Happy day-after-Evolution-Sunday

Yesterday was another Evolution Sunday, a day where some churches celebrate being religious and evolutionists. At the same time! (Cue dramatic gasp.)

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. [...] We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Er, okay. Except that it sounds kinda post-modern to me. If science says "black" and religion says "white", do they have a problem with that? Or would those be complementary forms of truth?

Here's some previous comments of mine.

And the final word (IMHO):

O Lord, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all; the earth is full of thy creatures. Yonder is the sea, great and wide, which teems with things innumerable, living things, both small and great....These all look to thee, to give them their food in due season. When thou givest to the, they gather it up; when thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good things. When thou hidest thy face, they are dismayed; when thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the ground. (Psalms 104:27-30 via Mere Comments)

Evolution Sunday

Happy Evolution Sunday. In case you missed it, yesterday was the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin. A number of churches had sermons promoting evolution.

At the Evanston Mennonite Church, Susan Fisher Miller, 48, an editor and English professor, said, "I completely accept and affirm the view of God as creator, but I accommodate evolution within that."

To Ms. Fisher Miller, alternatives to evolutionary theory proposed by its critics, such as intelligent design, seem an artificial way to use science to explain the holy. (NY Times)

Someone here has a misconception. I don't know if it's Ms. Miller or the reporter, but her description of accommodating evolution within the view of God as creator sounds exactly like "intelligent design". Or maybe I'm the one with the misconception?

What many religious people have a problem with is many evolutionists' declaration that God had nothing to do with the way the world turned out. This is something the latter can't prove, something that cannot be scientifically verified, something scientists have no business saying. Feel free to offer your opinion, but isn't that all the ID'rs are doing? There's no need to get huffy about it.

But if one is going to be dogmatic about God not being involved, well now, that strikes me as religious and fundamentalist as can be. You don't know it for a fact and you shouldn't care, if you're really a scientist. Go back to work and leave the fundamentalism to the professionals.

Scott Adams on evolution

I’m told that evolution is useful for a whole range of scientific things that I don’t know about or don’t understand. For example, I’m told that if you don’t believe that mammals evolved from lower life forms you’d be a crappy microbiologists. Every time you observed some viruses acquiring immunity you would stop working on a vaccine and sacrifice your first born son.

Scott Adams