Daily Campus

The article states:

"Dr. Miller, who is a devout Catholic,
believes in the coexistence of these two principles:
religion and evolution."

Dr. Miller can believe whatever he wants,
. . .
but his beliefs are in opposition to
teachings of the Catholic Church
and
Laws of science.

Some examples are:

God created everything "in its whole substance" from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

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)

Adam and Eve were real human beings--the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
. . .
Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)

Investigation into human "evolution" was allowed in 1950,
but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism
might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
. . .
Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.

Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like galaxies.

Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes

Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes.

Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis:
Life does not come from non-life
. . .
There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.
Partial quotes from:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
and
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

As a Christian (Catholic) parent,
who's words should I trust . . .
Dr. Miller's
or
the words of God:
e.g.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth.

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. ...


Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation
God 'made them male and female.'

Dr. Miller or God?
I'll trust the words of God,
Who was there at the beginning,
... and scientist and educators who do not censor God from there conclusions,
such as those at: AnswersInGenesis.org

How can Dr. Miller, claiming to be a "devout Catholic" espouse the coexistence of antitheses?. Evolution dispenses with Genesis, the foundation of Christian faith. But he can claim compatibility? If God needed evolution, He would also be a product of it. Becoming human brought His ancestry into one whose development had lineage back to apes like everyone else. Does this make sense to anyone? Does it make any sense to be "devout" to a God who has evolved from chimps? Not My God!
And in proclaiming compatibility with two opposing concepts it is really advocacy of one religion over another but Dr. Miller seems flabbergasted and has trouble choosing.
What? You say, no way is evolution a religion. It is science. It's belief is the foundation for all science. It is fact. Creation is religion, so is Intelligent Design. Ban and purge the Ten Commandments and prayer and all forms of religion. No Creation or ID or religion in classroom, No sir!
Oh really! That's not what the Supreme Court has ruled.
In the 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v District of Columbia, the Supreme Court ruled that Secular Humanism which includes evolution, is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
In 1961, in the case of Torcaso v Watkins, the US Supreme Court cited that Secular Humanism was a religion. It declared that the First Amendment reached far more than churches of theistic faith and that it is not the business of government to probe beliefs. Religions can be founded on different beliefs. Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture and Secular Humanism are religions without belief in the existence of God.
So where is Dr. Miller coming from? He seems to speak from both sides of his mouth. Perhaps he is, without knowing it, coming up with a new pseudosciencespeak, like "punctuated equilibrium", whereby one can be a devout atheistic Catholic, the epitome and champion of religious/atheistic/political correctness.
All the while, we are banned from teaching religion (God forbid) in our public schools. Having established that evolution is religion, the question before us now is what religion should we ban and who should make that determination? Where is the ACLU when we need 'em?

No One Can Teach Creationism Without Proper Training

The world of current creationism does not understand the Genesis text,
and is fragmented into various factions which teach misinformation,
with doctrines which vary from the false to the foolish. However,
creationism can't be taught, without the teachers first being trained
with the facts. Otherwise they would be teaching "propaganda", and
misrepresenting the Genesis text, and nothing of value would be gained.

The world of science is mostly atheistic, which has been misled by the
falsehoods and foolishness of current creationism, and has blindly decided
upon unrealistic theories of our origins and history of life, in an attempt to
explain our beginnings and continued existence.

Yet the Word of God has always been true, even though those whom we
thought could correctly explain it, actually did not understand the text
themselves. Using correct literal interpretation, the biblical truth of
Genesis reveals far more about our ancient prehistoric past, than modern
science has ever known.

The book of Genesis does not contain any "creation accounts". Chapter
two tells us about the origins of modern mankind, starting in about 7200
BC. The chapter ends in about 7000 BC, with the addition of Eve, the
helpmate for Adam. Chapter one is the rendition of the "Observations
of Moses", which were six visions given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, during a
six day period in 1598 BC. Chapter one covers a period of time that
spans about 4.5 billion years, but each 24-hr day was taken from the first
week of each geologic area, in biblical order.

The correct reading of chapter one of Genesis gives undeniable proof of the
existence of the Living God. The proof is God's revelation to Moses, defining seven
geologic eras of the past, which Moses could not have known about on his
own. Secular science would not discover geologic time until 3000 years
later. Merely reading the "first day" through the "seventh day" has little
meaning, and has been called "a constructed creation myth". However,
in the Gospels, the Lord Jesus reveals the chronological order of the days
of Moses, to where their true meaning is uncovered. Consider the following:

A. The Fourth Day of Moses, from Creation Week
1. Covers the period 4.6 Billion BC to 245 Million BC
a) Depicts the creation of the (other) celestial bodies

B. The fifth day of Moses, from Restoration Week 1
1. Covers the period 245 Million BC to 65 Million BC
a) Depicts the creation of "sea monsters" and birds
b) Discovered life forms
i. ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, pliosaurs, plesiosaurs,
and archaeopteryx

C. The sixth day of Moses, from Restoration Week 2
1. Covers the period 65 Million BC to 42 Million BC
a) Depicts the creation of herbivores, large animals, and the
"remaking" of mankind into God's image
b) Discovered life forms
i. eohippus, indricotherium
ii. mankind of the period not yet discovered

These, and the remaining eras of geologic time, are given in the book "Moses
Didn't Write About Creation!", published by PublishAmerica. Starting with
the Fourth Day, the book puts the seven days in chronological order, as revealed
by the Living Word.

The secular world of science may call this a "convenient coincidence". But it
is extremely difficult to "explain away" the fact that the "Observations of
Moses" follow the order of the discovered geologic record of Earth, with
visions of the ancient life forms shown to Moses, that lived during those
time periods.

Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com

Some Catholic. Then how does "Evolution" explain Jesus' divinity?
I can't believe people are going to believe a guy that doesn't even understand what he believes!

How depressing for the all those that believe the same thing. Faith and REAL science can mesh together, but not faith and a fake philosophy under the name of Darwinism.

Ken Ham is the MAN!!!

The article says:

<< Colleagues and fellow scientists of Miller have asked if a certain kind of fossil or a certain type of gene mapping would help convince people like Ken Ham... that evolution is real.
"That would be convincing evidence if this were a scientific debate, but it's not. This is a cultural war," Dr. Miller said. >>

This exemplifies one of the big problems I have with evolution proponents like Dr. Miller: they pretend there are no scientific objections to evolutionism, only "religious" (or cultural) ones. They may not agree with those objections, but to act like they don't exist is flat-out dishonest.

The fact is, creation scientists such as those Ham works with constantly present much more straightforward, thorough and objective interpretations of scientific facts than anything I hear from their opponents. I've learned that, whatever problems one has with the "big guy in the sky" concept -- and such problems are certainly understandable -- the facts point toward our being created by something bigger than us, not by nothing. It takes a lot of work by a lot of scientists to make those facts appear to point in the other direction. Not that most people ever bother to take a good, honest look at those facts anyway; they're usually too busy letting scientists do their thinking for them.

Dr. Miller is able to compartmentalize. Rather than recognize the incompatibility of evolution and religious, he holds them as separate but valid version of the way things are. I think this is harmful because it encourages the religious to hold on to false beliefs that otherwise would be seen as irrational and consisting of claims that the impossible is true! He probably believes in angels and transubstantiation! It is very difficult for us to accept the implications of evolution. Even the brilliant Stephen Jay Gould couldn't do it. Values blinker and sometimes blind us. Bill Rohan