Church Lectures Link Evolution, Creation
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Church Lectures Link Evolution, Creation

By Meredith Heagney

The Columbus Dispatch Friday February 10, 2012 10:28 AM

 

The cartoon the pastor projected onto the screen depicted Charles Darwin and Jesus Christ in a physical struggle, on the verge of strangling each other.

The Rev. Tommy Faris, pastor of University Baptist Church near Ohio State University, is tired of the idea that you can believe in evolution or God but not both.

Science and faith are compatible, he said Monday during the first in a series of lectures on combining scientific and theological views.

Not everyone feels the way Faris does. And the rhetoric could ramp up this year since controversial topics — the teaching of evolution, stem-cell research, climate change — often draw attention during presidential campaigns.

Evolution was the topic of University Baptist’s program Monday night. While the scientific community is settled on the theory, some Christians find it troubling because it doesn’t give credit for creating the world and its species to God.

Lawmakers in at least four states are taking steps to hinder the teaching of evolution in schools. A common tactic is to push bills that require the teaching of various theories about the origin of life, meaning a district could require teachers to talk about creationism alongside evolution.

Bills introduced in Indiana, New Hampshire, Missouri and Oklahoma are challenging evolution’s hold on science class. Other groups are trying to stop them.

To Faris, it’s all quibbling. Science and faith are both gifts from God, he told the audience for the first program in the series "Believers Exploring Science and Theology.”

His congregation was one of 37 to receive a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, based in Pennsylvania, to bring scientists into houses of worship. In the coming months, speakers will address stars, ecosystems and nanotechnology.

On Monday, Kerry Cheesman, a professor of biochemistry and genetics at Capital University, presented a lively introduction to the theory of evolution — specifically, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.

He said Darwin was a man of faith himself and even took a Bible on his round-the-world voyage on HMS Beagle, a trip that helped him form the basis of his theories.

Evolution "in no way eliminates God as the creator of the species,” Cheesman said.

Faris presented the concept of theistic evolution, or the idea that evolution is the process by which God’s activity happens.

"Remember this: Science cannot prove there is no God,” he said. "But if you’re a person of religion, you have to remember you can’t prove the existence of God.”

But theistic evolution ignores the account of creation in the Bible, said Georgia Purdom, a research scientist and speaker at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. Purdom holds a doctorate in molecular genetics from Ohio State University.

The problem with Faris’ view is that "God’s word is supreme in the New Testament and not supreme in the Old Testament,” she said. "It’s only going to be a matter of time before other things, like the miracles of Christ, become questionable, too, if we’re taking man’s authority over God’s word."

It’s the fundamentalist, conservative Christians who are at odds with science, not most churches, said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. The group of secularists advocates for the separation of church and state and a limited religious influence on public life.

Science debates will come up in the general election, he said, because President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger are likely to be at odds on the topics.

Information from Religion News Service was included in this story.

Comments

Jim,Feel free to rip this post apart .The Dark Ages is not really cnsiodered to be all that dark in academia today. It originated as a lazy term that basically described an age that scholars knew little about. And if we know little about it, well then it can't be all that good, can it? The myth that it was some horrible anti-intellectual, anti-scientific time period caused by backwards-thinking Christians is not only ridiculous, but it's also no longer very credible. I can put you in touch with Dr. Kevin Herlihy, a Middle Ages historian at UCF and University of Dublin (also a communist and no great lover of Christianity) if you'd like more information on that.As a matter of fact, contrary to Western-centric myth propogators who have turned the Enlightenment into some age of sheer awesomeness, instead of the newly racist and elitist time period that it was, the Dark ages was a time when the foundation of modern medicine, as well as the Scientific Method (see Grossteste), was founded. And let's keep in mind, it was monastaries and the Catholic church that was funding, patroning and leading this time period. Schola Medica was a medical university that an English monastary started during the Dark ages. 12th century Italian monstaries (maybe 11th century, the memory fails me) began a time period of historically significant medical advances. The intellectual stagnation of the 5th and 6th century was the result of the fall of Rome and the loss of Greek texts, which had been the foundation for medical advances up until that point. It slowed progress up a little bit, and then the world quickly rebounded. The Dark ages simply didn't exist in a way that 20th century Western-centric historians believe that it did.All of this came BECAUSE of the church. The monastaries is where any texts was found, and it was where any new texts were writtes. Monastaries started universities (Cambridge and Oxford) and led the advancement of science and medicine. I don't love the Catholic church anymore than I love the idea of science being anything other than faith, but I also can't pretend that the Dark ages was an anti-scientific time. It wasn't. Galileo wasn't threatened with torture, and it wasn't neccessarily because of his heliocentric beliefs, since, after all, Copernicus dedicated his book to the pope. Modern historians aren't quite sure how or why that myth began, but it's a myth nonetheless. He was put under some form of house arrest, so that was correct, but it probably had more to do with his critique of the Pope (who, until that point, cnsiodered Galileo somewhat of a friend, insofar as Popes can have friends) and Galileo's insistence on turning it into a theological, Biblical debate (Galileo was convinced Scripture backed his argument, which it probably does.) Again, as a Protestant, I'm no great fan of the Catholic church. But history is history.Your last sentence is probably overly-simplistic, but technically true in some sense. I can't quibble with it .Please know that I make this post with all respect, and as a fun debate. I harbor no ill-will or anything. I'm sure I don't have to build this bridge, but the internet can be a nasty place, and motives can be misconstrued very easily.
Saturday, September 15, 2012 - Eduard

Leave a Comment

(will not be shown)
Code Image - Please contact webmaster if you have problems seeing this image code Load New Code