Sometimes, in conflict, important skirmishes arise purely spontaneously while at other times clashes are impeccably planned. Please be advised that the next important battle in the culture wars is scheduled to take place in Tampa. No, not at the Republican convention! The next major battle is coming to Tampa months before the Republicans are arriving. It will take place in late April at the United Methodist Church's Quadrennial General Conference. And like most conflicts in the culture wars, it threatens to move us into the past by a little more than 150 years.
The issue is the relationship between religion and science with what I can only hope to be a small group of United Methodists working to redefine the denomination's position to bring it fully in line with a fundamentalist, anti-science worldview.
The question is, will the 12 million members of this denomination opt to return to the scientific dark ages? Will they turn their collective backs on modern science? While I can't really imagine such an anti-intellectual thing happening, there are forces at work attempting to turn this position into reality. Let me explain.
At the last Quadrennial General Conference, the three following motions passed demonstrating that the United Methodist Church membership understood that religion and science need not conflict and that faith does not define scientific fact:
1. The sentence, "We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology," was added to the section on "Science and Technology" in the Church's Book of Discipline;
2. The Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Weekend were explicitly endorsed by the United Methodist Church; and
3. The Conference adopted a resolution explicitly opposing creationism in all of its forms: "The United Methodist Church goes on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools."
I hasten to add that all three of these motions were adopted overwhelmingly.
But now, just four years later, forces are organizing to retract these strong statements. A resolution has been introduced to remove the word evolution from the Book of Discipline. Another has been introduced to retract the endorsement of The Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Weekend. And still a third has been introduced to delete the Church's clear opposition to creationism in the science classroom.
The latter two resolutions were offered by Reverend Gale Shunk from Pennsylvania. He's affiliated with the money-making operation known as Answers in Genesis, the group responsible for the theme park in Kentucky known as The Creation Museum and the group that promotes the belief that humans and dinosaurs playfully cavorted together about 6,000 years ago. Reverend Shunk has explained his position clearly in two essays he published on the Answers in Genesis web page.
In the first of the two, Reverend Shunk makes it clear that he is a young earth creationist who believes "that God created the universe in six solar days." But the good reverend goes further than merely expressing personal opinions that are in opposition to those held by the world's scientific community as well as the teachings of his own denomination. He attacks the very premise of science, the premise that has permitted scientific inquiry to dramatically advance our understanding of the natural world since the scientific method was established. He boldly asserts, "We all would do well to hold on to the changeless eternal Word of God and not put our faith in scientific principles that change constantly when a better theory arises."
The power of science is that all of its conclusions are tentative, open to further investigation and required to be formed in concert with available data. Science has permitted us to make so much progress for the simple reason that we always update our scientific theories as new information arises. But Reverend Shunk criticizes the discipline for its willingness to "change constantly when a better theory arises." Would he have us believe that maggots come from rotting meat, ignoring the theory offered by Louis Pasteur? Or would he have us return to the homunculus theory of human development which stated that fully formed, but very, very tiny, humans were present in each sperm?
In the second of his two Answers in Genesis essays, Reverend Shunk makes the stale argument that evolution should be considered a religion rather than a science: "naturalistic evolution is a belief system itself, not science." Since Reverend Shunk offers little to support his extreme position other than his opinion, I'll not bother to refute his argument other than to offer the following words by conservative judge William Overton, who, in a 1982 ruling, declared it unconstitutional to mandate the teaching of creationism in public school science classes: "it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion."
What will happen in Tampa? Will the United Methodist Church remain solidly rooted in the 21st century or will it begin a long and fruitless march into the past? You can sit back and watch; I'll keep you informed.
Or you can help shape the future. If you're one of the 12 million members of the denomination, speak up loudly and let your representatives to the Quadrennial Conference know your feelings. There are 998 delegates and you can find out who represents you by contacting your local annual conference office or the United Methodist Church general headquarters.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Evan Eisenberg: The Natural Selection of the Immortal Soul: A Thought Experiment
Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My response to Dr. Mark Zimmerman’s Huffington Post article entitled “The United Methodist
Church Flirts with Creationism” attacking my view of the Holy Scriptures and Genesis in particular with such anger and arrogance is as follows. My rationale attached to the petition to take out the Clergy Letter endorsement from the Book of Resolutions and Discipline is simple. Here it is. “The Clergy Letter Project does not address environmental awareness, energy conservation, or “the perils that now threaten the integrity of God’s creation” nor does it reconcile science and Christianity or science and our Wesleyan Doctrinal Heritage, but rather propagandizes and promotes false doctrines of non-Christian religions and cults.” As United Methodist Christian believers our aim is to make disciples for the transformation of the world and to please God the Father. The “Clergy Letter Project” gets us off track with the main business of the United Methodist Church and dishonors our worship of the Triune God. The founding principles and worldview of the “Clergy Letter Project” are not in alignment with the fundamental Constitutional Doctrinal Standard of the United Methodist Church as expressed in our Book of Discipline Doctrinal Standards, Confession of Faith, and Preamble of the Social Principles. Therefore it should be removed from the Book of Resolutions Paragraph # 1027. That is my opinion and, I should be allowed the freedom to express it.
Sincerely, Rev. Dale (not Gale) R. Shunk
April 12, 1012
And this is bad why? Actually the principles of investigation remain the same, it's the conclusions that change. OF COURSE - that's what science does. I bet he won't question that mere theory of gravity :-).
An artist’s personality can be revealed by his paintings. Similarly, the “invisible qualities” of God, the Designer and Creator of the universe, are clearly seen in creation. (Romans 1:20) When we carefully observe God’s handiwork, we obtain a better understanding of his personality, and he thus becomes more real to us.
If you go beyond casual observation of things created by God, you may be deeply impressed with the reality of his qualities. For example, information about the navigational abilities of birds may well heighten your appreciation of God’s wisdom. In reading about the universe, you may learn that the Milky Way, which is about 100,000 light-years across, is only one of billions of galaxies throughout space. Does that not impress upon you the reality of the Creator’s wisdom?
Certainly, God’s wisdom is real! But what does that mean to you? Well, he surely cannot be perplexed by the problems that any of us take to him in prayer. Yes, even meager knowledge of creation can make God more real to you.
Christianity is copying Islam's rejection of rationalism which has brought it so much success: http://seanrobsville.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/civilization-is-west-history-science-by.html
Then we have science better known as materialism scientism; that we exist due to some cosmic accident that cannot be repeated but because enough scientists believe it; it now becomes a fact taught as a fact that cannot be challenged.
This cosmic accident means there is no meaning and purpose to a human life other than what that human gives it meaning and purpose. The human ego loves that one: i.e. look at me at the meaning and purpose I have given to my life, ain’t I special.
Now what caused the universe known as the big bang to these scientists to keep their materialism valid in their minds; well infinite universes created infinite universes. Kind of like the turtles all the way down to hold up the earth.
These are the two choices most Americans make. And we wonder why we are a sinking ship in America?
Just yesterday three UMC scientists posted a letter to one of the Legislative Committees considering an evolution petition saying: “a person who will never work in a pharmacogenetics laboratory can appreciate that the breakthroughs leading to widespread accessibility of a life saving drug, human insulin for human diabetics, would never have occurred without direct application of Darwin's evolutionary laws to the creation of genetically modified bacteria. The same applies to ongoing discovery of desperately needed vaccines, antibiotics and cancer drugs, and to the fields and barnyards where manifold enhancements of agricultural yields over the last 50 years have averted untold starvation and suffering, especially among the poorest and most vulnerable of God's children. The quiet magnificence and beneficence of Darwin's theory is well beyond proof of principle, and so to the extent Christians deny natural truths underpinning scientific evolution, we risk promoting rather than alleviating suffering.”
Which side of the evolution fence would Jesus want his representatives (the United Methodist Church in this case) to be sitting on???
Perhaps it means not pledging a vow of loyalty to any theory, pronouncement or hypothesis which is accepted by scientists.
Scary.
That isn't what I said, though is it? Science methodology is a very stringent way to understand the workings of the natural world. Since you misunderstand/mischaracterize what science actually is, I'm not surprised that you prefer the feel-good mythology of religion. Knock yourself out!
"Real science deals with sufficient causes for observed effects."
Wrong. Real science only accepts natural causes for natural phenomena. That's why creationism will never be considered as anything but pseudoscience.
"Jesus made us."
And your evidence for that is...?
"Written DNA instructions make our bodies, symbols carefully placed to convey desired meaning."
Another misunderstanding. DNA is a "language" in metaphor only.
"Darwin was a creative yarn-spinner. "
And that "yarn" has been supported by over 150 years of evidence.
"Think seriously; ask questions"
There you go--that's how science works!
As for this oft cited claim that we came from rocks- too much Kent Hovind will melt your mind. He loved to say that evolution teaches we come from rocks.
I suggest folks do some research. Read the other side's claims. Read them from their own writings. I read creationist stuff regularly, nowadays in the ever more vain hope of finding something honest and correct. I often read something by YECSers and think "could this be correct?" and hope it is. I am always disappointed. This saddens me that fellow Christians should be so committed to untruth.
"Think seriously; ask questions--there's nothing there but puffery. "
Feel free to pass on this link to any United Methodist connections you have:
EVOLUTIONARY CREATION
(leading evangelicals who celebrate evolution sharing their "testimonials")
http://EvolutionaryCreation.com
I urge you to listen to even just one or two of the short audio clips. They are FABULOUS!!
Here they all are stitched together in a podcast: http://evolvingfaith.libsyn.com/webpage/6-evolutionary-creation-samples-of-10-episode-audioseries
Enjoy!
~ Michael
I really don't think its honest to suggest that atheists or agnostics expect science to be everything in their lives. There is still room, even if you accept the truths of science, for spirituality. Just not dogma based religion.
"If you don't learn to tell the difference between what's true, and what you *wish* were true,"
This is a perfect example of theories becoming facts and facts becoming truths in the minds of materialists, exactly like those christians thinking their bible is all truth. amazing how alike religion and scientism have become more alike than different.
I just believe in a Deity with no organised religion. Also I believe we do have a guiding influence.
I agree that all this is up to us to deal with and that humans must push forward.
you can almost hear the thought process - "hey, they already believe in crazy stuff, let's see if they'll swallow this whole!"
i have no idea if you, or jbarelli are Creationists. if so, there is no reason to attempt to communicate with you. i've tried in the past, but logic and reason have past these people by. so, if the UMC wants to consider Creation or ID teaching, you can add them to the list of hopeful time travelers who wish Scientific discovery had never taken place. it has, and their children will be left in the dust by the rest of the civilized world.
as for my thought process, what would you know about it? you have as little evidence based on my 2 line comment as you have for your belief in God, which is to say exactly zero.