Here's a simple, two-question test.
1. Which of the following is different from all the others?
A. Cuba
B. Iran
C. Israel
D. Tajikistan
E. Texas
The correct answer depends on your perspective. Cuba is the only island in the group. Iran is the only Islamic republic in the group. Israel is the only one that guarantees citizenship to anyone of Jewish heritage. Tajikistan is the only landlocked geographic region. Texas is the only one that isn't a nation.
All those answers, and lots of others, are interesting -- but not as interesting as the fact that the national academies of science of Cuba, Iran, Israel, and Tajikistan have all signed a statement on the teaching of evolution while the Texas State Board of Education has made it clear that it has serious doubts about the subject.
In fact, 63 other academies of science have joined with those of Cuba, Iran, Israel, and Tajikistan to promote the teaching of evolution. Additionally, myriad disciplinary scientific societies have issued similar statements. In short, there simply isn't any scientific controversy about the importance of evolutionary theory -- even while, as with every scientific theory, we continue to learn more details every day.
2. What do the following have in common?
A. Sarah Palin's claim that health care reform will lead to "death panels."
B. The birthers' claim that President Obama was born in Kenya.
C. The constant refrain that the evolution/creation controversy is a battle between religion and science.
The simple answer is that there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that each statement is false while proponents of each hope that the frequency and volume of repetition substitutes for truth.
The mere existence of the Clergy Letter Project, an international organization I founded that is comprised of thousands of clergy members and scientists, demonstrates that religious leaders and scientists are not inherently at odds. After all, more than 12,400 Christian clergy members from all across the United States have signed the Christian Clergy Letter, a powerful, two-paragraph statement promoting a shared understanding and acceptance of evolution and Christianity.
What could be clearer than these sentences from that Letter? "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts[...]. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
The thousands of Christian clergy members who have affixed their signatures to the Christian Clergy Letter are a remarkably diverse group. They are men and women, liberals and conservatives. They represent many races, a host of denominations and some come from tiny, rural parishes while others preach in some of our largest cathedrals. Some were ordained this year while others have been serving for more than half a century.
As diverse as they are, they have three things in common: they all have an abiding faith in their religion, having devoted a significant portion of their lives to understanding and promoting Christianity; they all recognize the scientific centrality of evolution, advocate that it be taught in our schools, and understand that it poses no threat to their faith; and they've all been attacked mercilessly for their beliefs by those who think their view of religion is the only one that matters.
Consider just one such attack -- one made by Robert Bowie Johnson in his book entitled Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences' Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They're Descended from Reptiles. He wrote, "In my judgment, only morons -- more than 11,500 morons in this case -- could sign a letter maintaining that the 'timeless truths of the Bible' are compatible with the billions of unpredictable aberrations of evo-atheism. What do these apostate morons celebrate at their Sunday services, the lies about humanity's origins told by Moses, Jesus, and Paul?" It's worth noting that Johnson's book, along with his bizarre opinions, was solidly endorsed by Don McLeroy when he was chair of the Texas State Board of Education last year and working to protect Texas school children from the evils of evolution.
When American rabbis and Unitarian Universalist clergy members heard about the Christian Clergy Letter, they felt strongly enough about evolution that they wanted their own. More than 460 rabbis and 220 UU clergy have now signed those letters.
The United Methodist Church formally endorsed the Clergy Letter Project at its general conference in 2008, and many other denominations have issued statements fully supporting evolution.
Scientists have joined the effort as well. Almost 900 scientists from 29 countries have signed on as consultants to the Clergy Letter Project.
These scientists have agreed to work with clergy to advance their understanding of evolution and the nature of science.
So, thousands of religious leaders and the world's best scientists are in agreement that evolution is first-rate science that should be taught in our schools. And yet vocal fundamentalists continue to say that religion and evolution are incompatible and work tirelessly to find a way to force their religious doctrines into public school science classes and laboratories.
It's time to look at the fight with fresh eyes. It no longer makes any sense to talk about the issue being a battle between religion and science since so many religious leaders and scientists are comfortable working together. What's really going on is a fight between those who have a very narrow view of religion and religious leaders who think a good deal more broadly.
Those who are attacking evolution are attempting to define all religion in their own image and to marginalize all alternative religious voices in their single-minded attempt to promote their minority perspective.
The evolution/creation controversy is really a struggle between alternative religious worldviews and has precious little to do with science. But, because of the way it has been cast for all these years, science education has suffered significantly.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
How can we discuss a book — any book — with people who dropped out of grammar school before they learned about figures of speech? These are parables, children. This is a metaphor for that.
It is simply not possible to have a dialogue with anyone who does not understand these things or with anyone who obstinately refuses to admit the obvious. Yet that is what American's have done... for over fifty years, in this empty debate over "evolution." There is no debate. Evolutions is a premier scientific theory. The faux arguments against it mock science, deny facts and accept only preposterous lies.
Everybody know that. What sort of fools would allow such a charade to go on on a national level in ways that degrade the education of generation after generation of American students? What is the future of a nation that can not manage to move beyond a dumb-show?
As stated in my previous post the Christian Clergy Letter states: "Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation."
In the spirit of discerning minds what specific "timeless truths" are embedded in the Bibles stories of "the Creation, Adam and Eve, [and] Noah and the ark"? I understand the "timeless truths" are not the literal translation of these stories as that point is well articulated in the Christian Clergy Letter but I am unclear what they may be and whatever they may be why the bible is the only medium capable of "transmitting these truths from generation to generation."
We might not understand God's rationals since he is all knowing and humans look at the angles that catches their attentions. From a human perspective there is no rational in saying if you kill an inocent person it is the same as killing the whole human race, but from divine source it is the moral itself. God does not have to obey our rational thinking, but we have to follow his!
If what God did in Noah story was done by any human, it would be a genocide but God has authority and wisdom to do it because he knows best what good will come from it and what bad is prevented. We do not have the authority to do the same thing and if you do it you become like Hitler or Saddam!
The moral stories of Noah story is plentiful, but most striking was that his son drowned because he did not followed the divine guidelines and thought he is smart enough to weather the disaster on his own.
1. We cannot and should not think that we are smarter than God.
2. You can go astray even if you are the son of a prophet, be careful not be so arrogant.
3. Do not leave the divine side, because it is most stupid thing you can do!
From the Christian Clergy Letter: "Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation."
Please explain specifically what these "timeless truths" are.
I, too believe in evolution and scientific theory. But I have also read a lot about supernatural experiences, comparative religion and inexplicable events.
I said that I hope that there is an afterlife of some form. I didn't say that I knew that there was one, nor do I know what it is, if it exists.
I am trying to keep an open mind as I progress through my life. Apparently, yours is slammed shut.
However, I did not criticize your beliefs. I think it is a kind of arrogance on your part to believe that the billions of people who believe in something other wordly than the state we live in are all wrong. I'm not talking about any one religion. In fact, I don't adhere to any of them except for a worship if you will of Nature. That in itself is a miracle.
But, you may be right that we are simply born, live and die. However, if true, what exactly do you have to live for?
They are entitled to cling to their own particular notions but not when they try to influence public policy in, for example, the field of education. Our children's freedom from religious dogma is at stake.
Scientists are not without emotion - we are passionate about truth and justice too.
I take issue with the entire premise of your post. You've simply played the old science versus religion canard and given it a twist. You've correctly stated that we ought to tear apart this old strawman but then suggested that we thatch a new one from it! The very real Creation/Evolution controversy isn't an in-house squabble between religious factions, as you would paint it. Not to have to state the painfully obvious, it's a debate between creationists and evolutionists. Both adherents of this worldview utilize a weight of arguments and scientific evidences to bolster their origins worldviews.
Your attempts to trivialize this very real controversy are transparent at best.
I've given your post a much fuller critique here:
http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/how-atheist-michael-zimmerman-attempts-to-trivialize-the-creationevolution-controversy/
Rev Tony Breeden
CreationLetter.com
The Biblical Creationist response to the pro-Evolution Clergy Letter Project
When you write “I think both Evolution Weekend and the Clergy Compromise Letter absolutely [sic] a slap in the face to Biblical authority. I think you're just using these misguided, misinformed clergy for your own purposes, to undermine the Creationist position and, ultimately, Biblical authority” (as you did to me), it’s clear what the issue’s about for you. I assure you that the religious leaders who have signed The Clergy Letter are neither “misguided” nor “misinformed.” And, I assure you, they have not “undermined…Biblical authority.” Rather, their respect for the Bible means that they look to it for moral and spiritual lessons without any desire to turn it into a science text.
As an atheist outsider, I cannot expect you to fully comprehend the situation you're commenting upon. Not to put too fine apoint on it, sir, but as an atheist, you are in no position to offer assurances concerning these clergy who've compromised Sola Scriptura for scriptura sub scientia. These clergy who happen to disagreee with me also happen to disagree with the traditional [that is to say, the orthodox] interpretation of the Bible. They have drifted far left of center. Has it not occured to you that almost all your signatures are from the liberal mainline churches and from "Christian" movements [like the Unity churches] that have traditionally been viewed as cults?
You hold them to be neither misguided nor misinformed because they agree with an atheist on how the Bible ought to be interpreted, which is hubris. Of course you think so!
I take issue with the straw man you've thatched together by saying the scientists are only on the side of evolution: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
You see, this is where your attempt to trivialize the creation/evolution debate fails. Both sides have their clergymen. Both sides have accredited scientists who feel strongly about the issue. You've erroneously painted the very real debate as a chess board where one side only has pawns and bishops, when both sides have their
pawns, bishops, rooks, knights and royalty.
Rev Tony Breeden
CreationLetter.com
1 – Texas because all the rest are countries. The correct answer does not depend on perspective it depends on the question and the possible answers.
2 – What they all have in common is that the statements are true. Sarah Palin did bring up the “death panel” idiocy, the idiot birthers do claim Obama is Kenyan and the creationism vs evolution does pit religion against science.
Michael Zimmerman in his article Redefining The Creation/Evolution Controversy quotes the following statement from the Clergy Letter Project: “We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth." The Christian Clergy Letter has been signed to date by 12,484 Christian Clergy. The Unitarian Universalist Letter also contains this language and presently has been signed by 223 UU Clergy. Interestingly the Rabbi Letter, (signed by 471 Rabbi) does not contain the above referenced statement.
Regardless of how many clergy support this sentiment, this statement is vacuous of substance. Well accepted scientific theory and fact are far from truths. Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s (don’t forget Alfred!) Theory of Evolution is embraced because its predications based on observations align compellingly with repeated experiments. The theory is not infallible. Far from it. Well accepted scientific theory and fact stand on the edge of certainty with large red Xs on their respective backs waiting to be replaced or at the very least subtly altered with the arrival of more compelling predications resulting from experiments. Simply stated science does not ascertain knowledge with respect to the empirical world a priori. To the contrary.
It would be instructive if Mr. Zimmerman, or any of the Clergy that support the above referenced statement, would define “religious truth” and provide at least 10 such examples of religious truths.
Clouds don't exist because they can't be replicated in an experiment.
(something that 'looks' like a cloud can be created)
Warmth from the sun doesn't exist because it can't be replicated
in an experiment. (and please don't tell me you can get the sun in
a laboratory--you can't!)
"Satisfaction" of seeing a sunset or a job well done to one's standards
doesn't exist because no two people are identical, in any terms.
A 'good night's sleep' can't be proven or replicated, so it never happened.
And the list goes on.
There are universes of wonders out there that can't be replicated.
GET OVER IT!
Science, no matter how 'inglorious' it consider itself, cannot
REPLICATE anything in a laboratory exactly as it was done the very
first time. The atoms will not be the same, the molecules will not be
the same, the air will not be the same, the lighting will not be the
same, the time will not be the same. It will be an approximation,
not an absolute!
You people live in such a tiny world. You have my sympathy.
And no, this doesn't mean that I agree with the article. It means that
I wish science would get out of its fetal position.
I am as disconcerted with the notion of a scientific “truth” as stated in the Christian Clergy Letter as I am equally perplexed by the notion of a religious “truth.” As I rhetorically asked in my post Mr. Zimmerman and the 12,000 clergy who signed the letter (read the last sentence of my post), it would be instructive if they would define religious “truth” and provide at least 10 such examples. I welcome your insight to the above referenced statement from the Christian Clergy Letter. If that statement is not “vacuous of substance” perhaps you (or Mr. Zimmerman) can clarify for me what a religious “truth” is and provide a few examples.
Mr. Zimmerman should be cautious of sweeping language as it has a tendency to mislead. The article states that the Clergy Letter Project is, “comprised of thousands of clergy members and scientists . . .” Oh, really? Thousands of scientists? Hhhmmm...
Is the Clergy Letter Project really comprised of thousands of scientists? Mr. Zimmerman states that over 12,400 Christian clergy have signed the letter. How many of those clergy were scientists who signed the letter? How many were not clergy, but simply scientists?
Mr. Zimmerman frames his article Redefining The Creation/Evolution Controversy as if it’s a legitimate controversy between secular scientists and Christianity, Judaism, and Unitarianism when it arguably is merely a controversy amongst individuals who identify themselves with one of the three aforementioned religions, a small minority of which may be scientists.
In response to your other point about the scientists who are involved with The Clergy Letter Project, let me say, as I said above, that there are almost 900 scientists who have signed on as scientific consultants to The Clergy Letter Project. Additionally, there are many more who are members but who have opted not to put their information on our web page. While some of the clergy who have signed The Clergy Letter are also Ph.D. scientists, most of the scientists on our consultant list are not clergy members. Hope this helps clarify matters for you.
If that is the case, we have two sects who worship the Bible and Torah that have vastly different views on religion..
What else would you do with the Bible and Torah?
We can all believe what we want to, but none of us will know the answer until we die.
To paraphrase the great philosopher, Epicurus... regarding death:
Death is nothing to us: when we are, death has not come... when death has come, we are not.
This brute fact seems to be the nub of soooo many problems for humans. Not capable of accepting our mortality. EVERYTHING in the universe is mutable and evolves: everything on this planet and every identifiable cosmic structure "dies". Heck, no one will recognize the Milky Way after Andromeda collides with it in about 2 billion yrs... or when RA goes red-giant in about 6-8 billion.
Sorry my friend, but "souls' don't exist apart from brains... and you'll "know" not a thing when the entity known as "you"... are no longer. Think of it this way: what exactly did you "know" before your birth?
Cheers.
I still want to believe that souls, life forces, or whatever you want to call them, live on after death. Else, what is the point of existence? If I do die and reincarnate, or go on to some other existence, or if I just cease to be, my point is that I won't know until I die.
As for what I knew before birth, there are many famous documented stories of reincarnation. Studies have found that many statements and descriptions from past lives were true, but physically and logically, these people could not have known these things other than having existed before.
Try typing in Reincarnation on Bing and see how many links come up. There is even one that mentions reincarnation in the Bible.
I think religion is man's way to try to explain his existence and to answer philosophical questions like what is Truth, why am I here and where do I go when I die?
But to get back to the point of the story, I don't mind Creationism being taught as an elective religious course. However, it should never be confused or set as an equivalent of science. Creattionism would argue that enormous, meat eating dinasaurs lived at the same time as humans, yet there is absolutely no evidence of this. I'm not arguing that Evolution has all of the answers, but it does have many provable, testible and repeatable items. Creationism can not be proven or disproven. It is a religious belief and should not be confused with scientific enquiry.
Atheism explains that morality is a social obligation but not a passport to heaven and salvation. The theistic belief in divine retribution sidetracked moral behavior. Believers were more prone to please the god of their imagination by prayer and ritual than to conform to rules of moral conduct. Consequently immorality and anti-social activities spread wild wherever people were absorbed in the worship of god and in the propitiation of fate. Atheism brings about radical changes in the outlook of people in this context. Truth, tolerance, love and equality are the basic needs of social harmony. Membership of society imposes on everyone the obligation of their observance now and here. Transgressions should be checked and punished by public opinion and mutual control, since immorality on the part of anyone disturbs the happiness of everyone involved in the social relation. The indirect method of encouraging morality through hope and fear of requital in the other world lent itself to much abuse, especially when the concept of the other-world was exposed to be a big hoax. So atheism which bases morality on social obligation and self-discipline and which controls violations with persuasion and pressure of satyagraha, ensures ethical behavior more definitely and reliably than religious faith could.
Isn't it in our best interests to treat others as we would have them treat us a more obvious reason to do good?
Aren't all religious texts fundamentally folklore and oral history? I believe that the Golem is also Jewish Folklore. Could there be truths to these stories?
After all, the Bible has been translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin as well as the current English version. Would you agree that something may have changed or been misinterpretated over the thousands of years of translation? It even says that giants once walked the Earth. Were they giant people, or an offshoot of the human race?
What of the Council of Nicea under Constantine? They were interpreting words and also decided which books would be included in the current Bible. The Gnostics and the Gospel of St Thomas were left out . I recall in religious studies that there were 7 versions of Genesis, before they settled on one. There was also great debate regarding the word Homoousias and it's usage. These were men making decisions, not GOD.
THis gives me misgivings that man had any say in the matter, if all scripture is the Word of God.
This leads to the question, did God create man, or did man create God?
Reflect on what science has revealed about the universe: 99.9999999______% hostile to C-based life as we know it... not to mention that human life is but a blip on the screen of cosmological time... or the fact that all the species alive today are but a ridiculously small % of those now extinct. Could this be any sane person's version of Intelligent Design???
There can be no doubt humans have historically fashioned their god(s) out of their narrow socio-political culture. Actually, the gods of old were far more believable (mythic) in the context of the universe we find ourselves, versus the cartoonish, humanesque, vengeful and petty god-the-father of the bible... and the rather anemic jesus figure.
Finally, any one who has bothered to do a modicum of research must wonder why there is absolutely nothing unique about the jesus-god-man myth versus "pagan" precursors: Hercules; Addonis; Perseus; Mithras; Osiris; Attis; Dionysus, et al. To claim otherwise is simply "special pleading".
Yup, humans are not yet ready to accept they are embedded fully in a Natural World, sans the supernatural, still clinging to fantasy gods and god-men. Quite frankly, accepting the Natural Order is... well, liberating!
How many "believe" in gravity and spacetime, but have never read Einstein's essays on general and special relativity... or Newton's work for that matter.
Among inter-personal discussion seeking truth and knowledge, the word "believe" should be banished, replaced by the phrase "what is the evidence for _____ "?
Thus, instead of "I believe in an afterlife"... "What is the evidence for an afterlife?"
Answer: none.
Conversed with any ghosts lately?
Cheers.
Do I need to prove it to you. Nah. It doesn't matter to me whether
you accept my FACT or not. It won't change my life one iota. And
yours? Well, your life is yours to do the best you can with it as is
mine.
Oh, and gravity is still a theory, like it or not. If you don't understand
the one common denominator to all theories, you won't understand
the theories.
Space and time..... man's inventions, labels.
Uh, now reading Origin of the Species. Doesn't
look good, as writing goes.
There's more than one controversy involving creationism. There's the one created by attempts to force / sneak / whatever its teaching in public school science classes. You'd have to live under a rock to not observe signs of this one in our culture. Hasn't it been going on seemingly forever? There you go - prolonged public debate". There's another one internal to self-identifying Christians in which creationists have posed the false dichotomy that Christians must make an either/or choice between accepting evolution science and faith. The audience is smaller but still numerous enough to quality as public. And it's been going on for as long as the other one. And it's still just wrong.
Although I self-identify as a Christian, I vehemently oppose teaching creationism is science classes because it is, as you said, just wrong. I equally oppose all other forms of forced attendance of religious observances in public schools. When it comes down to matters internal to the Christian faith, I don't like mistaken conclusions being peddled as "God's truth" to people who are struggling to figure out how to deal with the unexplainable in their lives.
PS You might appreciate the sticker on my car: "Jesus Is A Liberal". I have a T-Shirt expressing the same.