We have reported before on the continuing effort of TheClergyLetterProject.org to encourage reasonable discussion on the perceived tensions between science and faith – especially the efforts of various conservative religious groups to require the teaching of “creation science” in the schools.

Here is part of a report from Michael Zimmerman, of Butler University, on recent observances of “Evolution Weekend,” and a couple related matters.

Zimmerman’s note to members of the group:

Now that Evolution Weekend 2009 has successfully passed, it seems a good time to catch up on events – as well as to present a fair bit of additional news.

An Update on Evolution Weekend 2009

I think it is fair to say that the success of Evolution Weekend 2009 exceeded even my most optimistic expectations. Our latest count shows that 1,045 congregations from 15 countries participated (www.evolutionweekend.org). Because the media coverage was so extensive, with reports ranging from NPR to Fox News, we reached a huge number of folks. Most importantly, because of your efforts, the nature of the discussion about the relationship between religion and science has begun to change. Please check out some of the media coverage on our web site (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Resources/Related_news.htm). If you have links to reports that are not listed there, please send them to me.

Additionally, our list of sermons (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Resources/Res_Sermons.htm) continues to grow. If you have one that you would like me to list, please send it along as well.

Finally, and I know that this might sound crazy, but I am beginning to build our list of participants for Evolution Weekend 2010 (12-14 February 2010)! If you sign up now, you’ll help us enormously because we’ll be able to focus our efforts on expanding our list of participants. So, if you plan to participate again in 2010, please let me know now. Remember that while your signature on The Clergy Letter remains good forever, you must sign up to participate in Evolution Weekend each year. To sign up, simply drop me a note at mz@butler.edu.

An Introduction to The Evolutionary Times

Michael Dowd (Thank God for Evolution) has a new on-line publication, The Evolutionary Times (http://evolutionarytimes.org/index.php) that might interest many of you. The February issue has a story about Evolution Weekend in it. If you have pictures of Evolution Weekend events that you would like to share, or if you have an article you would like to be reviewed for publication in The Evolutionary Times, please send them to Paul West at paul@thankgodforevolution.com.

An Update on our Clergy Letters

Our three Clergy Letters continue to gather signatures very nicely. Our original Christian Clergy Letter now has amassed 11,870 names while our Rabbi Letter has 452 signatures and, our newest effort, our Unitarian Universalist Clergy Letter, already has 196 signatures. Please help us expand our base of support by sending a note to a colleague asking her/him to sign on.

Please take a minute and ask a friend or colleague who has not yet signed one of The Clergy Letters to do so. This simple effort means an enormous amount to the long-term success of The Clergy Letter Project.

Final Thoughts 

Thanks to your efforts, The Clergy Letter Project has had a phenomenal year. We reached unprecedented numbers of people with our message that religion and science can be compatible and we’ve raised the quality of the discourse on this important topic. With the Texas State Board of Education scheduled to meet in three weeks to decide upon science standards across the state and with anti-evolution legislation being introduced in a number of states, typically in the name of religion, our work is far from over. 

Please sign up now for Evolution Weekend 2010 and please pass information about The Clergy Letter Project (www.theclergyletterproject.org) to folks around the globe. Together we can make a difference.

 Michael

Charles Darwin and the Teaching of the Church
[9-18-08]

Click here for comments on this note.

Charles Darwin was born on 12 February 1809. Next year we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth. The Church of England is taking steps to recognize his birth and his contributions to the advancement of science. Click here for one report from The Guardian.

The theory of evolution impacts on some basic Christian beliefs such as "original sin" and Paul's teaching regarding "original sin."   

It raises questions: If evolution is true, when did men and women acquire immortal souls? If evolution is true, does this not mean that other species also have souls? Indeed, in Mark 16:15, didn't Jesus say: "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation."  

What is the Presbyterian Church doing to harmonize its theology with modern science? What are we teaching our children? Do we leave it up to the children to harmonize what they learn in church with what they learn in the secular world? Is it not time for the church to rethink its theology – bringing it into the 21 century? If not now, when?   

John Tindal  
Sumter, South Carolina

Mr. Tindal added another note from the Anglican Church, pointing to this report:

Church of England issues 'apology' to Darwin

A spokesman for the Church of England has said the church misunderstood Charles Darwin's work nearly 150 years ago and that "by getting our first reaction wrong," has continued an on-going misunderstanding.

At the end of an essay titled "Good religion needs good science," the Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown, the Church of England director of mission and public affairs, addressed Darwin directly, saying that nearly 200 years after his birth "the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still."   The rest of the story >> 

And a little note from your WebWeaver:

I'm no expert on this huge subject, but here are a few quick thoughts:

We have mentioned before (and borrowed from!) John Shuck's very lively blog, which he calls "Shuck and Jive." He deals with lots of different subjects, but the evolution-vs.-creationism question is one of them. For one sample, click here >>

Also, the Presbyterian Church has a study group on "science, technology and the Christian faith." Click here for an introduction to the group. You’ll find more on their own website >>

So, friends, here’s an invitation to join one thoughtful and concerned Presbyterian in dealing with an issue which has been with us for some years, and has been revived lately with Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination for Vice President.

What thoughts (or concerns or questions) do you have on the apparent tension between scientific and traditional Christian views of creation and evolution?

Please send a note,
to be shared here!
 

The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled that "intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, Judge Jones said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he added.  The full report >>

Also on TruthOut

[4-23-04]


The evolution-versus-creationism battle has been going on for decades, especially in struggles in countless local school boards around the country. We've been asked for material that would help people deal with the arguments in their own communities.

For starters, we offer a short "op ed" piece written recently for the St. Paul Pioneer Press by Jamie Crannell, a science teacher in a Twin Cities high school. He has also been serving as a member of the Minnesota Academic Standards Committee, which was created to deal with the designing of new standards in both the natural and social sciences. The current Secretary of Education in Minnesota, Sharon Yecke, has been pressing very hard to introduce a conservative slant into both the social and the natural sciences. With the backing of some conservative lobbying groups, this has become a battle over such issues as the demand that "creationism" be taught as a legitimate alternative to the "theory of evolution."

Crannell, who is an elder in St. Luke Presbyterian Church, Wayzata, MN, writes as a science teacher and a Christian, but not as a theological scholar. He also points to a very helpful and extensive article in Scientific American that deals with what the author calls, in cool academic prose, "creationist nonsense."

If you can suggest (or write!) other resources,
please send a note
and we'll share them all here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Science Education Under Siege

The ongoing effort to portray evolution as a controversial theory in science is unfortunate for Minnesotans, for scientific literacy, and for the education of our children. The Minnesota House recently amended the Science Standards to insinuate that evolution is not firmly established as science.

This amendment challenges the validity of evolution by redirecting the intent of the standards. The "History and Nature of Science" strand, as it was written, contains language that addresses the dynamic aspect of theories in science.

"The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to the cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory."

The committee placed the language where it fits best. The wording should not be altered or moved. This standard was carefully designed to contribute to scientific literacy and a life-long understanding of science.

This amendment is an attempt to undermine science education in our state. Throughout the process of developing the standards there was ongoing pressure from special interest groups and public input to have non-scientific "theories" added to the science standards. One "theory" was "intelligent design"/creationism which argues that science is incapable of explaining something as complex as human life; therefore an "intelligent designer" must be responsible. While there may be an "intelligent designer" - that is religion and is beyond the scope of science. This amendment is a way to allow nonscientific "theories" to be part of what is taught as science.

The arguments in favor of the amendment include rationalizations that it will lead to a better science education by fostering critical thinking, academic freedom, and fairness. These arguments are disingenuous: they do not honestly characterize the science standards. The history of the development of these standards suggests that the purpose of amending the standards was really to address the validity of evolution.

Science is about a critical analysis of data and critical thinking. To insinuate that critical thinking is not a goal because nonscientific "theories" are not included as science is nonsense. Nothing in the science standards precludes or limits academic freedom. Nothing limits a teacher from discussing students' concerns about evolution or any other topic.

Science is both glorious and humble. It helps us make sense of the amazing and wonderful world around us, but requires us to understand the world in a humble way - with verifiable facts. Science starts with observations then identifies patterns to help us understand how the natural world works. Religion also deals with reality, but adds another dimension - belief or faith - to our understanding of reality.

Belief is simply not part of the discipline of science; however, science is founded upon finding a rationale and logical explanation for what is observed. The theory of biological evolution is the most plausible current explanation for the diversity of organisms seen today and throughout the fossil record - from the point of view of science. This is not a fairness issue; this is how science works.

At a Senate Education subcommittee hearing on March 18, Senator Bachmann listed many of the common misconceptions about evolution as reasons why this theory is "controversial." Bachmann mentioned the second law of thermodynamics, irreducible complexity, and a lack of transitional fossils. These misconceptions are clarified and explained in an article published in Scientific American in July 2002.

The science standards were developed according to a process that included a diverse committee of teachers and non-teachers, scientists and lay people. Public input was gathered and considered. The final draft was submitted to the legislature after being recommended for adoption by the Commissioner of Education. Both scientists and science educators support the standards. The science standards need to be passed as written, without amendment.

Jamie Crannell
Minnesota Academic Standards Committee member
Science Teacher at Chaska High School

If you can suggest (or write!) other resources,
please send a note
and we'll share them all here.

Last week we posted an essay on the debate over the teaching of science - and specifically evolution - in our schools. We invited comments, and we've received a very helpful note arguing against the use of the term "theory" in relation to evolution, and pointing to resources for those who want more information.

To the webmaster-

The best book I have found on evolution from a Christian perspective is Finding Darwin's God, A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller (Cliff Street Books, 1999), professor of Biology at Brown University. Other excellent books are The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough (Oxford University Press, 1998), professor of Biology at Washington University, and for an historical perspective, The Creationists, the Evolution of Scientific Creationism by Ronald Numbers (Univ. California Press, 1993), professor of Science History at the University of Wisconsin.    [Scroll down to order any of these books through Amazon.com]

An excellent web site is www.talkorigins.org - The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy.

I take strong exception to the term "theory of evolution." There are actually three issues here.

First, there is the FACT of evolution: organisms are related by common descent with modifications. This is established with the utmost certainty and is beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, many conclusions of evolutionary history are well established; e.g., chimpanzees and gorillas are more closely related to humans than to baboons or other monkeys. Other conclusions are less certain. Still others remain largely unresolved; e.g., precisely when did life originate on earth.

Lastly, current understanding is limited on the mechanisms or processes by which evolutionary changes occur. The generally accepted theory is that mutations occur in genetic material (DNA) at essentially a constant rate, and "useful" mutations are then perpetuated by natural selection.

-- Patrick Magee, Elder, Stone Church of Willow Glen (PCUSA), San Jose CA