasping at straws'.
Take care.
Ryan, what did you expect. What I said about geocentrism remains true and I noted that it remains true of other scientific theories of the past and you have nothing to say about it buy make an ad hominem attack. (but it is tangential to the topic).
And I misunderstood your second claim. I thought you said that agreed with me, and your second comment clearly does. If one isn't WILLING to entertain skepticism, they won't obviously. So does skepticism depend on desire or doesn't it. You contradict yourself to say it doesn't. One must be willing to even entertain it. But skepticism isn't a blank slate. Doubts often arise from the desire to satisfy certain standards. And it is a psycological truth that for some, those standards "feel" right (even though sometimes they aren't). The feelings are unavoidable. They must play a role in rational thought. That is the way we are.
Ryan, You complain that I haven't said anything, but neither have you understood what I have written before that point. I am willing to believe that evolution may be true. I don't know that it isn't. So your implication that I am not willing to entertain it is further ad hominem.
The difference between me and you and these ministers is that I know my place. I know the limits of what I can judge. And I know that it is significant that those who are qualified are not in agreement.
Rob R,
If you are going to take this stat, "87 percent of scientists polled said that life evolved over time," and conclude that 13% of scientists do not accept evolutionary theory then you are proof-texting. What is the question that the 87% stat can be derived from? I bet it has more to do with the effect of time relative to evolution not if evolution is true or not.
Chuck, this is verbatim from the pew research poll that made this study:
"Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection."
source
That 13 percent excluded wouldn't even cover all the ID theorists who happen to believe in common descent (as Behe does).
DM
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Rob,
Or that 13% could mean the scientists who advocate punctuated equilibrium.
why these sincere Christians embrace it?
"Sincere", eh? If you look at the affiliations of the churches, you'll start to see a pattern:
UMC, UCC, Episcopal, ELCA, PCUSA, and on and on. These are all liberal mainliners. How can someone be "sincere" when they claim to be X, yet gleefully deny all the core tenets of X?
It's like a member of PETA who enjoys chowing down on a nice juicy t-bone steak. "Sincere" isn't the correct word, not by a long shot.
Rob R said,
"One could frame it more darkly this way: we are that good at decieving ourselves."
Equally true for religious thinking as well...
"I will grant that evolution might be true..."
And by so saying, you "grant" nothing. Take the leap. You can do it...
Rob R said,
"NASA still uses a geocentric model when they shoot rockets into space."
ONLY if said rocket is going to remain in low earth orbit (less than ~23,000 miles up). The corrections to the orbital calculations for anything leaving earth's gravity well cannot succeed on a "geocentric" model of space, and you know this, so your comment is willfully misleading, or ignorant.
Rob said,
"What I said about geocentrism remains true..."
No, it doesn't. You need to learn some science, not just parrot what some Christian "professor" at your college told you to think.
"...and I noted that it remains true of other scientific theories of the past and you have nothing to say about it but make an ad hominem attack."
I'll go ad hominem all day: if you're uninformed, and say things that are flat out wrong, then you should stop flapping your lips, and discover WHY you're wrong.
But you won't do that- you're a Christian, and you already have all the answers.
Or that 13% could mean the scientists who advocate punctuated equilibrium.
creatures evolve over time in punctuated equilibrium. That it is shorter sporadic periods of time does not negate that it is still over time... still long periods of time (wikipedia has a citation for over 50,000 years for speciation) even if they are short relatively speaking in terms of 10's and 100's of millions of years. that level of nuance you are suggesting just isn't there.
This same question was aimed at the public (as the poll was about the public views on scientific topics vs. scientists views) and was about skepticism towards common decent, not gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium. I'll admit that some might've taken that route because even scientists can misinterpret a poll question.
Rob R,
Your contention about geocentrism is wrong.
You said,
NASA still uses a geocentric model when they shoot rockets into space. I use a geocentric model when I interpret my speedometer in my car which assumes a stationary earth.
NASA does not treat the earth as the center of the universe for any of its concerns. Notably NASA does not treat the earth as the center of the universe when calculating any of its launch or inflight trajectories. The notion of the earth being the center of the universe is never a concern. The concerns for flight navigation are the nature of the bodies and the forces involved. They do not treat Mars or the Moon as the center of the universe in determining launch characteristics from those bodies either. All they're concerned with are the nature of the bodies and the forces. These considerations are highlighted by comparing the massive launch vehicles required to drive even small payloads into earth orbit to the itsy bitsy things needed to get payloads off the Moon. No geocentrism or Moon-centrism required. For NASA's purposes the point of reference could just as effectively be lauch vehicle-centric, or satellite-centric, since they, too, are celestial bodies in the making. Prior to launch they just happen to be sitting on the earth.
Also in reading your car's speedometer you do not assume a stationary earth. Your car's speedometer operates based on wheel RPM, not on the assumption of a stationary earth. In final manufacturer's testing as your car rolled off the line, it read the same apparent velocities running on a dynamometer. On the open road many factors influence your what your speedometer reads. Changes in tire pressure, for instance, change the effective tire radius. Low pressure shortens the radius, thus, shortening the circumference, making the car travel less distance per revolution and making the actual velocity slower than what the speedometer reads.
Put the car on a moving ship; drive it along the line of the ship's motion; and, the car is moving relative to the earth at a velocity that is different from what the speedometer reads.
You said,
I will grant that evolution might be true.
The evidence is irrefutable, Rob R. Evolution is a fact.
The idea that it is "foundational" as if we couldn't do science without it continually remains one of the dumbest claims ignorant of the history and nature of science that I have ever heard.
Evolution is foundational in the sense that it is an ever ongoing process. It takes place in populations of replicating non-biotic molecular chemical species in reaction vessels and it takes place much more slowly in populations of entities replicated via heritable genetic materials, entities like viruses and people, for instance. It is an entirely chemical process with a dutiful nod to the underlying physics. It takes place everywhere we look on earth, and, in the molecular version, in many places we look about the galaxy. Evolution doesn't need us. It doesn't need believers and it does not require human notions of meddling gods.
Only an ignorant person would make the sweeping claim that "we couldn't do science without" evolution. Most of science does not need to take into account the explicit implications of evolutionary theory. However, to make sense of the biosphere, including the people part, evolutionary theory is in fact foundational, in exactly the sense that Theodosius Dobzhansky expressed it: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Without evolutionary theory, trying to make sense of biology becomes little more than a vast game of bio-trivial pursuit, each piece devoid of useful connections to the others.
Rob R,
Evolution is a conclusion.
To be sure. And, it is the right one.
Once you make it a priori to science, it is no longer a scientific theory.
Science exists entirely as a pursuit of intelligent beings capable of sharing reliable information across generations. Evolutionary processes are chemical processes: they do not need humans, human science, or the gods humans imagine. Evolutionary processes are not constrained by human egocentrisms, not even the ones that give rise to human religions.
Today, evolution is as foundational as gravity. The same chemical processes that give us water from hydrogen and oxygen, and plastics from carbon compounds inform us that the impersonal chemical processes involved in evolution proceed in their own way via natural law. Saying "Once you make it a priori to science, it is no longer a scientific theory" is really a bizarre statement. Natural phenomena existed prior to humanity's science and will continue when humanity is a thing of the past.
Only an ignorant person would make the sweeping claim that "we couldn't do science without" evolution.
yes, they are ignorant.
I'm glad we agree on something.
clergy (the topic) and scientist alike do indeed think this way and are indeed so ignorant contrary to what else that you say.
Glad to see you still read my posts. I on occasion skim yours and still do not see much point in engaging them. I would on the basis of a single post, but I know how you discuss.
Rob R,
You commented,
Glad to see you still read my posts. I on occasion skim yours and still do not see much point in engaging them. I would on the basis of a single post, but I know how you discuss.
I read nearly all the comments on Debunking Christianity, only skipping those whose authors have repeatedly given evidence that they are religiously too far detached from the world to be taken seriously. Even though you, too, are religiously detached from the world I read most of your comments because you make for an interesting case study. You make me laugh. What makes you interesting, Rob R, is highlighted over and over in this comment thread. Let me point to a couple of you said that fascinate me.
You started out saying,
I don't believe common decent is necessarily a godless theory
You like to wax philosophical to defend the oxymoron "religious truth," and, yet, when you think it fits your purposes you throw philosophy out the window. In the Clergy Letter Project the topic is the full theory of evolution not just the common decent part. Common decent is not evolutionary theory, so definitionally you fail here.
Then, too, you use plenty of slippery wiggle words to allow you to play weaselly semantic games in defending what you've said from its due criticism. Here you use believe and necessarily, and, of course, you can always rely on the inherent imprecision and malleability of godless and theory to serve as reserves in the battle with critics. Every criticism can be deflected, right? You were just misunderstood, right? It's convenient for you that your critics always fail to randomly happen on to the exact combination of meanings for your words that you will claim them to have ex post facto in facilitating your defense.
As for whether or not evolutionary theory is godless, I would simply ask, if you think it to be dependent on some god, for you to demonstrate that. Not play the slippery slimy wiggly and weaselly semantic games of the disingenuously philosophical, mind you, but, actually demonstrate it. In every instance where someone asks for evidence or demonstration, you will dishonestly turn to philosophy.
You abuse philosophy. Philosophy can be great for clarifying a position or more precisely stating a question or hypothesis, but it does not provide answers. You constantly misuse and debase this wonderful intellectual tool, especially when you neglect the fact that philosophical argument and reasoning are pure twaddle guaged against empirical results.
For all of their lovely philosophical expressiveness, the Christian apologist and philosopher Willliam Paley(from Giggleswick Parish, that's funny, too) and his watchmaker intellectual brethren were wrong. For century after century religious claims, apologia, and theologically-based philosophical defenses following the watchmaker theme were shaped, honed and polished. Isn't it curious that for all their claims of being dedicated to "truth" that these religious intellectual paragons spent lifetime upon lifetime ornamenting what they accepted as "truth" without even straying anywhere near the way the world actually is?
That is why I laugh, Rob R. These people had gods - the imagined creator of the universe and the actual way things are - dispensing revelations galore for several millenia, but what we know to be the way of the natural world was always out of reach for them. Their philosophical argument and reasoning were pure twaddle in the face of the empirical results.
Rob R,
That every last one of them were so wrong for so long about something so important tells us that all religion-specific claims should be taken as false until proven otherwise. They did not have truth or anything like it. All they had was ideas they accepted amongst themselves. Truth was not and still is not a concern to the religious. Their concerns are group unity and conformity. Uttering mumbo jumbo is not truth. Standing and sitting as dictated in a program is not truth. And thousands of years of the same ol' dreck is not truth.
You say,
But if it[evolution] is at odds with the truth
Here you have things backwards. Evolution is a member of the set of things that are true. The only components of religious thought are opinion, conjecture and wishful thinking, not truth.
You said,
Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.
There is no religious truth, Rob R. Did it being a religious truth that demons cause disease make it actually true in any real sense? No. Even though, it was theologically and philosophically sound, it was wrong. Dead wrong. It was dead wrong millions of times over, but, still today it's accepted as religious truth by many, including some Christian clergy who visit Debunking Christianity. Is it actually true yet? Still, no. It's still dead, dead wrong.
If, as your version of Christianity will claim, there is one and only one god, then more than two thirds of humanity is without religious truth, though they claim otherwise. Today, there are a thousand actively worshiped gods in the world and all their believers are wrong, the only exception being the one you like and philosophically-defend, right? Well, if you are going to play philosopher, you have to accept that your version of a god and your version of a Christianity are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else's. You do make me laugh.
You suggested that,
religion can answer questions with which science is inept and ill suited
Religions do not answer questions; groups of people answer questions. Do you want to imply that religious groups get correct answers to questions rather than simply adopting a set of accepted answers and behaviors? That is observably not the case. Christian apologetics is nothing more than making up answers that then become boilerplate, pat responses to hand out in lieu of thought. Those answers are not truth. They are merely accepted within the group and they differ among the Christianities and from religious group to religious group.
So, Rob R, you make me laugh. You fascinate me in the same way as a dog chasing its own tail does or a cat completely consumed by the spider climbing the wall. You want to be respected for your philosophical refinement, but you lay claim to a "religious truth" that is nowhere to be seen, one that varies person to person, place to place, church to church and religion to religion. That makes "truth" useless as concept and it mocks your own attempts to wow us with your abuse of philosophy. This is funny stuff.
Post a Comment