I literally happened onto “The Language of God” by Collins (http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391) at a layover at an airport and found in it the start of the reconciliation I had always been looking for.

Tonight I happened across this entry and I think it’s the next step.

I’ve never understood why science hasn’t been held up as the ***ABSOLUTE EPITOME*** of God’s creation in that the His creation is SO amazing, SO intricate, SO complex, SO vast that it has taken thousands of years for humans to develop the ability to really BEGIN to understand it.

Who are we to think that one book could teach us everything there is to know about His creation? Who are we to think that ANY reading of the Bible, no matter how literal or how interpretive, could COME CLOSE to allowing us to completely understand all that He has done and all that He is capable of?

Why isn’t science, in all its amazing depth and breadth, the ultimate proof of the beauty of His creation?

To me, the divide between science and religion has been nonsensical in that denying the inherent connection between them trivializes both, robbing each of incredible meaning.

Thank you Ken, for leading by example!

Peace!
Keith

I haven’t seen the Stein DVD but if he is drawing historical causal connections between Darwin and racism, I think it would be more compelling if Stein were a serious historian interacting with a wide range of historians rather than an entertainer (whose religion, btw, is irrelevant.) I’ve read some of the 19th century evangelical response to Darwin and know that evangelical supporters of Darwin like Asa Gray, B.B. Warfield and James Orr agreed with Darwin that common ancestry would rule out a racist interpretation of human differences. I think one of Darwin’s scientific opponents at Harvard (Aggisse–sp?) had a special creation view of the races, which supported his racist views.

We could take a poll of those who oppose Darwin’s teachings and compare their views on race with those who support Darwin’s views. But that’s not a valid approach to establishing historical cause and effect either.

I’m very dubious of these historical arguments about Darwin’s teaching leading to racism, etc. when there is solid historical evidence that Darwin himself was a big opponent of slavery. But even more, I think by the same faulty logic, one can pin slavery and inequality of women on the Bible, rather than see the Bible as containing the message that eventually led to overturning slavery and supporting the equality of women. If it’s not a fair argument to make in one realm, we shouldn’t rely on it in another. Darwin avoided the use of the term “evolution” partly because it has a history that preceded scientific inquiry and he wasn’t happy with the things it was associated with.

What I like about Paul’s post, is the reasoned way he offers his views. These are matters than can be discussed, because he doesn’t treat someone who disagrees with him as a heretic. Paul allows for different ways of reading Genesis; he doesn’t claim that only one way is the orthodox way. I wish he were a little more sympathetic to the value of the apology, rather than viewing it as a “spectacle,” but one always likes others to give one the benefit of the doubt, and its not always forthcoming.

I think Christians should apologize for the things that they as a group have had a tendency to support; as a group American evangelicals haven’t had a tendency to be mean spirited etc toward Behe, Stein, and others. I think the Biblical principle is that we apologize for the things we have done wrong, or we take group responsibility for things our group has tended to get wrong.

I appreciate Kevin’s remarks here (#174) as one who stands out from the rest, though I disagree with much of what he says. I think the Genesis account of creation is not a scientific account, but is a truthful and divinely inspired description of God’s intent and desires for creation, the fallenness (literal or figurative it’s still very real) of human nature, etc. I certainly think that one can be a good Christian and believe that God used darwinian evolution to bring about his creation. (This doesn’t mean that evolution is true. One can be a good Christian and be mistaken about many things.) But will we also insist one can be a good scientist while finding Darwinism to be an inadequate explanation for our origins? Such people are not treated kindly by the scientific establishment. Where do our apologies to Darwin leave scientists like Michael Behe (see his books, Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution)? Should Behe apologize to Darwin too even though he’s not an Evangelical? Or does he deserve our support? Should Ben Stein (a Jew) also apologize for the his “Expelled” movie? Why or why not? (If Ken is going to tie belief in “static and special creation”–not the only alternative to darwinism in any case–to racism, slavery and the subjugation of women, can he blame Stein for seeing a natural connection between Darwinism and racism, eugenics and the Nazi Holocaust?) Do the people at the Access Research Network (www.arn.org) have anything to apologize for? I want to know, because I think all these people raise legitimate concerns and have been treated very badly and unfairly by the scientific establishment. And, I wonder, if Evangelicals are going to apologize to Darwin, are they also going to defend the rights and reputations of those who question his ideas and the way they are applied today and who honestly believe that the evidence points to the necessity of a Designer/Creator?

So I concur and say “Sorry Chuck!”