You got your god in my science; You got your science in my god

January 25, 2006 10:26 AM

The Clergy Letter Project has completed acquiring 10,000 signatures from clergy around the country. Their stated goal: For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith. They've declared February 12, 2006 as Evolution Sunday, a day when "hundreds of Christian churches from all portions of the country and a host of denominations will come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science."
posted by thanotopsis (55 comments total)

Clearly, they're all wrong. The Earth was obviously created 6 thousand years ago, in eight days, by some dude with a beard. Also I smoke crack.
posted by wakko at 10:48 AM on January 25, 2006

For too long, the misperception that a clergy class is necessary has created a spiritually ignorant and nominally religious populace.
posted by spock at 10:50 AM on January 25, 2006

Well, isn't this refreshing. I was wondering how long it would take moderate Christians to start to reclaim their faith from the more extreme factions.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:50 AM on January 25, 2006

Wow. From my hometown in Wisconsin, no less. That's quite the surprise.
posted by vanadium at 10:51 AM on January 25, 2006

LooseFilter, the only moderate christian is a dead christian...


/snark

runs like hell
posted by sourbrew at 10:52 AM on January 25, 2006

To clarify, it's good to see sanity winning out. Now where's bevets?
posted by wakko at 10:52 AM on January 25, 2006

I was a devout-as-anything, bible-thumping evangelical Catholic until I was seventeen years old, and even then I always figured evolution was God's way of creating life.

I don't see why science and religion have to be mutually exclusive, or at odds: one could look at scientific inquiry as a method of examining the works of God in our world.
posted by S.C. at 10:54 AM on January 25, 2006

I'm sorry that the first few comments are nasty snarks. As said moderate (or liberal, actually) Christian, I'm glad to see this. I just forwarded this on to my pastors and other liberal/moderate Christian friends.
posted by tippiedog at 10:56 AM on January 25, 2006

You know, I have a whole clan of devoutly religious fundamentalist relatives. And the most devout ones are all scientists -- they don't have problems with evolution, or geology and such. We have nice, fun family gatherings in spite of the fact that I think their religion is loony, and they think my atheism is a one-way ticket to hell.

It's good to see some folks like them speak up. Not all religious people are knuckle-dragging morons. Duh. So why do the morons get all the attention?
posted by teece at 11:05 AM on January 25, 2006

teece: because they make the most noise, unfortunately.
posted by wakko at 11:10 AM on January 25, 2006

quick tangenital derail:

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Noosphere

/quick tangenital derail
posted by iurodivii at 11:21 AM on January 25, 2006

I don't see why science and religion have to be mutually exclusive, or at odds...

As far as Christianity is concerned, I always thought it was due to a literal translation of the Bible.
posted by NationalKato at 11:23 AM on January 25, 2006

Not all religious people are knuckle-dragging morons. Duh. So why do the morons get all the attention?

For the same reason the moron anti-religion types get all the attention on the atheist side.
posted by rocket88 at 11:24 AM on January 25, 2006

I always thought it was due to a literal translation of the Bible.

Close. It's due to an unfounded interpretation of biblical text that is not literal in any sense, but pretends that it is.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:40 AM on January 25, 2006

Not every Christian reads the Bible literally.
posted by raedyn at 11:50 AM on January 25, 2006

It's nice to see an attempt to heal the rift created during the Enlightenment, to see people recognize that myth (still) plays an important role in our lives, that God doesnt have to be dead. I wonder how far they'll get with it.
posted by stbalbach at 11:53 AM on January 25, 2006

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I've noticed that creationists really hate Teilhard de Chardin.

I think he's great. The Phenomenology of Man, despite its faults, is one of the most beautiful descriptions of the story of the evolution of the world I have ever read, and along the way answers practically every creationist objection to evolution with lucidity and insight.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:11 PM on January 25, 2006

The truth of the matter is, Christians will have to keep modifying their positions, as science proves their Bible wrong. The Earth is not flat, nor does the Sun revolve around it. Canada has not been turned into salt, nor has brimstone rained down upon it.
posted by matkline at 12:16 PM on January 25, 2006

What Spock said.

Plus, this sounds a lot like gathering 10000 signatures of scientists who believe in God. Who cares?
posted by wabashbdw at 12:18 PM on January 25, 2006

matkline, what crazy Bible have you been reading?
posted by JekPorkins at 12:19 PM on January 25, 2006

Not every Christian reads the Bible literally.

Not every Christian reads the Bible.

We call them, "evangelicals."
posted by jefgodesky at 12:30 PM on January 25, 2006

What S.C. said.
posted by JKevinKing at 12:38 PM on January 25, 2006

matkline : "The Earth is not flat, nor does the Sun revolve around it"

To be fair, the Bible never says such things. This were early and midlle-ages Christian interpretations of certain Old testament miracles combined with Aristotle ideas about physics. To be even fairer, neither is necessary to support the miracles they are supposed to support - any entity powerful enough to stop Earth's rotation wouldn't have much troubled dealing with any nasty inertial effects the sudden break might have on the planet and its creatures. Actually, such a powerful creature would probably prefer mass-hypnosis or very large electric lights instead of stopping the planet for one tiny battle to complete. Or end the inefficient 9-5 only battles schedule those desert guys seemed to favour.
posted by nkyad at 12:39 PM on January 25, 2006

if you believe that god created the universe and decided by what rules it would function, it seems evolution would be god's doing anyway - and not a threat to your beliefs.

I once heard someone reason that a) 'days' in genesis aren't necessarily 24 hours (could be eons) and b) the whole 'in his own image' could still include evolution as a means as a cake made in the image of the picture in the cook book doesn't look the same till its mixed, baked and frosted.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 1:39 PM on January 25, 2006

'days' in genesis aren't necessarily 24 hours

To wit, if the earth didn't exist yet, how would one determine how long a day is, or an hour, for that matter? And I don't remember the Bible saying anything about God creating the entire universe, but I guess some people believe that. Basically, I think you and I are more or less on the same page.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:55 PM on January 25, 2006

Woo Hoo!

Take that assholes that call yourselves christians but have no idea what it means!
posted by nofundy at 2:11 PM on January 25, 2006

And I don't remember the Bible saying anything about God creating the entire universe, but I guess some people believe that.

Its been many many years since I read genesis, but I believe it doesn't say he created earth, either. Just that there was nothingness, then god create light. Then the land the sea and the sky. Then the animals. and so on and so forth. I believe its the nothingness part before god started waving his magic wand around that leads peoples to believe he created the universe.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 3:36 PM on January 25, 2006

'days' in genesis aren't necessarily 24 hours

To wit, if the earth didn't exist yet, how would one determine how long a day is, or an hour, for that matter? And I don't remember the Bible saying anything about God creating the entire universe, but I guess some people believe that. Basically, I think you and I are more or less on the same page.

We should give credit where credit is due: This idea of non-standard day times may have originated with The Scopes Trial (good transcript here). To wit:

MR. BRYAN--I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. [Examining Bible] The fourth verse of the second chapter (Genesis) says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning" as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day: "in the day when the Lord made the Heaven and the earth."

Its been many many years since I read genesis, but I believe it doesn't say he created earth, either.

Well, in the passage noted above, he created 'the Heaven and the earth".
posted by thanotopsis at 4:11 PM on January 25, 2006

To wit, if the earth didn't exist yet, how would one determine how long a day is, or an hour, for that matter?

But that's the precise opposite of what the bible says. According to Genesis, the day god created the heavens and the earth is the first day, i.e. when the very things that were needed to define a 'day' came into being.
posted by boaz at 4:18 PM on January 25, 2006

In fact, the bible even goes a bit further than that:

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So, God created the earth and the heavens, and then split light and darkness up into different times, and then evening fell, and morning came, equalling 1 day. Seems like a pretty literal day to me.
posted by boaz at 4:24 PM on January 25, 2006

So these clergy they're eating the cake now?
posted by srboisvert at 4:38 PM on January 25, 2006

srboisvert wins
posted by es_de_bah at 4:42 PM on January 25, 2006

Boaz, when you add your own sentences to the bible, I guess that does make it easier to interpret in your own way. I also think it's kinda funny that you think that a "literal day" is measured by evening falling and morning coming.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:45 PM on January 25, 2006

I think it's amusing that you think eons passing are measured by evening falling and morning coming. And if you have problems with the NIV translation, let me know, because that's what I quoted.
posted by boaz at 4:56 PM on January 25, 2006

Jek, what sentences did boaz add? Looks pretty acurate to me...
posted by brundlefly at 4:58 PM on January 25, 2006

*accurate*

Damn it.
posted by brundlefly at 4:59 PM on January 25, 2006

I guess I do have a problem with that translation, since I was referring to this sentence: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

And I don't think that eons passing are measured by evening falling and morning coming. I think it took a whole "day" just to get from nothing to the stage where evening and morning could occur. However long it takes to organize matter to the point that it's a ball that can rotate on its axis and have a dusk and a dawn -- that's how long the first day was, according to the Bible.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:05 PM on January 25, 2006

Uh, okay. Here are some alternatives. Not much variation, really.
posted by brundlefly at 5:17 PM on January 25, 2006

I think it's amusing that people still try to rationalize the creation myth in Genesis. The motivation behind this project seems a bit off to me. The proper response to the fundamentalists who insist on teaching creationism isn't to give science the religious stamp of approval and aim for some sort of armed peace.
posted by nixerman at 5:22 PM on January 25, 2006

Interesting, because this month I've had a testy/polite debate with a friend who's a lapsed Catholic on the topic.

Apparently, to him, Adam has to be acknowledged as the first living thing -- not just man -- to die, or the sacrifice of Christ is diminished, as is the sanctity of our own mortality. I think I'm fairly characterizing it.

I told him that was definitely a Catholic perspective, so why it should apply to Protestants -- let alone non-Christians -- didn't seem quite clear.

He also said that "evolutionists" -- claiming there were many who believd in evolution as opposed to Christianity or anything else -- were "mean".
posted by dhartung at 5:23 PM on January 25, 2006

So taken literally, "the first day" doesn't refer to an amount of time, but rather to the first instance of the earth turning around halfway, since dusk to dawn is not a full rotation. And, taken literally, the entire creation of earth from nothing was before the first day even started.

See, this is why strict constructionism is a bad idea. Someone write Scalia a note, please.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:26 PM on January 25, 2006

וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃

Well, here's Genesis 1:5 in Hebrew. The line that you're disputing says, personally translated for you, "And god called the light day and the darkness night, and it became evening and it became morning. One day."

rather to the first instance of the earth turning around halfway, since dusk to dawn is not a full rotation.

You know, Jek, refusing to read the whole paragraph doesn't change what the paragraph means. The day started with god creating light (i.e. the first morning), then darkness falling, and then morning breaking again.
posted by boaz at 5:32 PM on January 25, 2006

boaz: Look, depending on the translation, a literal reading leads to one of the following conclusions, neither of which supports the 24-hour genesis day theory:

1. The first day started when light was created, and continued until after the earth was formed enough to rotate on its axis 1/2 turn, creating the first dusk and dawn. So, from the big bang until the earth was a planetoid, right? That's longer than 24 hours (but again, how do you measure hours if the earth doesn't exist yet?)

or

2. The first day started after the earth was created, and everything pre-earth rotation isn't counted in the first day.

or

3. The fact that "One day." is a separate sentence means that it's not directly related to any part of the previous sentence, and no real meaning can be deduced.

Do you have an alternative literal meaning that you'd like to propose (see the problem with pretending there's a literal meaning)?

The point of Genesis, IMHO, is not to present a literal play-by-play history of the physical creation including actual time measurements and methodologies. But that's just my opinion.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:41 PM on January 25, 2006

BTW, boaz, I also think it's awesome that you present the original hebrew, and that you translate it yourself, adding punctuation. What qualifies you to provide a more authoritative translation than all others? Not that I think your translation's not at least as good as the others, but . . .
posted by JekPorkins at 5:46 PM on January 25, 2006

It's actually not a separate sentence in Hebrew; it's just that Biblical sentence structure is entirely different from modern English sentence structure. But surely you, as a committed religious Christian, already knew that.

Do you have an alternative literal meaning that you'd like to propose (see the problem with pretending there's a literal meaning)?

Huh? How about The day started with god creating light (i.e. the first morning), then darkness falling, and then morning breaking again. It kinda helps that that's what that paragraph says.

On preview: it's just that Biblical sentence structure is entirely different from modern English sentence structure. But surely you, as a committed religious Christian, already knew that.
posted by boaz at 5:51 PM on January 25, 2006

This is freaking amazing BTW. The atheist position is 'It's a myth.' while the Christian position seems to be 'It's true, just not literally true, or God's too stupid to figure out how long a day is.' Science's work is done here I think.
posted by boaz at 5:55 PM on January 25, 2006

Of course I knew that. Hence my comment about you adding punctuation where there was none.

And it doesn't say that the creation of light was the first morning. It says that light was created first, and after light already existed, then darkness was separated from it. Big bang (the creation of light), then when matter from the big bang started to come back together as denser stuff, that's when darkness was separated (i.e. the shadow that we call "night"). Per the actual words of Genesis, the first 'morning' didn't happen until after the first night. And nothing about how much linear time passed between the creation of light and the end of that "one day."
posted by JekPorkins at 5:57 PM on January 25, 2006

What qualifies you to provide a more authoritative translation than all others?

Just a note. I'm surely one of the least qualified people to write an authoritative translation, but God's busy, you know, not existing, so you're stuck with me.

However, if we're going to ask that question, then this one follows: What qualifies you to lecture me on the meaning of a book when you can't understand the language it was written in, and won't trust internationally accepted translations of simple passages?

It sounds like you're the one here who has no frame of reference to say what it means.
posted by boaz at 6:15 PM on January 25, 2006

What qualifies you to lecture me on the meaning of a book

Nothing does. I'm not lecturing, and I'm not saying anything about what it "means." And where did your "or God's too stupid to figure out how long a day is" comment come from?

The reason I don't trust internationally accepted translations of simple passages is because a) international recognition doesn't mean squat -- I can think of people in at least 3 countries who think I'm really smart: international recognition (and it doesn't mean squat), and b) the very act of translating, even if it's done in the best way possible, distorts meaning. The languages work differently, and there's no such thing as a perfect translation. Given your own comments about the differences between hebrew and english, it's apparent that you know this already. I imagine you also know that even the most fluent hebrew speakers today don't understand it the same way as the guy who wrote Genesis did, so how can you possible postulate as to what the author meant by "day" or what imperfect understanding he may have had of what God revealed to him (assuming that's what happened)?

It sounds like you're the one here who has no frame of reference to say what it means.

Did I say something about someone not having a frame of reference to say what it means? I don't think I did. I did say that those who pretend to refute science based on a "literal" reading of Genesis aren't really reading it literally, and I stand by that statement.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:27 PM on January 25, 2006

and then..bye and bye, the first schism formed in the firmament.
posted by stirfry at 6:35 PM on January 25, 2006

so how can you possible postulate as to what the author meant by "day"

Well, you could say that, but then you could say the same thing about 'God' 'night', 'light', 'earth', and every other word in the bible until you discover it's actually the screenplay for Brokeback Mountain. And again, if you can't read Hebrew and can't trust translations, then how can you make any judgement at all about the text, up to and including how literally it should be read?
posted by boaz at 6:47 PM on January 25, 2006

how can you make any judgement at all about the text, up to and including how literally it should be read?

By not reducing my argument to absurd drooling babble just to try to make another person seem crazy. That and a lifetime of study acknowledging that I'll never really understand it in this lifetime (the same approach as one should take with science, frankly).
posted by JekPorkins at 6:52 PM on January 25, 2006

That and a lifetime of study acknowledging that I'll never really understand it in this lifetime

Ah yes, the next lifetime will be spent on Genesis 1:6, right? Jeez, if it weren't for Christianity, what would white guys act persecuted about?
posted by boaz at 7:01 PM on January 25, 2006

Sorry, I didn't realize that when you wrote "every other word in the bible" and "the text," you were actually only referring to one verse. See, I'm having a hard enough time interpreting what you mean, and you're writing in english.

Nevertheless, like all things, superficial analysis is never enough to acheive a true understanding.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:11 PM on January 25, 2006

And maybe someday you'll learn enough Hebrew (or find a good enough translation) to be able to do even a superficial analysis. I know, I know, next lifetime.
posted by boaz at 7:27 PM on January 25, 2006