Hello, I was under the understanding that Darwin was an agnostic not an atheist, and remained so until his death; and furthermore, he was a theist until the death of his daughter, which he could not accept from a benevolent God. There IS acceptance of the step-wise pattern of evolution leading to humans among many Christians and this is referred to as evolutionary theism. Pope John Paul the second was a evolutionary theist and embraced the theory of evolution, stating it directly in his academic encyclicals.
Upon deeper scrutiny of the book of Genesis, this belief (evolutionary theism) is not as contradictory to the faith of Christians as one might believe. I don't believe we would be (or should be) equipped with the tools to explain faith or God in terms of science. As C.S Lewis said (who considered himself a reformed atheist) "does the architect of a building live within its walls, roof or floors..." On another note, is getting on with a federal agency as unlikely and difficult as winning the lottery? I got so tired of filling out applications of USA jobs I decided, what the heck, I'll go to grad school, which has been awesome so far. Regards, Patrick Patrick D. Royer Ecohydrology MS fellowship student Terrestrial Ecology Lab University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85719 cell 520-245-1894 Quoting Rick Barbiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello all, > I've been following (on and off) the discussion of Christianity > and science with some interest, in part because I'm currently putting > together a course on the social/cultural and scientific consequences of > Darwin's work. It is well known, as I'm sure someone has probably already > pointed out, that Darwin believed that his theory was incompatible with > religion, at least a religion involving a beneficent god. And I think that > most everyone on this list would agree that the separation of science and > religion in the (science) classroom is necessary. I sometimes wonder, > though, how even-handed we are in applying that rubric. > > I was recently discussing this with a colleague who is putting > together a four year, college level environmental science program for a > tribal college, apparently the first of its kind in the US. I was asked, > in fact, to provide a syllabus for their limnology course. An important > aspect of the program is the incorporation of Native American spiritual > beliefs into the science curriculum. [as an aside, having been brought up > Catholic I found the prospect of incorporating spiritual beliefs about > water into my 'regular' limnology teaching to be somewhat amusing] During > our discussion he told me that one of the upper level Native American > science administrators was late for a recent curriculum meeting because > spirits around her house had been restless the night before, and had kept > her up. My colleague reported, with no small degree of pride, how everyone > on the science curriculum committee exhibited profound respect for this > explanation of her tardiness, before getting down to the work of developing > their science program. It made me wonder if the same degree of respect > would have been shown for, say, a Christian who was late for a science > curriculum meeting because they'd had a visitation by Mary the night > before. It also made me wonder whether we in the Western Academy apply > somewhat different standards when applying labels like 'superstitious' and > 'spiritual' to different religious traditions, depending upon their > distance from mainstream (Western) culture. It might be worth pointing out > that Native American spirituality, if one can generalize about it, is as > incompatible with a Darwinian view of the natural world as Christianity > is. Those unconvinced of this would find Red Earth, White Lies: Native > Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact, by the renowned Native American > scholar Vine Deloria Jr., to be particularly enlightening. > > I hope that this post isn't too off-topic. It does seem to me, > though that to an extent, and an unfortunate extent at that, Darwin has > become something of a stand-in, not for our attitudes on religion per se, > but rather for our attitudes about politics. I think that several posts in > this thread have provided some evidence of this. It has long been my > contention that politics has even less place in the science classroom than > religion does. One need only call to mind Nazi science or Lysenkoism to be > convinced of that. While I would certainly agree that the efforts by some > Christians to incorporate intelligent design into science curricula are > unwise, I also sometimes wonder what other subtexts might be at play in > these debates. > > Rick Barbiero > > > > > At 03:29 PM 8/23/2007 -0400, you wrote: >> It seems worth pointing out that anyone who thinks the existence of >> God can be proved through the presence or absence of physical evidence >> may be lacking an understanding of both theology and science! As the >> saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... >> >> Ever notice that the folks who think that maybe there is something to >> this world beyond what we can see, feel, smell, and hear are thought >> to be "close minded" and the "open minded" folks think that if you >> can't prove it, it doesn't exist? >> >> That said, science is a way of knowing that is based on reason and >> what we can measure, and its teaching should be restricted to those >> things, so I applaud the efforts to keep faith (beyond the faith >> needed to trust science) out of a scientific classroom. >> >> Interesting discussion. I hope there's no need of a "holy war" in >> civil discourse... >> >> Cheers, >> Darren > > > ______________________________ > Richard P. Barbiero, Ph.D. > Senior Environmental Scientist CSC > Senior Instructor, Loyola University Chicago > 1359 W. Elmdale Ave. #2 > Chicago IL 60660 tel. 773 878 3661 > > Man is condemned to exhaust all possible errors when he examines any set of > facts before he recognises the truth. - Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
