Posted by Siamang on: 02.12.2007 /
(Thanks to Carl Buell in advance for his wonderful painting of young Darwin in the Galapagos.)
By Siamang
Today is the 198th birthday of Charles Darwin. With his 200th birthday coming up, folks have attempted to promote his birthday each year, with the hopes of spurring a big celebration in 2009.
Part of the Darwin festivities have been for the second year now, an “Evolution Sunday” event, the Sunday before Darwin’s birthday. Evolution Sunday was organized by Michael Zimmer, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Wisconsin. He organized it working with local clergy, and it has grown nationwide and has spread to a few international churches. On Evolution Sunday 2007, over 600 churches gave sermons about the compatibility of scientific understanding of evolution and religious faith.
It’s a small event, to be sure. 600 churches is just a drop in the bucket.
Did anyone here attend a service yesterday where Evolution Sunday was mentioned? What do people here think about issue-related campaigns to promote certain messages?
Does anyone think that an event like Evolution Sunday is going to have an effect, or is it merely relegated only to liberal congregations where such a statement would be uncontroversial?
Siamang
Comment by: Mike O
1I don’t see Evolution Sunday happening any time soon in anything other than liberal churches. Not necessarily because it’s “wrong,” it just has nothing to do with God, and conservative churches are (hopefully) focused on God-type topics.
Of course, I’m speaking from my own perspective and the types of churches I frequent (conservative leaning towards pentecostal).
The majority of Christians are going to view evolution anywhere from anti-Christian to, at best, independant of Christianity. And if evolution has no inherent spiritual value, what would be the point in celebrating it in church? Maybe I’m wrong, but the only aspect of evolution worth “celebrating” would be the lack of a need for God. Otherwies it would be akin to “celebrating” chemistry, physics or math, and why would a church do that?
Intelligent Design maybe fits the Christian worldview (God-directed evolution), but not a godless evolution. But either way, I’m not sure why even ID would be honored with a special day in church any more than any other biblical concept.
Comment by: Siamang
2This is where church loses me. I’d TOTALLY go to church if they celebrated these things. After all, who’s the supposed original Author of all of these?
If there is a God, physics is the might of His hand. Chemistry is His order among chaos, and mathematics is His divine logic.
I once attended a Stephen Hawking lecture on the formation of Baby Universes. I’d describe it as one of the most “spiritual” experiences of my life.
Comment by: Laura M.
3I could see celebrating God directed evolution on Darwin Day in church. One point is to reconcile religion and science. Over time, as more people learn about science, and the assumption for these churches appears to be that enough evidence as well as continual evidence for evolution has/will be found, Church leaders wouldn’t want people thinking they need to turn away from the church to find truth.
Don’t studies show only 30 something percent of Americans accept pure Creationism?
Comment by: NCxian
4Well, just looking at the list of churches, but not knowing anything in particular about any individual church, I would say they are from a mix of liberal and mainline denominations.
I don’tknow how well this was publicized. I hang out at various websites on topics of faith, not to mention this one where we talk all the time about evolution and faith, and I never heard the first word about evolution Sunday until just now. Did I just miss it?
I hear what you are saying, Mike, about evolution being a topic outside the realm of what church is about. However, I think a church might consider observing evolution Sunday to counterbalance the point of view that faith and science are incompatible. Have you not heard that view from the pulpit? I heard it at a “devotional” at my son’s basketball game last year!
Comment by: Laura M.
5I know the Catholic Church has publicly acknowledged acceptance of evolution and considers it part of the role of the church to inform/educate parishioners about the issue.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
6NCxian, Hemant mentioned it on his blog the other day. That was the first time I’d ever heard of it.
I’m sure the churches I used to go to wouldn’t have mentioned it unless it was because they were praying for the people who instituted it.
Siamang, the idea of a church celebrating math, chemisty and physics sounds interesting to me too.
But I see your point, Mike. It seems a little strange to me to devote Sunday services to Evolution Day - but perhaps that’s not what churches who recognized it were doing.
This is an interesting question.
I think the problem with them is that they can imply the whole group (church, or whatever) thinks alike on that issue and backs a particular stance on it (either for or against). Which isn’t necessarily the case.
I guess I prefer it when individuals have the freedom to promote a cause, as long as they aren’t doing it disruptively; and along with that, it’s made very clear whether the cause is also supported by the institution or not.
Comment by: Laura M.
7I just started attending a church that does just that. It’s called the North Texas Church of Freethought. Although technically it’s a ‘church’ for skeptics.
Comment by: Laura M.
8BTW,I did hear about Darwin Day there.
Comment by: Mike O
9Maybe that’s the issue … they *are* incompatible in the circles I run in. In fact, I’m still recovering from it myself! While I do not believe evolution happened, I no longer see evolution and faith as incompatible. Heck, it still feels wierd to me and I’ve been working on it for 6 months. It will be a long time before I ever hear it preached from the pulpit. But that’s just where I’m at with it.
My wife heard a great quote the other day that stuck with her and is sticking with me …
I want a thinking faith. And if that includes evolution, then I’m fine with that. It certainly could.
Comment by: NCxian
10Great quote, Mike!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
11Sorry to change the subject but you might get a kick out of reading the very first review of Jim and Casper Go to Church that was recently posted by a baptist preacher
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
12Jim, thanks for letting us know about this.
Comment by: NCxian
13I just read on MSNBC that the Kansas school board has repealed its Intelligent Design science standards. Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin!
Comment by: Karen
14Mike O:
Mike O. here’s a sincere question I’ve wondered about for a while but never had a chance to ask.
What do you think about the scientists who do research and publish studies that are directly or indirectly related to evolutionary theory?
We’re talking, of course, about tens of thousands of science grad students and PhDs who don’t just believe in evolution on faith, but who do specific experiments, field work, lab tests and research projects in genetics, biology, paleontology, archeology, and on and on.
Are they somehow confused or misinformed? Are they stupid? Are they deceived in some spiritual manner? Faking their life’s work as part of a global conspiracy against religion?
What do you think they’re all about? Or is it something you’ve not considered?
Comment by: Karen
15NC:
Woo-hoo! What timing. :-)
At this documentary I went to last weekend, all about the Kansas evolution wars (they call them EW1 and EW2), the filmmaker said that some of his audience members have recently asked, “Has intelligent design finally jumped the shark?
Maybe this is further proof that it has! No doubt the Discovery Institute is absolutely furious, though.
Comment by: Mike O
16Good questions Karen.
They may be right.
No, but they may not be looking at all the information. There is a spiritual element to the Christian world view that is ignored in science. On this point, though, I’m making a distinction between evolution and Intelligent Design (god-directed evolution, for lack of a better word).
No!
If they don’t believe in God then I would say yes, they are deceived. But just because they/we have evidence for evolution doesn’t mean they are deceived, no. I admit, the evidence for evolution is in PLENTIFUL supply! I don’t fault anybody for believing evolution really happened.
Not at all. I believe they are sincere.
I’ve been considering it SERIOUSLY for six, going on seven months now. I can’t pretend to speak for what they’re all about, but I can speak for where I have difficulty with it.
First of all, I’m 43 1/2. I’ve been undeniably creationist for 43 of those 43 1/2 years. It’s not that easy to undo a lifelong paradigm. Even with all the evidence for evolution, I still see things from a Christian worldview. A change of this magnitude doesn’t come easy for me. So thats part of it.
But the more intellectcual issue I have is this … evolution and God are not mutually exclusive (I learned that here). Evolution could be true without threatening my faith … not to say that being a “threat to my faith” would be a valid reason to reject evolution … I’m not saying that at all. It’s NOT a threat to my faith. So I’m OK with it from a spiritual perspective … ID, anyway.
My issue has to do more with the idea of “working the problem backwards.” If you start with the present day evidence, you can surmise a path backwards through time, WITH supporting evidence I might add, that supports evolution. Where it loses me is working the problem FORWARD through time, I just think it is so astronomically implausible that it is beyond reason. At least for me. But I recognize that I’m looking at it from a Christian worldview. I believe in God. Therefore, it is not a stretch for me to believe that God could just created everything. But it is a stretch for me to believe he didn’t. Does that make any sense?
I’ve gone over some of this before, and thanks, Siamang for the Intro to Evolution textbook you gave me. But I just don’t buy the premise that all of this evolved. For example, the sense of touch. WHY?? The sense of smell. WHY?? The bond between parent and child. What was the first organism to feel an emotional bond to it’s offspring?
Emotion, the will, thought are all things that exist today that I don’t believe could have evolved. That’s just where I’m at with it … I’ve got tons of things like that.
On the other hand, if evolution did happen, and I agree that it could have, it could look like we think it does.
So could evolution be true? Sure. I just don’t think so. At least, it doesn’t explain everything.
Could there NOT be a God? No, not the way I see things. There has to be a God.
Could there be bothGod and evolution? Yes. And if that turns out to be the case, that doesn’t change my faith … I’ll just be wrong about evolution.
Sorry about the long reply. I just hope people can see that it’s not a beligerant, stubborn refusal to believe that I’m struggling with. I just don’t think evolution explains enough. There’s too many holes.
Comment by: Karen
17Mike, thanks for your reply. Did you ever get the videotape I sent?
I don’t mean to say that you’re stubborn or beligerant. Quite the contrary: I recognize that you are struggling with some things that are radically new ideas for you. That comes through abundantly in your writing, and it’s perfectly understandable.
I don’t particularly want to reopen the evolution debate here. I’ve just always been curious what people who do not accept evolutionary theory think about the scientists whose work depends upon it. Thanks for explaining your point of view, that they are not stupid or evil but perhaps under-informed and/or deceived. (Remember that lots of scientists believe in god, however!)
Oh, one other thing: Intelligent Design is NOT god-directed evolution, it’s just a new, “more sciency-sounding” version of special creation. I suggest you just use the term “god-directed evolution” if that’s what you mean. :-)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
18Mike, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that you have questions about evolution. I have trouble envisaging how some things could have evolved myself. It’s not an issue I think about much because it doesn’t really seem to impact my life either way. But I did want to say, I understand why you find it hard to accept that some things evolved.
Comment by: Mike O
19Thanks for that, Karen and Helen. And I did receive the videotape you sent, Karen. I haven’t seen it yet, though. My life’s been on ’tilt’ since Christmas. It’s all good stuff, but it’s a LOT of good stuff!
Comment by: NCxian
20Hmmm, is “tilt” a word we can use anymore? I’m thinking it’s a pinball thing, but does anything tilt anymore? I suppose you can play games on your cell phone hanging upside down from a tree limb!
(Does anybody hang upside down from tree limbs anymore?)
Comment by: Raghu Mani
21Mike,
I generally lurk here (and on Hemant’s site) but here is a suggestion for you that no one in this discussion seems to have made. The assumption that scientists are ignoring the ‘Christian worldview’ is basically incorrect. There are many biologists who are both deeply committed Christians and strong supporters of evolution and many of them have written books on how they reconciled the two. I am aware of books by Ken Miller (a Catholic), Simon Conway-Morris (an Anglican) and Francis Collins (an Evangelical) and I am sure there are others.
These people aren’t minor players either. Miller is one of the authors of the school biology textbooks that were at the center of the recent Intelligent Design controversies and was a key witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, Conway-Morris is one of the greatest living paleontologists and Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project. I think your time will be better spent looking at what these people have to say (start with Miller) than reading more about evolution (you don’t seem to have too many problems with the evidence).
Hope that helps. OK, back to lurking.
Raghu
Comment by: Karen
22That’s an excellent suggestion, Raghu. Glad you’ve come out of the shadows and joined us! I hope you will feel comfortable commenting more often. :-)
Comment by: Mike O
23Thanks, Raghu. One thing I’ve learned here is that faith and evolution can go together. Looking again at what I wrote, I think what happened is I lumped all evolutionists in with atheists, which is an old pattern of thinking for me.
Comment by: Raghu Mani
24Mike,
It is very common for religious people to equate evolution with atheism/non-belief. That is the one thing that the creationists/ID proponents have been brilliant at doing. No matter how prevalent this idea may be, the fact it that it is simply not true. There are a ton of people who have been able to accept both their religious faith and evolution.
One more Ken Miller link - this is a video of a lecture he gave at Kansas University. For the atheist perspective, see the talk by Richard Dawkins and you can even check out the ID perspective by watching Michael Behe’s talk.
Raghu