Science meets belief as couple put evolution in a sacred context

[Maryjane]

Please...I know double speak when I hear (read) it. I've been involved in politics and I was raised Southern Baptist. He's a preacher living out his dream.

There's a hidden meaning to his "message" and I refuse to buy into it like some brain washed evangelical. Notice evangelicals aren't his target audience? They aren't buying it either.

He admits that most of their audiences are liberal congregations who are not wedded to biblical literalism and are already sympathetic to evolutionary teachings

But according to you I should swallow his "message" hook line and sTinker?

Sure I'm going to look at it from my point of view. How can I not? I wouldn't be an atheist if I wasn't sceptical now would I?
Maybe you can't see it, but my atheist brethren can. We have heard it over, and over, and over till our ears practically bleed.

“Imagine a realm of nothingness,”

I say to my fellow Atheists, how many times have you heard that one?

Usually it goes like this...."So you believe in nothing?"

Science provides the facts, he adds, while religion provides the meaning.

Yup...can't have life without meaning now can you?

In other words, without religion ...life has no meaning.

What's a good gospel sermon with a dose of fear to get people riled up? Instead of associating it to god, let's associate it with science. Oooooooga booooooooga......Environmental issues!

As for Dowd, 49, he credits his wife with pushing him to follow his dream of becoming an itinerant preacher for this cause. Barlow, a 55-year-old author of several science books, joins him in his presentations, coaxing audiences to regard the evolution of the world as an evolving narrative. “Michael and I view this as the story of the changing story,” she says. The New York couple shed their belongings (they don't even have a storage bin) and took to the road in April 2002. They live out of a white Dodge Sprinter, staying in people's homes during their speaking gigs and supporting themselves with donations and proceeds from the sales of books and tapes. They also have two Web sites: thegreatstory.org and thankgodforevolution.com.

This guy and his wife drive from place to place, making a living off "donations" (no doubt tax deductible) and the sale of their books and cd's. In other words...profiting off religion. Shock of shocks! A prophet for profit. He's NO different than any other gospel preacher...only he's putting a new spin on it. (we need an eye roll emotion)

Let's check his website shall we?

Very nice. Ohhhhhhh...book$ AND merchandi$e.
I'd like to see what he claims on his taxes.

But he says he admires creationists for their fervor and admonishes atheists for “having no respect for religious language.”

Kiss my Atheist ass! Why should I? His message isn't for people "like me" who can see right thru him.


MB:

Because without the permanent guilt complex laid on you by religion, you just might go getting ideas, and come to think your life is worth something more than being a saccrificial lamb.

Agreed.



Zhavric:

I wouldn't call it "evolving". More like "desperately trying to stay relevant".

Yup, that's the way I see it as well.

Note to Isherwood...Damn! You mean he was in your home town and you didn't attend? We could have gotten an eye witness account and maybe a personal interview? : (

[rez]

Quote by: Whilletal I am amused by some of the posts. I am a Christian and in the process of gaining Ordination in my denomination and I think (and always have) that science and faith are not in conflict with each other.

Of course not, but why is that? Supernatural explanations were the way in which one explained how reality worked thousands of years ago. Sickness was not caused by bacteria, it was caused by demons because god was mad at them. People started getting smarter and soon investigated the true reason why people were sick. So the supernatural thinker has to back himself up and agree, but then will just say god made the universe and there is no way to prove that person wrong. But guess what? That is not how any thinking human being operates on this earth. We don't just wash our hands from the question, we investigate and find the answers.

As long as you are on this earth you will have to accept all natural explanations because you know they do a great job of explaining reality. As a Christian you are content because you know scientists will probably not come up with a theory for how the universe came to be. And even if they do you would have enough grounds to reject it based on the newness of the theory.

And if the explanation actually predicted what it said it would predict, then you would accept it and fill in another gap of knowledge with god.

So in essence faith does conflict with science. In fact, faith conflicts with common sense.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Maryjane Please...I know double speak when I hear (read) it. I've been involved in politics and I was raised Southern Baptist. He's a preacher living out his dream.

His dream, apparently, is to convince Christians that science, in particular evolutionary biology, is no threat to their beliefs.

What's the problem with that?

There's a hidden meaning to his "message" and I refuse to buy into it like some brain washed evangelical. Notice evangelicals aren't his target audience? They aren't buying it either.

You keep insinuating some ulterior motive but have yet to provide any evidence of this. To respond, I'll take a page from the atheist's guide to belittling everyone who isn't like them:

"Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true".

How'd I do?

But according to you I should swallow his "message" hook line and sTinker?

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You're so clever! I see what you did there! You put a "T" in "sinker" and made it "sTinker"!!! ROFLCOPTERS!!!

Who has ever suggested that you "swallow" his message? And then you accuse other people of having a persecution complex?? Methinks you doth protest too much.

Sure I'm going to look at it from my point of view. How can I not? I wouldn't be an atheist if I wasn't sceptical now would I?

There's nothing that says you need to be skeptical to be an atheist, and there's nothing that says that if you are skeptical you are an atheist.

Maybe you can't see it, but my atheist brethren can.

Brethren? Gee that sounds almost like a religious term..

We have heard it over, and over, and over till our ears practically bleed.

Heard what? A preacher admitting the creation story of the Bible is a myth and the theory of evolution represents the most likely representation of how we became who we are genetically? Because that's about the only thing I see being said here.

I say to my fellow Atheists, how many times have you heard that one? Usually it goes like this...."So you believe in nothing?"

I don't see the big problem with that question.

It's just missing a word - "supernatural". Atheists believe in nothing supernatural. It's only your defensiveness that keeps you reading these hidden meanings into everything.

Yup...can't have life without meaning now can you? In other words, without religion ...life has no meaning.

You're not very good at this logic stuff for claiming to be a skeptic and an atheist. Usually they're much better at it.

He said, "Science provides the facts, while religion provides the meaning."

To the observer who isn't clouded by personal biases or psychological hang-ups, he is making an obvious juxtaposition of the two studies, and their relative position in the world.

You, however, have read the second half of the sentence without the context of the first half. Your argument that the pastor is trying to say that life without religion is meaningless is ridiculous, because that would ALSO mean he is trying to say that without science there are no facts... no such thing as mathematics or history, for example.

His statement was a contrasting of the two roles. Quite simple.

What's a good gospel sermon with a dose of fear to get people riled up?

Answer: Every sermon I've ever heard. Why do sermons have to have an element of fear in them??? I thought atheists claimed they knew what religion was all about??

Instead of associating it to god, let's associate it with science. Oooooooga booooooooga......Environmental issues!

So your claim is that this preacher's mission is to get other preachers to take the "instilling fear" part of their sermon that doesn't exist, and instead of using god to instill fear, use science??????? That's rich.

This guy and his wife drive from place to place, making a living off "donations" (no doubt tax deductible)

Really? No doubt? Did you skeptically analyze that statement, or is your skepticism only reserved for religion, not tax accounting?

I like how it's perfectly ok for atheists to make stuff up for THEIR purposes.

and the sale of their books and cd's. In other words...profiting off religion. Shock of shocks! A prophet for profit. He's NO different than any other gospel preacher...only he's putting a new spin on it. (we need an eye roll emotion)

I see. So people who work for churches aren't allowed to eat? They have to beg for clothing and shelter? They admit they own virtually no belongings and travel from place to place living in a Dodge Sprinter. Obviously they are rich beyond their wildest dreams!!!

And once again the skepticism you claim to hold so dear only extends to religious claims. You find it perfectly acceptable to make a wild guess about the financials of a person/group you have no clue about.

Tell you what, as soon as you can find me an Information Return for whatever their corporate structure is, S-corp, LLC, not-for-profit, then you can make the argument "ZOMG THEY ARE MAKING MONEEY$$$$$$$$$$$"

Very nice. Ohhhhhhh...book$ AND merchandi$e. I'd like to see what he claims on his taxes.

But you haven't. So until you do, what would be the skeptical position to take... To make a wild guess that he's a tax fraud, or to assume that, like the vast majority of Americans, he legally pays taxes and takes proper deductions?


If I was the leader of the skeptics' club I'd make you give your membership card back.

[Morality Games]

Science provides the facts, he adds, while religion provides the meaning.

Religion does not have a monopoly on meaning, and evidence suggests humans find about equal amounts of 'meaning' (a better word here would probably be 'value') from the perspectives they adopt on the world and life in general.

Man evolved to be an evaluator. Having value for things is pivotal to actually wanting to live.

[Maryjane]

If I was the leader of the skeptics' club I'd make you give your membership card back.

You'd do nothing of the sort...You'd never make the cut.
Besides reading the article, skeptical me read the faq's on his web page.

How is the 'evolutionary theology' worldview you are proposing different from ‘intelligent design’? While I appreciate the heart and soul of the 'intelligent design' (ID) movment, ultimately I think it's a dead-end path. The main problem, as I see it, with ID is that it trivializes God and dishonors science. The phrase itself, ‘intelligent design’, presupposes a view of the world as a created object rather than as a divinely creative reality in its own right. ID also presupposes an otherworldly designer outside the system. It’s not a surprise to me that the scientific community has so roundly rejected intelligent design as an explanation for how the world became complex. ID fails to appreciate the revelatory nature of the worldwide, self-correcting scientific enterprise. It also perpetuates in people’s minds a ‘God of the gaps’ view of time, space, and matter. That is, wherever there’s a gap in our understanding, that’s where God’s activity is. To my mind, this is an inconsequential and trivialized understanding of the divine. An evolutionary God is so much more real than this—indeed, undeniably real. ‘Intelligent design’ as a term first appeared in 1989, two years after the teaching of ‘biblical creationism’ in public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Its definition differs from creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of Bible. Most of the leaders in the ID movement, in fact, accept that the Universe is 14 billion years old. Unlike creationism and intelligent design—both belief-based approaches critical of mainstream science—‘evolutionary theology’ as a worldview and ‘evolutionary spirituality’ as a personal practice are knowledge-based approaches grounded in our best and most current scientific understandings of this evolving Cosmos. In my opinion, the courts are right to reject the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, at least in science classes. But I predict that the perspective offered in Thank God for Evolution! will be embraced by public school officials and the courts alike. Having endorsements from five Noble laureates and other luminaries across the theological and philosophical spectrum, including Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, should help. In contrast, I can’t imagine any of these science and religion leaders backing a book espousing intelligent design.

No ulterior motive huh?
So ID didn't work, neither did Creative Design. Let's call it something new..."Evolutionary Spirituality." Has a nice ring to it no? I wonder how much money he will make selling his books to PUBLIC schools?

What do you mean by ‘evolutionary spirituality’? Evolutionary spirituality is not about anything ethereal. And it’s not about believing in anything, otherworldly or not. Evolutionary spirituality is about being in right relationship with reality at all nested levels: within yourself; with all your relations: past, present, and future; with your world; and with the source, energy, and end of your existence, whatever name you may choose to give this undeniable Reality. It’s also about leaving a positive legacy. Fortunately, thanks to a sacred evolutionary understanding, we know, rather than merely believe, how to be in right relationship with reality. Basically, it all boils down to being committed to what I call ‘deep integrity’, or ‘evolutionary integrity’—that is, growing in trust, authenticity, responsibility, and service to the whole (i.e., God). When we grow in these four areas, our life works and our relationships work. We experience heavenly joy even in the midst of life’s inevitable challenges, and we can fulfill our evolutionary purpose—“God’s will” for our lives.

Like I said, same idea but with a new spin.



Thank God For Evolution! - FAQ

[freefallife]

Quote by: Whilletal I am amused by some of the posts. I am a Christian and in the process of gaining Ordination in my denomination and I think (and always have) that science and faith are not in conflict with each other.

Talk about amusing posts. Evolution states that we evolved over millions of years from lower life forms. Genesis says we were created as is. how in the hell is that not in conflict?? Oh, wait, don't tell me. Genesis is only a story now...I forgot. It's not literal. See what you theists did there? 100 years ago, if you told a christian that, youd be tossed out on your ass, and now its becoming a mainstream idea. Science uncovers the truth, religion attempts to conform to it. That's dishonest.

However to dismiss people of faith who are also using reason as being less than honest is just sad. I find it amusing that the most criticism leveled at people of faith on these boards is because they do not accept scientific theories. Yet when people of faith do accept scientific theories and have struggled to understand their faith in the light of scientific knowledge they are disparaged.

I think I've adequately explained it. If evolution is true, Adam and Eve never existed. If you're going to accept the theory, accept it in its entirety and admit that the whole book of genesis is hogwash. But that's not going to happen, is it. You'll have people of faith embrace evolution, but then still insist that there was a world-wide flood that covered the earth to a minimum of 15ft. THAT's dishonest.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Maryjane You'd do nothing of the sort...You'd never make the cut.

Why wouldn't I? I'm interested in hearing all that you think you know about me.

No ulterior motive huh? So ID didn't work, neither did Creative Design. Let's call it something new..."Evolutionary Spirituality." Has a nice ring to it no? I wonder how much money he will make selling his books to PUBLIC schools?

Umm... His ulterior motive is the garner widespread support for his position? ZOMG!!1one!!! Lock him up now! His stated motive is to garner support for this type of thinking.

And in case you haven't been near a public school lately, "his" theory - that religion and science are not in conflict and can share the same perspective - is ALREADY widely accepted in places like public schools. You're at least on the right track that he's not really bringing anything new. This concept has been around for a while - hence the widespread acceptance.

You found his stated motive but you still don't understand what his theory is.

You have nothing. You're grasping at straws to satisfy your pathological need to hate everything and everyone religious.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Whilletal Yes you are being punished lol

But I went to church to get saved but came away without being well endowed by the Creator, how come? Did I go to the wrong church or something to get baptised?

[Morality Games]

And in case you haven't been near a public school lately, "his" theory - that religion and science are not in conflict and can share the same perspective - is ALREADY widely accepted in places like public schools.

What exactly do you mean? It is possible a majority of persons takes that view, but quality can be stressed over quantity in academic matters, and most quality scientists take the view opposing yours -- theologians and their fans come around because that is the only way to keep their religions relevant and contemporary.

Anyway:

The reach of science does not extend past the parameters of the observable world and treats all indeterminable factors (such as afterlife, God) as functionally non-existent. It presupposes no ideal conditions under which the world must exist in order to be relevant, nor does it attatch logically unnecessary componets in its attempts to shape a coherent picture of the world.

This man has recognized these mechanisms of science and has proposed a theory which sits comfortably with the movement of these "wheels and gears" -- the shape and size of his 'evolutionary spirituality' is such that whatever probabilities/facts are uncovered by science, religion can be adapted to it.

So functionally all is well, but the essence of religion and the essence of science are still in conflict, as science condemns the manufacture of theories of this nature anyway -- theories are only good in so far as they account for observable realities, not presupposed ones. That is because science was born out of empiricsm.

You're grasping at straws to satisfy your pathological need to hate everything and everyone religious.

Hard not to dislike a guy who criticizes secularists but flatters creationists, the latter being the most debunked doctors in human history, charlatans and pseodo scientists supreme, to the tenth level. Thinks their efforts are misguided but appreciates them more for their enthusiasm? Uh huh. 'Misguided enthusiasm' is just a longer term for 'fanaticism'.

[grandpa]

Quote by: freefallife Talk about amusing posts. Evolution states that we evolved over millions of years from lower life forms.

And, quite crucially, that we evolved on earth as carbon-based lifeforms -- not necessarily as beings in the imagination of the biblical God. Trying to merge science and religion only results in confusion and lowers the bar for science (though it may, in some vague way, raise the bar for religion).

Grandpa h.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Morality Games What exactly do you mean? It is possible a majority of persons takes that view, but quality can be stressed over quantity in academic matters, and most quality scientists take the view opposing yours -- theologians and their fans come around because that is the only way to keep their religions relevant and contemporary.

Do you have any evidence about who in science does take my view (that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria)?

I do:
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Quote by: National Academy of Sciences Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.

I take it you think they're not "quality" scientists? Oh wait, you must have been referring to them when you said "quantity" - since they certainly contain a large quantity - over 2000 - scientists. The NAS also contains a huge "quantity" of other things - like 170 Nobel Laureates.

30 second Google searches are your friend when you state something as fact in a debate forum.

The reach of science does not extend past the parameters of the observable world and treats all indeterminable factors (such as afterlife, God) as functionally non-existent. It presupposes no ideal conditions under which the world must exist in order to be relevant, nor does it attatch logically unnecessary componets in its attempts to shape a coherent picture of the world.

Correct. Which describes the position this pastor is taking. What's your argument?

This man has recognized these mechanisms of science and has proposed a theory which sits comfortably with the movement of these "wheels and gears" -- the shape and size of his 'evolutionary spirituality' is such that whatever probabilities/facts are uncovered by science, religion can be adapted to it. So functionally all is well, but the essence of religion and the essence of science are still in conflict, as science condemns the manufacture of theories of this nature anyway -- theories are only good in so far as they account for observable realities, not presupposed ones. That is because science was born out of empiricsm.

Who is espousing a theory or a hypothesis? This guy certainly isn't. He calls his position a "state of mind" and a "worldview". He's not looking to test it, nor does he claim it is testable. He specifically says it is not a scientific theory - he says that evolution is a scientific theory (and an excellent one) and he only seeks to reconcile the best that science has to offer with belief in God.

Hard not to dislike a guy who criticizes secularists but flatters creationists, the latter being the most debunked doctors in human history, charlatans and pseodo scientists supreme, to the tenth level. Thinks their efforts are misguided but appreciates them more for their enthusiasm? Uh huh. 'Misguided enthusiasm' is just a longer term for 'fanaticism'.

Obviously that's a remark that stems from who is audience is - people who may be just coming out of the creationist worldview. I see his comments to that regard as an attempt to get those people to at least open their minds to what he is saying.

Compare that to the acerbic and often insulting tone taken by many people here when talking about creationism.

Maybe he just believes that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

[Suburbanite]

I even have to admit, sometimes you need some Jesus, its nice to see these people offering a Jesus that just loves you and doesnt have any weird metaphysical beliefs about the nature of our world.

[Morality Games]

I take it you think they're not "quality" scientists? Oh wait, you must have been referring to them when you said "quantity" - since they certainly contain a large quantity - over 2000 - scientists. The NAS also contains a huge "quantity" of other things - like 170 Nobel Laureates. 30 second Google searches are your friend when you state something as fact in a debate forum.

Many non-religious, even atheistic-agnostic scientists are willing to show religion respect, if only to avoid controversey with the media, students, other academic apartments, the businesses they work for, the government, the public, etc -- the easiest way to do this is just to dismiss all allegations of conflict with statements such as you have posted. That way everybody can go home and live in peace. In private, most scientists probably entertain different ideas.

Science-studying philosophers tend to be less forgiving and less 'timid'.

Moreover, I think you are over-emphasizing the importance of what people, even scientists, think when it comes to the 'essence' of something (in this case, science). The words 'essence' and 'spirit' here best refer to the essentials of the logical propositions which serve as the foundation and justification for scientific investigation.

So, citing out the opinions of some scientists isn't enough -- you need to demonstrate the logical propositions founding / justifying science do not contradict religion (and knowing empiricism pretty well, I know they do).

Who is espousing a theory or a hypothesis? This guy certainly isn't. He calls his position a "state of mind" and a "worldview". He's not looking to test it, nor does he claim it is testable. He specifically says it is not a scientific theory - he says that evolution is a scientific theory (and an excellent one) and he only seeks to reconcile the best that science has to offer with belief in God.

The first mark of a senseless criticism is one which focusses in on particular words and on basis of that attempts to dismiss the whole -- this barely relates to what I said.

Also, my use of the term 'theory' is justified because in a philosophical or even theological context, that is how a view like this would be designated.

Now, to give you something to chew on, I'll elaborate more on what I meant by the spirit of empiricism; science was born out of the philosophy of empiricism -- experience is the test of all things and the only authentic basis for human knowledge -- and this philosophy held by extension (and still holds) that viewpoints inconsistant with naturalistic approaches to the world (natural experiences being the only experiences we are certain apply to all) do not constitute authentic knowledge. The final point is that such knowledge should be dismissed or put on the shelf until the time comes when it can be tested.

This does not mean that everything in science is absolutely certain (there are many theories) but each theory unceasingly attempts to aim for fact status, and is dismissed when it ceases to be useful in explaining / predicting phenomena.

Obviously that's a remark that stems from who is audience is - people who may be just coming out of the creationist worldview. I see his comments to that regard as an attempt to get those people to at least open their minds to what he is saying. Compare that to the acerbic and often insulting tone taken by many people here when talking about creationism. Maybe he just believes that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Obviously, but I'm not obligated to like it (and can be expected to criticize it) when it is done at my expense, against my will, and to little (if any) benefit to me.

Creationism is a debunked pseudo-science supported by desperate fanatics and nurtured by shameless liars. That sums up the movement fairly well. But I'll be less insulting and instead of saying shameless liars I'll say 'talented sophists', pseodo-science can be 'questionable science', and desperate fanatics can be 'poor, misinformed individuals'. See? I can be nice too.

[Suburbanite]

Cmon, sophists... why did you have to go there!

[Morality Games]

Maybe sophists is too archaic a word. Rhetoricians might work better.

[Kite]

I would love for this idea to go mainstream, I would no longer have to argue with zealous evangelicals that assert that the creation story is complete fact word for word. Religions were created as a way to give moral guidance and explanations for what happens after you die. They still serve the same purpose today. The real problem is people like those I cited above, those that take the Bible as a historical documentary instead of a teaching instrument used by the church.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Morality Games Maybe sophists is too archaic a word. Rhetoricians might work better.

I just personally like sophists, I feel like they are the precursors to ironist philosophers.

[Morality Games]

Popular acceptance of the idea would further entrench theistic sentiments, making people more resistant to secularism, but it would also convince people to regard science with less opposition, and thus be more open to scientific suggestions on crucial issues, so I would like it to go mainstream too.

[Suburbanite]

yeah, i agree as well. i feel that it is unfair that in order to feel the blind warming love of Jesus Christ people need to also accept other, unrelated, metaphysical fallacies.