Darwin, Creationism and the Mainstream Media

Aug 2010
862
0
new blog ... that Pew Poll that painted Christians as fool kinda bugged me. As always if you hop to the blog you get a pretty picture... ok.. not pretty but you get a picture.


The mainstream media, it seems, does not understand what most Christians believe with regard to the origins of life nor do they understand what Darwin wrote with regard to the origins of life.

Here is a paragraph representative of what I am talking about:

Opinion polls over the past two decades have found the American public deeply divided in its beliefs about the origins and development of life on earth. Surveys are fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable or slightly larger numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time. The wording of survey questions generally makes little systematic difference in this division of opinion, and there has been little change in the percentage of the public who reject the idea of evolution.

Creationism and Darwinism are not mutually exclusive despite the author's confusion. Darwin's magnum opus is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life . Please note what is not in the title. There is zero mention of the origin of life. Darwin wrote about the origin of species; he described how life already in existence changed over time. When the author compared Darwin's theory of evolution to belief in a biblical account of creation he presented it as a zero sum game. It isn't. Darwin did not address the issue of the origin of life. Certainly there are those who believe in the Genesis account as literal fact but this is a minority view despite the faith of our mainstream media.

Pope John Paul II in his Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 said:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

It is the official position of the Catholic Church that evolution and creationism are not incompatible. The problem here is our author's presumption that they are. One supposes this arises for two reasons: 1) our author is unfamiliar with the theory of evolution and 2) our author takes it as an article of faith that Christians are unable to accept that the world is round. This kind of reporting says a great deal more about the mainstream media and our elites than it does about people of faith... and it bugs the shit out of me.
 
Jun 2012
134
0
Turkey
I think it's very natural that the theory of evolution brings exciting questions beside about the existence of world and anyhing in it. The theory of evolution isn't an entrily work of Darwin as we know it today and some things he had recorded weren't true due to the lack of scientific facility. Mutation wasT in this process etc So, title of the book does not say much for the theory...But today biologists and physicists have to ask about origin of life too.


For Church's action, it isnot surprise of course and not a new thing. They have to string along with science for their presence. The same is necessary for all religions, even some muslims agreed and saying it was already a mentioned written fact in the holly book. But I believe this is very essential for public understanding of sciene. Church and religious authorities are important.
 
Jun 2012
134
0
Turkey
The question is how much the theory of evolution compatible with Christianity or Creationism and why people and media generally are thinking different than Pope's statement on this issue.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
The question is how much the theory of evolution compatible with Christianity or Creationism and why people and media generally are thinking different than Pope's statement on this issue.



It seems clear the Popes statement that evolution is "more than a hypothesis" is a mistranslation; it should be "more than one hypothesis," implying a lack of unanimity among scientists. Basically (IMHO), the Pope is in a tough spot here...and played the only safe hand he could, skirt the issue in such a way that the Church Doctrine remains by making a vague statement that can be looked at either way.

To me this is likely due to a simple fact:

Either Evolution is accurate, or the Genesis story is. You cannot have both.

The Media should be reporting news as fact...thus they must decide which carries more weight to viewers. Religious Media focused on Religion, the News focused on the facts.
 
Jun 2012
134
0
Turkey
It seems clear the Popes statement that evolution is "more than a hypothesis" is a mistranslation; it should be "more than one hypothesis," implying a lack of unanimity among scientists. Basically (IMHO), the Pope is in a tough spot here...and played the only safe hand he could, skirt the issue in such a way that the Church Doctrine remains by making a vague statement that can be looked at either way.

To me this is likely due to a simple fact:

Either Evolution is accurate, or the Genesis story is. You cannot have both.

The Media should be reporting news as fact...thus they must decide which carries more weight to viewers. Religious Media focused on Religion, the News focused on the facts.

Exactly. Don't know, what else can you expect Pope to tell, Could he have b said the theory is just a nonsense and Galileo was a punk who lost his mind while spending so much time on broken glass and windows, so we're going our own way here... :)No reasonable person would have been said such things, so what Pope noted is not surprise.

Actually, I think that you can also have the both but the problem with some religons which one's have really big books, telling so much than you would expect from it.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
In other words...(which are assumed), the Catholic Church had no choice.


Glad you agree.
 
Nov 2012
77
0
Novi, Michigan
To me this is likely due to a simple fact:

Either Evolution is accurate, or the Genesis story is. You cannot have both.

Why can't you have both? It is true that there are some Christian sects who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible but most Christians I know do not believe in a literal translation. Even if you do believe in a literal interpretation there is still nothing in the Bible which prohibits the acknowledgement of evolution as reality.

I can think of another reason why the Pope worded his statement the way he did; If he had said straight up that evolution is real then you know how that would have been twisted and reported in the media. The headline should have been "Pope says creation and evolution are not at odds" but the headline would have been "Pope says Catholic Church is full of crap."
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
Why can't you have both? It is true that there are some Christian sects who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible but most Christians I know do not believe in a literal translation. Even if you do believe in a literal interpretation there is still nothing in the Bible which prohibits the acknowledgement of evolution as reality.
...snip...

One says a God created Humans in his image.

The other says evolution created Humans over billions of years from something completely different.


I do not see how you can have both.
 
Nov 2012
77
0
Novi, Michigan
Ah, you're going literal again. Physical instead of spiritual message. This is the problem with Atheists trying to state the believer's message for the believers. You're not anywhere near as coherent as you think you are. There is no reason for you to believe that I, or anyone else, has the same interpretation you do. But, you keep on believing that you can outline my belief better than I can. You're adorable :)
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
...snip.... Even if you do believe in a literal interpretation there is still nothing in the Bible which prohibits the acknowledgement of evolution as reality.

Sorry, I should have quoted the part I was replying to.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Sorry, I should have quoted the part I was replying to.

Creationist evolution. God created the universe and life and then, with occasional intervention, allowed things to progress naturally. I don't buy into it myself but it's something your clearly overlooking in your arguments.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
Creationist evolution. God created the universe and life and then, with occasional intervention, allowed things to progress naturally. I don't buy into it myself but it's something your clearly overlooking in your arguments.

I guess I must be missing something. The literal interpretation states that God Created Man in his image...by this understanding, God would have needed to create a single celled organism and intervened for the next 4 Billion years until he ended up with us.

~Or~

God created Evolution and just let it happen with a few tweaks here and there...all the time knowing what he wanted us to become.

Occoms Razor seems an important tool to use here.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Why can't you have both?

It really depends on what angle you are looking at it from. One is a belief, the other is fact, so there's that. Of course it is possible that Genesis tells a bigger symbolic story, but if you are looking at the matter scientifically you can't believe in Genesis - at most you can be agnostic about it.
 
Nov 2012
77
0
Novi, Michigan
It really depends on what angle you are looking at it from. One is a belief, the other is fact, so there's that. Of course it is possible that Genesis tells a bigger symbolic story, but if you are looking at the matter scientifically you can't believe in Genesis - at most you can be agnostic about it.

Whether or not you believe the Creation story really doesn't matter, evolution is something which occurs after the world is created so creation and evolution do not step on each other's toes.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
Unless we ignore the timeline set forth in the genesis story, they do seem to have a few issues. To accept the genesis story requires one disregard a couple Billion Years of established Evolutionary history...or pay no attention to the whole "Created Man In His Image" part. A literal understanding of the Biblical story is simply disproven by scientific data, there is no question about this without denying evolution.

That said, believing for the sake of spirituality is totally cool when one does not claim the Bible(s) to be fact. No one is trying to claim the faith as wrong...but the faithful are trying to claim Evolution is. This tends to get those who understand the science upset, just as you might were I to exclaim there is no "God".
 
Nov 2012
77
0
Novi, Michigan
"the faithful" aren't claiming that evolution is a lie. Some very misguided people are claiming that it is a lie. I know very few people who actually believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, once again a few misguided people are denying the obvious age and history of our planet and of mankind. It's not "the faithful" who are saying outrageous and incorrect things, it's others who have decided to paint an entire bloc of our society with a very broad brush based on the wacky statements by a few who are the problem here.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
Again...just pointing out that I am referring to your statement:
"Even if you do believe in a literal interpretation there is still nothing in the Bible which prohibits the acknowledgement of evolution as reality"

I meant no insult to the faithful, as I am well aware that a vast majority no longer accept the Bible(s) as fact. I was simply pointing out that those denying Evolution do so based on the faith.

Perhaps I should be more clear, but it seemed a clearly assumed aspect of our current debate.
 
Nov 2012
77
0
Novi, Michigan
Again...just pointing out that I am referring to your statement:


I meant no insult to the faithful, as I am well aware that a vast majority no longer accept the Bible(s) as fact. I was simply pointing out that those denying Evolution do so based on the faith.

Perhaps I should be more clear, but it seemed a clearly assumed aspect of our current debate.

You're not being clear. You're pointing to a small minority and then painting it as something more than what it is. At this point I have to say it's not the "believers" who have the problem, it's you.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
You're not being clear. You're pointing to a small minority and then painting it as something more than what it is. At this point I have to say it's not the "believers" who have the problem, it's you.

As it is apparent to me that we do not understand each other, and it seems unlikely I can be more clear (considering I have explained my comments twice), I think it wise to simply let the issue go. I will accept that the problem is me, if only to avoid seeming to be something far worse.
 
Top