ShareThisAfter being summoned by inquisitors and shown the instruments of torture, the scientist Galileo consented to keep to himself his disquieting discovery that the Earth is not at the center of God's universe.
Charles Darwin, born 200 years ago, preached a more disturbing theory -- that the physical universe had evolved by chance, with no need for a creator.
Unlike Galileo, the Victorian scientist was honored in life and death by his Christian nation. To this day, tourists tread upon a marble slab in London's Westminster Abbey, inscribed, "Charles Robert Darwin. Born 12 February 1809. Died 19 April 1882."
Although he was not threatened by inquisitors, Darwin hesitated 17 years before publishing his findings in "On the Origin of Species," acknowledging that "it was like confessing to a murder." He waited another dozen years before releasing "The Descent of Man," in which he concluded, "Man, with all his noble qualities, still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origins." The contemporary English commentator Brian Appleyard says, "Implicit in this is the statement: we are not the children of God, the noble stewards of creation; we are deeply embedded in the blind workings of nature, cousins to the virus and the vegetable." In short, we humans are at the mercy of mutable nature, and only the fittest of us will survive.
To this day, with rare exceptions, the scientific community agrees with Darwin, while most Americans cling to the notion that God created the universe and maintains it, cherishing homo sapiens as his greatest triumph.
I was educated by Catholic nuns, whose faith was not shattered by Galileo's and Darwin's discoveries. The sisters taught evolution because they assumed it was simply the mechanism through which the creator chose to work. I suspect that most Americans are comfortable with the same notion, sensing no clear conflict between science and faith on the matter.
In America today, 200 years after Darwin's birth, it is mainly pious school boards that fear that exposing children to evolution in the classroom amounts to teaching them to be atheists.
Galileo's heliocentrism can be demonstrated, but Darwin's evolution can only be theorized. The Victorian scientist knew nothing about genes, nor could he explain how random mutations could produce something as complex as an eye. Although Darwin observed micro evolution in the shape of beaks of Galapagos birds, "his conclusion that this proved ... species transforming into other species was a leap of faith," Appleyard says.
Originally, scientists assumed that every man and woman required 100,000 genes to support his or her complexity. Later they discovered we have only one-fourth or one-fifth as many genes as suspected, sharing most of them with the common mouse.
We can thank Darwin for helping us to be humble about our place in the universe, leaving room for thanking God for his imagination in creating both mice and men.
(David Yount's new book is "How the Quakers Invented America" (Rowman & Littlefield). He answers readers at P.O. Box 2758, Woodbridge, VA 22195 and dyount(at)erols.com.)
AMAZING GRACE
...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth
Part of the article says:
"I was educated by Catholic nuns, ... The sisters taught evolution because they assumed it was simply the mechanism through which the creator chose to work. I suspect that most Americans are comfortable with the same notion, sensing no clear conflict between science and faith on the matter."
Apparently,
missing from this education,
was:
i.) part of the 10 commandments,
ii.) magisterial Catholic teaching, and
iii.) cutting edge science
Examples include:
i.) part of the 10 commandments
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
but he rested on the seventh day.
Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20;&version=31
ii.) magisterial Catholic teaching
"What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?"
http://kolbecenter.org/church_ teaches.htm
(Partial quote)
- Genesis does not contain purified myths.(Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
. . .
- All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
...
- St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
- The historical existence of Noah's Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
(End of partial quote)
iii.) Cutting edge science:
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
http://kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
(Partial quote)
"- Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.
. . .
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings. 1
...
- Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth's atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth's magnetic field.
. . .
- There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types."
(End of partial quote)
And much hilarity ensues.
The first comment is beyond hilarious! I especially like the list of lies that purport to be "cutting-edge science" and exhibit no understanding of any of the subjects they touch upon. Lovely.
The original post is quite allright, though, and I say so even as an atheist...;)
Agreed, it is a good
Agreed, it is a good article. But I am astounded by the ignorance displayed of JosephU. No point in debating what he said. It would be a waste of time. Matthew 11:15 "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Those who don't? Forget about it.
"Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)"
I just went to the Vatican's web site and checked Humani Generis. This so-called quote does not exist. Now I see what they mean by 'liars for Jesus'.
Another product of 12 years of Catholic school,
Mike
ha!
Mike, I've never heard the phrase "liars for Jesus", but I feel like I would almost feel an impulse to 'buy the t-shirt' if I saw it at a truck stop. That's brilliant.
Honestly...
...I wish I could take credit for it but I read it on another blog. It does fit a certain type of person though. :-)