Evolution and God are compatible Part II- Ken Miller

[hisham031170]

Stephen C Meyer has a clear position on this. Unlike Ken Miller, he emphasized that evolution is athiestic concept and is contradictory to religion. I doubt Ken Miller's christianity.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. This is the same person that holds workshops called The Collapse of Intelligent Design! Lol! How can Jesus have created everything while at the same time do it without intelligent design? If you like double talk and double think, evoevangelists and evolutionary literature is the place to go to get it. And certainly not just in the realm of theology!

[LoricaLady]

You can believe that YHWH, aka God, & evolution are compatible if you are willing to ignore the 1st law of logic (and since evolutionists base their case on a series of logical fallacies, they have no problem with that). Aristotle taught us the 1st Law: 2 contradictory statements cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that things got here by accident and that they were designed. In the Colbert report Miller says that as an RC he believes "Jesus created all that is, seen & unseen". Cont

[ZebrasFirst]

Furthermore on Evolution being the enemy of God, is that an atheist can easily dimiss the Bible as fairytales, and say here's the proof (Evolution).

[ZebrasFirst]

I loved the Christian Fish eating the Evolution Fish. That's what evolutionists get for being smart alecks.

Evolution IS the enemy of God because it claims Man and Beast are ONE, when Genesis clearly states the two were created separately.

Sure one can be a Christian AND an Evolutionist, however, they'd be in major contradiction.

[crockoduckevolved]

evolution dosen't disprove a god, it proves genesis is a fairy tale.

[TheHonestTheist]

DonExodus2 am I right in saying that you believe in both God and evolution? If so, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to give me your opinion on a few things via email?

[bombarderoazul]

Evolution and religion do contradict. if you accept evolution and still believe in god, you are not a true christian, because you are admitting that the bible is not the word of god, you are only taking the good and nice parts that you like. The bible says god created everything in six days and that's what it means, you either believe it or not, you either believe in god or you pretend to believe in god.

[jesuslover037]

Absolutely not. Blanket statements like that are incredibly dangerous. You're teaching people that just because they interpret the Bible differently that they are not saved, are heretics, wolves in sheep's clothing, etc. There are lots of disagreements internally on the Bible--such as which way to translate such and such a word. But what does the Word say? "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

[GreaterApe]

Advice to atheists out there.

STOP TRYING TO DISPROVE GOD TO THEISTS.

In my adult life I have had many a conversation and many a confrontation with theists (many in my own family), and I can honestly say I have never once tried to convince someone against the existence of God. I've defended my own beliefs. I've defended science and reason. But I don't try to convince others that they are wrong to believe what they do. At most, I point out the poor evidence they use when they try to convert me.

[Martano666]

Why do you think this is good advice? In my opinion, ALL religion is effecting the WORLD negatively. Notice I didn't say the individual. Anytime I am approached by a 'theist' who wants to discuss religion, I have no problem debating them and telling them why I think they are wrong. I wouldn't approach someone myself, but I appreciate that people like Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins are spreading the TRUTH to the theists. It is nothing short of abuse to teach your children lies about religion.

[GreaterApe]

One reason I believe this is good advice is that you CANNOT disprove god to theists. So, waste of time. The existence of a god has "emotional evidence" to theists and it cannot be rationalized.

Here's where we truly disagree. I believe teaching your children religion in general is FAR SHORT of abuse and it's that type of charged language that causes people to close their minds to reasoned thinking. I find when theists don't feel attacked, they are more receptive.

[sgtbigs22]

"lies about religion" look at the exact quote, it is abuse to teach children I.D. as much as it is abuse to teach a child to call a pencil by the misnomer vagina and send him into a kindergarten class. He's going to get laughed at, he's going to get in trouble and it's going to take a lot of unlearning to get back to zero.

religion is not innately bad

[GreaterApe]

"Lies about religion" is very broad and can be interpreted numerous ways. Given I believe all religion is fabricated, technically any teaching of religion is a lie. But not innately bad as you say. I don't consider I.D. a lie about religion but a lie about science.

[sgtbigs22]

Agreed, I.D. is definitely a fabrication of the facts and therefore horrible to teach children.  Religion however is not horrible to teach religion.

[sgtbigs22]

"It is one thing to believe in something that might be true, like god in general or Christianity as an institution, it is wholly unacceptable to believe something that is definitely not true, like I.D. or Creationism."

[Indy4fan]

@GreaterApe And that's what we're doing, we're pointing out the bad evidence when they try and reconcile faith and reason. What's baffling with ppl like Ken Miller is that he doesn't believe in ID yet believes in God and Evolution.... um isn't that ID? lol I mean if u're gonna believe in a theistic, christian god, then it's an intelligent entity but that's not in evolution. He's no better than the creationists and their christian delusion.

[irpwny]

"Stop making people "choose" between evolution and God. This is EXACTLY what fanatical Christians want you to do. Miller explains."

Along with atheists, morons, and most anyone who has an agenda to pursue or is looking, simply and solely, for a defense of their preconceived beliefs.

:)

[Sp33dee0hsix]

Ha. I don't make ppl "choose" between evolution and God. While I don't much care for christianity and such, but I believe we all need to get along..so we need to respect ppl's beliefs, while at the same time teaching people how the world really works. So...yeah. Besides as a teacher (when I become one) I will need to be neutral and respect my student's beliefs.

[ogirv101]

Ken Miller is a great man, I'm glad our schools read books from his work. i also agree with Miller about O'Reily. =p

[Bandfred]

I like this guy.

[tynoobi]

I don't think it's useless at all that God made organisms that would die out-

1. If God is God, he is timeless

2. It is not arbitrary at all to let some organisms die and live- SImply Put--, humans naturally get sick, but God doesn't necessarily heal everyone, Jesus had to prove to a group so that would spread the word.

[herbiethebarber]

What about suffering deaths? Babies suffering? Why?

[DavidLion1510]

Why not?

[herbiethebarber]

Because God is supposed to be loving, caring, etc. DUH!

[meese72]

So...that NOTHING to do with man's evil. DUH!

[rozeboosje]

Exactly. It's not science against religion, it's science against stupidity, and admittedly a LOT of the latter is of a religious nature. Scientific explanations don't involve the idea of a god so there is no need to believe in one to accept scientific ideas. But nobody said you must not believe in one either. Just ensure that you don't believe in anti-scientific mumbo jumbo.

[tynoobi]

if your going to post ignorance, get out. That simple

[rozeboosje]

bite me

[happerz]

lies lies lies deciving false philosophy's wrong false lies lies lies...

[hugesinker]

Don,

These compatibility videos are excellent. However, given your own brief descriptions of your faith here, I have to ask. Have you looked into Deism? If you believe in God as a source of objective morality and ordered natural systems in the universe... but see the bible and organized religions are getting it wrong and doing more harm than good, I'd love to welcome you over to my world.

The question of God's existence is largely irrelevant. Time to ask about the nature of God is.

[tarkana613]

i agree. I maintain my judaism mainly as a cultural identity, but my beliefs have formed to be more deism. I believe organized religion (not religion on its own) is counter to free thought. I find this concept of G-d too personified and claimed to be quite active while it would seem now that if there is a g-d, he is a passive g-d. and as has been said, if he is all knowing and all powerful, then with his infinite foresight he easily could have made the processes of nature knowing the outcome.

[tynoobi]

We cannot know everything about God, but I do not see how any Christian in their right mind is doing any harm; don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we are perfect humans, none of us are-- just saying we make alot of volunteer organizations to help the poor, teach richeousness, and such

please don't think I'm beguiling you, but don't think we all are bad because of people like Jim Jones or idiots among us who think intelligent design needs to be taught in school

I personally don't believe that

[fufuzed]

who IS GOD? than please let me share with you same verses from the Quraan . there is 3 virses in here I hope you will find the total I dea about 1)who is god? 2)what is the massage from hem to human? 3) same rulles + Scientific FACTS (sorat ar-Rahman ) in most of it youtube this : Ayat Al Kursi (The Footstool) Saad al-Ghamdi The Most Gracious - Qur'an Recitation - Ar-Rahman Surah 59: Al Hashr (The Exile) Hope that will answer same points and questions you have

[DonExodus2]

Genesis isnt literal.

The Pope seems to think theyre theologically compatible, but what does he know :)

[elan2000]

Just wondering, do you think that part of the Bible is not just poetry, but actually just plain wrong?

The biggest incompatibility I see is evolution vs Adam and Eve. If there's no A&E, there's no original sin, and that contradicts quite a bit.

[ubi2002]

Well, I do not think evolution comes in conflict with Adam and Eve. This is because we are humans because God put souls in us. Adam and Eve could have been the ones who first received souls.

[tynoobi]

actually, it doesn't contradict at all......Adam and Eve must have been because God made them special. Adam and Eve, just as the person under me said, Adam and Eve were the first blessed and the first damned

[DirectInjected]

@DonExodus2 In the Condom vs. AIDS issue, not much apparently.

[colourmegone]

@DonExodus2 He knows how to give a proper Fuhrer salute; he knows the true meaning of 'Sieg Heil'; he knows how to wear a dress that costs as much the yearly GDP of a small country while wailing about the plight of the poor; and He knows how to cover up child abuse. I can't attest to any further knowledge he might have but I would add that his relationships with his god and with humanity are so good that he has to ride around in a bullet proof golf cart surrounded by body guards.

[YaWhatIThoughtYa]

@DonExodus2 Tell him to read fourth century theologians Saint Augustine's commentary "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" where he says the order of the days is not literal. Also many past theologians thought that Gen 1:1 refers to God's original creation and Gen 1:2-2:4 refers to a ruin of God's creation brought on by the fall of Satan and God's renewal of it, so it could refer to a repopulation of creatures.

[YaWhatIThoughtYa]

@highwind8124

Read the fourth century theologian Saint Augustine's commentary "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" where he says that the order of the days are not supposed to be interpreted literally. Also many past theologians thought that Gen 1:1 refers to God's original creation and Gen 1:2-2:4 refers to a ruin of God's creation brought on by the fall of Satan and God's renewal of it.

[YaWhatIThoughtYa]

@highwind8124 Read fourth century theologian Saint Augustine's commentary "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" where he argues that the order or the days are not supposed to be taken literally. This is important because he is considered by both Catholics and Protestants to be one of the greatest Christian theologians who ever lived.

[MusicalAdrian]

I remember uniting creation and evolution in my head as a young kid over a decade ago. It's hard for me to understand that people can't understand, at least, HOW this kind of thinking could exist.

[Scotchpker]

(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses,

all systems must henceforward bow

and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true.

Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts,

a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow — this is what evolution is.

~Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

looks like pure faith to me.

although this quote makes me think its more religious extremism.

[TuesdayPillow]

I guess that string of lines quoted from Chardin is the definitive "proof". A theory in science is not the same as a theory in the "human" world.

[Scotchpker]

Thus why evolution is not accepted by the majority of scientists but by only the majority of atheists.

[fffanatic06]

"Thus why evolution is not accepted by the majority of scientists but by only the majority of atheists"

you, sir, are deluded. Forgive me but how anyone can look at evolution and all the evidence provided for it and call it faith is beyond me. Unless of course that person is deluded. Also, on that quote you provided, I'd like you to define postulate. I just wanna see how knowledgeable you are of the words you are using.

[Scotchpker]

1. to ask, demand, or claim.

2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, esp. as a basis for reasoning or arguing.

3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

4. Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.

I bow to no other man, nor his ideas.

Why should I bow down to this guys BELIEFS?

[fffanatic06]

scotchpoker - provide a definition for faith and then explain how evolution fits into it. And if you can't don't bother replying.

[Scotchpker]

Faith - The belief of something without full knowledge of it or how it works.

Evolution: The theory in which we all originate from a general ancestor.

Where is your proof?

Becuase you can't provide me with anything but the !IDEA! that a mutation randomly creates new species you are enacting your faith by beliving it.

And I would like to see any proof you have you would be the first to show some real evidence, infact if you did I know several organizations that are handing out cash.

[Albinoceros]

Oh boy, are you a crazy.

Your proof is in the transitional forms in the fossil record, and it is in the strata layer. Your proof is in vestigal traits and deformaties. Your proof is in the fact that inbred animals are more vulnerable to diseases than animals with mixed genes. Your proof is in the lack of any animals which have bird and mammal features.

And gravity is still just a theory. When Newton proposed it he didn't understand how it all worked. Learn the scientific method.

[Scotchpker]

And yet we still dont understand gravity... hmmm it would appear to me that as many people float around in india it isn't quite the law that we crack it up to be.

Get real we just don't know, there are no transitional fossils or all the young earth creationists would be locked up

you leg is not vestigial just because you can live without it.

Its Pseudo-scienence garb wrappen in dead fish... makes me sick...

[Albinoceros]

Your leg still has many uses and your life will radically change for the worse without it even if you're still alive. Wisdom teeth are actually a detriment to many individuals.

Also no, the Young Earthers wouldn't be locked up because in America you're allowed to spew whatever crazy shit you want, Freedom of Speech. There are many, many transitional fossils. You just refuse to acknowledge them because they don't fit into your worldview. Look up this guy's vids.

[FandensOldemoder]

Yes, he did.

What do you think of the "Theory of gravity" - after all, it is only a theory, never proved.

You have to take it on faith - expect to fly real soon now!

[FandensOldemoder]

Look up "Scientific theory" on e.g. NAS or Wikipedia and understand.

[DonExodus2]

lol.  IRONY.

[jebus6kryst]

The quote at the end is classic.

[pnx031]

what i'd like to say is that. If you try to accept god through evolution like I used to have, you are basically lying to yourself. If you accept such god you should also accept a god that just started the universe and left everythign to be. A non intervening god that doesn't care and will never care. A god that doesn't provide you with afterlife and you aknowledge such god only by his presence. I am sorry but such god is not enough f0r me, and not even logical.

thx

[DonExodus2]

Non intervening period, or non-intervening until we evolved?

[pnx031]

I believe you are an intelligent man that's why I subscribed to your videos. But on this issue I do think you are just holding on to to something that makes u sleep better at night.

If it works for u then fine :)

Great claims require great evidence.

[DonExodus2]

It doesnt make me sleep better at night, I hold onto it because for me, the amount of subjective evidence required to overcome the null hypothesis of no God has been met.

[Indy4fan]

@DonExodus2 therefore Zeus exists?

[pnx031]

would you mind offer me those evidence? Because really... it's not like I want to not believe in god, doesn't make me friends or anything. :)

[pnx031]

non intervening period.

I don't buy the notion that we are teh supreme being. We are not. if you are humancentric then you should recheck things. No god didn't intervene at all or just started everything. you can't have both.

Evolution starts and finishes without a god. so does your conscience. now about the universe nothing is certain but if someone started something like that and just walked off i wouldn't care at all to believe in such being.

[Paxmax]

LOL! Ken miller is a funny and talented man.

I have never grasped how deep his belieif are.. where does he think GODs power end and humans power begin?

Anyway, for the moment I'll forgive him for his strange belief, he is still fighting the good fight.

Maybe he has a time-share plan for his belief? On work he is 100% scientist, off work he's a god fearing christian?!?

[jebus6kryst]

"Maybe he has a time-share plan for his belief? On work he is 100% scientist, off work he's a god fearing christian?!?"

That works for me. I wish more people were like that.

[Paxmax]

On one hand I'm happy for you, you have not entierly ruled out rationalisation, on the other I wonder which one of those do you percieve as "the real deal".

But I have to admit, it is a wonderous feat of compartmentialization.

[jebus6kryst]

Science is always the real deal. There could be many difference reasons why Dr. Miller is a christian, but the science he does is what makes him a great man. It is just that he does not let his faith blind him from the real world that matters. It is faith getting in the way of science that cause this whole creationism problem in the first place.

[Elcristoph]

"100% scientist, off work he's a god fearing christian?!?" - he's both, I think youve spent to much time with creationists...the bible isnt litral...thats why science is not in conflict with it..

[Paxmax]

"too much time with creationist"

LOL! yes dang it, I have spent far too much time on creationists!! but I can't help it, creationists are such great source of fun!

I mean, take Kent Hovind, the only way I can stop laughing at that clown is to bash my head bloody on the monitor... or remind myself that he is actually perverting science.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

haha, that last part was funny. 'kansas board of education'. Don't forget ted haggard and bill o'reilly

[statickk14]

I can definitely agree with Dr. Miller's view because it was my own before I turned skeptic, but I was born a Buddhist. A lot of Christians can cherry pick the bible and can see God as an entity beyond any religion or boundaries set by their religious books. Only problem is, they are outnumbered.

[MightyTiny]

And why are they outnumbered, when science really shows that their view is the only Christian view that has any possibility of holding any truth? And is it inevitable that they must forever be outnumbered? I think not.

Fundamentalism gains fuel from the PERCEPTION that science and "secularism" is attacking the belief in god, and Christianity, on a fundamental level; that there is a conflict between a naturalistic view and a god-belief, where one must chose a side. Miller's arguments...

[MightyTiny]

...are lost in the noise of the to sides: the atheists and the fundamentalist Christians, duking it out on the question of whether or not there is a God, with things like promoting acceptance of good science getting lost as almost side issues. If you'd have as many atheists arguing AGAINST and not FOR that false dichotomy of either god or evolution, you'd see the tide turn.

[statickk14]

Your problem is that your understanding of atheism. Atheists don't believe in God because there isn't enough evidence. And what is so special about Christian view or a Christian God? Science doesn't show any Christian view as per my understanding.

[MightyTiny]

I have a problem in my understanding of atheism? That's strange, as I AM an atheist! And I fully agree that there isn't enough evidence for a deity, and would indeed say that there are good reasons to doubt the very plausibility of such a thing as a cognitive being that's existed for all eternity. And no, science does not show any Christian view - you are misunderstanding my argument. I am saying that the kind of Christianity Miller promotes does not contradict with one iota of science, and...

[MightyTiny]

...indeed, he makes a very good case that IF there is a god that's that is like what Christianity envisions god to be like, THEN a fully naturalistically working universe is more compatible, perhaps even necessary. And that the fundamentalist interpretation that is derived from literal reading of the Bible and the concept of Biblical innerrancy, is fatally flawed, as it contradicts some of the most central attributes Christianity ascribes to god. As I said, Miller does not argue...

[MightyTiny]

...that Christianity, or even the existence of a deity, would be somehow obvious from nature, or something that science points at - he argues merely that 1) Science does not contradict with Christianity, it only contradicts with Biblical literalism, 2) That Biblical literalism fails on purely religious grounds, even if we completely ignore anything science has revealed in the last couple of hundred years.

And my argument is that THIS is the key to opening the mind of a creationist to honest...

[MightyTiny]

...evaluation of the evidence; to first demolish the plausibility of biblical literalism on the grounds of religion; starting from a hypothetical "IF Christianity is to be true...", and demonstrating a way in which a fully naturalistically working Universe is the only one that doesn't place limitations on God (As Miller eloquently argues in his book). Once this point is succesfully made, the evidence that would before have been rejected without any consideration, is now genuinely considered.

[Knowntje]

I ofcourse agree that evolution doesnt disprove in any way that god does not exist. But the point is that evolution can be used as a powerfull argument for atheism because it is a mechanism thatb you would expect there to be if atheism is true.

So it's more that evolution is an argument for atheism than an argument against god.

[kurtilein3]

he is completely right, great video, but...

i think his strategy is weak. if you want to get rid of creationism, you need to get rid of christianity and islam, otherwise it will always come back.

and the weakest point in creationism is the existence of god, and the fact that they cannot prove that it was god/allah instead of wotan or zeus or the flying spaghetti monster or brahma.

[Bfly99]

ken miller just brilliant when it comes to presenting ideas and arguements

[MightyTiny]

Favorited!

While I do not agree with Miller on many things; most notably the existence of a deity, his point here is a vitally important one for both atheists, and Christians to understand; that to make it a choice between "god or evolution" is to play right into the hands of the creationist movement who's purpose is to force this very false dichotomy into the minds of the public, to win an argument they cannot win on evidentiary grounds...

[MightyTiny]

...If you aren't convinced by Miller here, please pick up his book "Finding Darwin's God", where he makes the case in more detail than here. It won't convert many atheists to his beliefs, and it really doesn't try to - but it should give you an idea of why Creationism is so popular in the US; and why you cannot convince a creationist of anything with evidence, no matter how strong, if you simultaneously confirm their belief that evolution is "atheistic"; when in fact it is religiously neutral.

[kurtilein3]

mightytiny: the best strategy is to deconvert them first, and then teach them about evolution as soon as they got that god-delusion out of their minds.

the christians will never stop attacking science as long as they believe in the bible. instead of just defending science while they keep making up new crappy arguments to attack science, we should go on the attack and go after the weakest point: the existence of god.

[MightyTiny]

I disagree on that, and I think I have some practical experience which is why I do - for more than a decade I've argued against fundamentalists, pointing out inconsistencies and problems with the notions of God and the properties assigned to him, pointing out contradictions in their holy texts, and the fact that a god is not necessary to explain anything; arguing for the science, piling mountains of empirical evidence to support my case, and refuting their arguments in detail, one by one...

[MightyTiny]

...The result? One person I know of who became an atheist, after a grueling long correspondence. Perhaps I sowed the seeds of doubt in many, but only one "success" in more than a decade that I know of. Then I decided to try another tactic: after all, the most important thing for me is not to convert people to atheism, but rather to convert them into an acceptance of reality, and thus stop them rejecting and arguing against good, solid science. So I did a little research into Christianity,...

[MightyTiny]

...reading not only atheistic sources, but books written by Christians, arguing for a non-literalist view; books like Milller's "Finding Darwin's God" - then, just recently, a young earth creationist contacted me about some comment I'd left in these videos; I tried out the new tactic of arguing that creationism, and fundamentalism, literalistic interpretations of the Bible, are bad RELIGION, not just contradicted by science, and by showing that a more moderate view is...

[MightyTiny]

...more in line with what properties are ascribed to god by Christians. The result? After about a week of correspondence, he accepted the reality of common descent, and evolution. It was remarkable how receptive he became to the very same evidence which makes no impression at all on any creationist usually, once I'd FIRST demonstrated with VERY strong arguments that the "either evolution or god" idea is a false dichotomy, and...

[MightyTiny]

...that there is a very strong case to be made for evolution being more compatible with Christian notions than a literal reading of the Bible. That's success on first try, in two weeks of correspondence. And I do not think it coincidence.

[kurtilein3]

mightytiny: maybe different people should use different tactics.

i want to deconvert them, i want fewer religious people on the planet. so this is what i do.

the goal is: fewer children should get indoctrinated. and moderates still brainwash their children into this ridiculous belief in imaginary friends. one generation later, you get some fundamentalists because of this.

and i will not respect faith. if i see that someone has faith, i jump on that and attack the concept of faith.

[MightyTiny]

I am a pragmatist; I will not commit to a tactic that has a negligible chance of an optimal result, but in practice for every one you manage to de-convert, you strengthen the conviction of dozens of fundamentalists. Attacking the belief in God, rather than the literal INTERPRETATION of religious texts, has that effect: it essentially works to strengthen the position of the creationists. Why do you think that creationists put their central focus on arguing that there's a choice to be made,...

[MightyTiny]

....either God or evolution? Because they understand that the majority of believers will NEVER compromize their God-belief, so if ti comes down to a choice, if they manage to convince a believer of that dichotomy, then the science loses. The sad thing is that so many atheists play right into their hand, in appearing to AFFIRM this false dichotomy.

As for respecting faith, I don't afford religious faith any more respect than I do to people's opinions in, say, politics,...

[MightyTiny]

...but I do afford basic respect for the people holding whatever beliefs they do hold. Part of that basic respect is that I do not dismiss or disparage their beliefs gratuitously; and certainly not without first fully understanding their position. I find that very few Christians understand the atheist position, or have a grasp of the arguments atheists give, but to my dismay, I've found the same to be true when it comes to atheists and moderate Christians; atheists by and large are...

[MightyTiny]

..very familiar with literalist views, but very few could give a good summary of the beliefs of a confident moderate Christian like Kenneth Miller - I've found that most atheists view moderate Christians as sort of cop-out Christians with vague beliefs. That is true of many people that are Christians by habit, but they do not represent people like Miller.

I can assure that if atheists actually bothered to read his case for why his view of god is not only compatible with evolution, but why he..

[MightyTiny]

...thinks literalist readings are completely contrary to the most central concepts of the Christian view of god, they would see that a confident moderate Christian can beat a Biblical literalist fairly easily on purely theological grounds; so contrary to the popular belief among atheists, the moderate view is NOT weaker, but stronger than the literalist view.

And this is central - this is why I do not believe that the rejection of all religious faith is necessary...

[MightyTiny]

...for the extermination of fundamentalism; because a better religious case can be made for non-fundamentalist religion.

Back when Newton came up with his equations to explain planetary motion through gravity, he faced religious opposition, because people thought that his attributing the motion of the heavenly bodies to natural forces took away from the powers and glory of God - just as the discovery of the Earth going around the Sun, and not the other way around, was opposed on religious...

[MightyTiny]

...grounds. Do you think that just because the Bible does contain passages that gave these opposing religious movements scriptural grounds for opposing these scientific theories, that it is possible that today a Christian movement might revert to rejecting Coppernicus and Newton? Or that such a movement would gain any popularity beyond the lunatic fringe? Of course not - our society has moved far beyond...

[MightyTiny]

...such a possibility, and Christians as a whole now view the laws of nature as AFFIRMING their faith in a "law-giver" God, rather than contradicting it. Miller's religious views are a natural extension of that, and as such, I see it as not only possible, but likely, that Christianity in the future will accept something like Miller's view as an "obvious" truth, and Creationism will be put to the history books alongside...

[MightyTiny]

...the opposition Newton faced; with future Christians baffled as to why any Christian would find Darwin a threat to their faith, any more than modern Christians find Newton a threat; that point, I think, is reachable, if we go about it smartly. Playing right into the Creationist plan, and giving the impression that evolution is anything but neutral on questions of religion, isn't going about it smartly.

[manan0nim0us4]

Basically, the problem is that it's a bunch of old geezers arguing for the sake of 'winning'.

[kamikazee100]

Much as I admire Miller and co, I think theistic evolution are creating a new God and religion right in our faces. Just as the early christians created a new religion from the panoply of myths in Israel, we can see the process in motion right now with the re-interpretation of christian doctrine mixed with scientific discoveries. It will not be long before massive splits in the xian movement occur along these lines.

[mordinvan]

I'm just thinking if there is a god he doesn't interfere much. I don't think there is one, and have seen no evidence to support the hypothesis of a God.

[mordinvan]

Very good video by the way. Even if I do agree on the existence of God with Ken, and many other people.

[ptolemi]

Evolution does not fit in with the Christian God, but hey w/e makes people happy I guess.

[imabeastnimadawg]

thats not fair.. because peoples interpretations of what god is are completely unique and relative to each individual... certainly one could fit the christian god into evolution, but he would have to deny much of christianity's religious doctrine and text...which donexodus does...

[busymartian]

3 cheers! 5 stars!

[svaught32]

Thanks for the posting this Don. Dr Miller is one of the best advocates for Evolutionary research.

[k9lionheart]

this is why I respect Ken Miller. He is honnest.

[agentorange20]

sorry, finding darwins god is the title.

[ndjarnag]

agreed! too often the extremists on both sides try to dominate the debate.

[theinquisitor]

Miller sometimes sounds like he's describing a deistic god and at other times explicitly states that he believes in a personal god. I've never heard him give a clear definition of what he actually believes.

I don't think evolution is the problem with a belief in god, it's just the amount of needless suffering that goes on. If god was able to set things in motion this way with clear foresight about how much suffering it would involve, how does this not make god the most evil entity ever?

[Saibomb]

ever heard of free will?

[agentorange20]

theinquisitor, I am not trying to push his book, but Ken Miller's Book on 'Searching for Darwins God' is an easy read in which he describes how, where, and why he believes evolution is inline with his religions depiction of god. I can see, from at least a Deistic (perhaps others too, so long as one isn't overly literal) viewpoint how evolution would indeed be a decent way to bring about dynamic, adaptable, diverse life forms from simply naturally seeded laws.

[MightyTiny]

I second agentorange20's recommendation - do please pick up the book; it leaves little question over what he does and does not believe. It's one of those books I'd wish both my fellow atheists, and Christians to read. As I said earlier, it won't convert any thinking atheist, as it isn't really an argument for theism over atheism - it's an argument for one kind of Christianity over the literalist kind, and as such, it is a very strong one.

[crazypants88]

One thing I don't get about theistic evolution. Why would a all-loving god create a planet that had finite resources and then create life on that planet, fully knowing that the life would be locked in a struggle for those resources and also fully knowing that some of the life he/she created would eventually develop pain receptors giving them the ability to suffer, making the system he/she created quite cruel and unlike himself/herself.

If this is terribly incoherent I apologize.

[sweatytoothmadman]

A lot of people have a hard time with this subject and I'll never be able to understand why.

[InReasonWeTrust]

The dichotomous wedge is advocated by extremes on both sides, not just creationists--a key point. Evolution and liberal/Deistic beliefs ARE obviously compatible but a sizable fraction of traditional beliefs are incompatible with evolution. Ergo, "evolution and god" both are and are not compatible contingent on both acceptance of the scientific method and nuances of belief. The compatibility hypothesis rarely states the limited role that faith dare hold for Darwinian evolution to remain valid.

[DonExodus2]

Correct, see my part I of this, or part 2 of my debating creationists series.

[SAlcocer12]

Excellent video, this is exactly the opinion I have had for the greater part of my life and have had to argue towards those who insist that there are "sides" to be taken as far as Science and Faith.

[shockferret]

The problem is that evolution falsifies small, relatively inconsequential parts of the holy texts.

However, the scriptures claim to be the word of God, and God speaking actually causes reality to happen.

Therefore, God can not be wrong or lie. Therefore, the texts cannot be God's word.

Therefore, the all-important information in the texts on how to live forever in paradise might be only the opinion of men, and that's a risk many Theists find hard to face.

[DonExodus2]

///The problem is that evolution falsifies small, relatively inconsequential parts of the holy texts.///

Things may be allegorically true, yet literally false.

[shockferret]

Yeah, you understand this a lot better than I do, but walking through metaphors can be a lot of work, especially when you're trying to deprogram someone who watches Pat Robertson end TCT every single day.

[jtyranus]

ugh. I had the book "Language of God" used against me to show that ID was correct. they said even Collins believes life was designed. I had to point out he accepts evolution.

[Ravenspeech7]

Love the O'Reilly bit.

[Blitzkrieger123]

Great video, keep'em coming: )

[truvelocity]

This is exactly my argument. People who ingorantly stomp on the human face with a big boot of religion have no idea that they are turning off an entire generation of people to Christianity.

[farvision]

Ok, redo religion without the junk .. and you get no gods. Result: zen.

Evolution is god's method? That's silly if you think of mutations as being caused by random noise on DNA polymerases.

God = random noise? Even I would not advocate such a definition!

As for Francis Collins - he is not an uncompromising evolutionist - he failed to understand that altruism evolves.

[DonExodus2]

"- he failed to understand that altruism evolves."

"that", or "how"?

[farvision]

Well it's a small window! I think we have some ideas about how it evolves and that it does evolve but I don't think we have the genes identified yet - some of the 30,000. I think we will work this out in the next 10 to 50 years. So Collin's position will collapse slowly, in my opinion. If you were taking bets, would you bet that the genetics and evolution of altruism won't be worked out?

(PS: I bought and read his book since I couldn't believe he could make such a big mistake. It's CS Lewis's.)

[Ravenspeech7]

Oh indeed there will be a genetic basis for altruism, even for specific altruistic behavior like I described below. My point, and I think Collins' point--though i do not want to put words in his mouth--is that humans can start with a behavioral trait and cognitively choose how and why to use it, to what extent, etc. Lewis' argument from that is how humanity would have been able to just think up the precepts of Christ on their own. lol and yeah he overused Lewis alot. It got annoying even for me.

[Ravenspeech7]

Evolution does not account for all of altruism. It only accounts for that altruism which is done by people who expect rewards: fame, love, etc. The type of evolutionary altruism expressed is equivalent to that of vampire bats, who share blood with their fellow bats who were unable to get a full day's supply and shun those who do not share. it's an explicit "you help my fitness, I'll help yours." Christ says to give and love without thought of recompense. That's where ethology falters a bit.

[farvision]

Thanks for the interesting example. Maybe an animal model can be found, in which case we can get mutants and start the genetics.

Also, there might be several mechanisms working

in parallel.

[DonExodus2]

Kindly look up Kin selection- specifically with Belding (?) Alarm squirrels.

[farvision]

Yes, Belding's ground squirrels. kin selection, interesting. "Rat 22 kHz ultrasonic vocalizations as alarm cries" - maybe the rat would be (is?) a good animal - the genome is being sequenced.