Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Posted Jun 12th 2008 4:35AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Atheism
When Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion, philosopher Michael Ruse was quoted as saying that the book "makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." What especially galls
I've been reading
But doesn't evolution contradict a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis? Yes, but
By contrast,
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 115)
31. While I agree someone can be a Darwinist and a Christian, I also think they can be sincerely wrong. The idea of evolution is one of chance and randomness. This does not fit the role of the Christian God. He is a God according to scripture who is intimately involved in His creation, so much so that He sent His son to die and redeem man. Why would He use such a random and impersonal process in creation? This is contrary to the nature of God in the Bible. Furthermore, as you read beyond Darwin to those who currently write about evolution, it almost seems as if neo-Darwinist writers, commentators, and professors ascribe some sort of wisdom to evolution and nature. Unfortunately, they do not see the inconsistency in this concept since it is all supposed to be random and the concept of wisdom in the process is a characteristic you would only see in a higher being such as God. In sum, there is a God who created us and we are without excuse. Try to be a Darwinist and a Christian if you wish, but recognize the inconsistencies in your belief.
Paul at 12:44PM on Jun 12th 2008
32. Yes, a Christian can embrace the concepts of evolution as well as science and all of the knowledge that it begets. Darwin and the scientific community were and are engaged in the study of how the universe works, both large and small. None of the discoveries have ever been the sort that refutes the concept of God as being omnipotent. In fact, the more that we learn, the more likely it becomes that the design in place doesn’t require God to step outside of the rule of unbroken law. Omnipotence, in place in the beginning allows for physics, chemistry, and biology all to work in a cohesive manner without the need for intervention. Evolution and natural selection is all part of the process that is inherent in how the universe was set up from the beginning.
Politics and religion aside, the universe does what it does the way it does without our opinions affecting those processes. Pretty brilliant if you ask me. And if you are asking, I think that natural selection has been one of God’s most interesting inventions.
Rob at 12:55PM on Jun 12th 2008
33. Hi...Ignorant fundamentalist here. First of all, Lutherans that live up to the name do, like Martin Luther believe in a literal translation of the Bible, all of it. The reason that Christians must believe in the book of Genesis is that without the Fall of man, original sin and its consequence of bringing death into the world for the first time, their would be now reason for a Savior and His self-proclaimed purpose for coming into the world would be a lie. Sorry, this is what scripture tells us. You can twist it and turn it to suit your own idea of wisdom all you want...but scripture also warns us that man's wisdom is foolishness to God. You've simply created your own religion, like Oprah and Dinesh and everyone else who wants to force Christianity to conform to what makes them comfortable. Good Luck with that.
Trish at 6:16PM on Jun 12th 2008
34. Rev,
The theory of evolution is not the basis of atheist beliefs. Sure since it is based on research and fact we tend to believe it, much like say air travel(never mentioned in the bible) but that doesn't make it the foundation of anything. Atheisism is not beleiving in the myths and outgdated silly superstitions, thats it.
tmo at 12:56PM on Jun 12th 2008
35. Rev; my "foundational basis" for denying [..] the integrity of the Bible would be the problems with the bible itself and has nothing to do with evolution. For example, the fact that Mark 16:9-20 was not included in the original versions of the tract and was a latter addition speaks volumes about manipulation by the early church founds, cast doubt on a literal "resurection" and has nothing to do with evolution.
Shawn/Bryan/Emple and the rest who support a literal interpretation or a young earth theory and resent DD using the word "ignorant": Is it fair to say anyone who thinks plant life existed before the sun is ignorant? I think so.
Ryan Anderson at 12:59PM on Jun 12th 2008
36.
If one is to believe the bible, where does evolution fall?
7, no, 6 days? not nearly long enough.
Which was first, man or animals?
Why are people and animals so different from others of the same species?
mac at 1:10PM on Jun 12th 2008
37. I'm usually on board with Dinesh, but he goes a bit too far in this one. Do I think a Darwinian can be a Christian? Sure, I don't have a huge problem with that. But Dinesh's tone in this writing is that all Christians SHOULD be Darwinians. He even tries to make it seem like the Catholic church has been going from this angle for 2000 years, and that Luther and Calvin were evolutionists. So it must be that only modern "fundies" are too close minded to attach Darwinianism to their faith...
But people who make that assertion must realize their own "close mindedness" when they try to proselytize others into their form of "Darwinian Christianity."
Mark at 1:13PM on Jun 12th 2008
38. you might think that DD wants all christians to be darwinian, however, read closer and you will see that the opposite is actually the intention. He wants all Darwinians to be Christians. He would never in a million years try to get christians to join with darwin. He would love for darwin to be more christian.
Read the last sentence "Finally Ruse gets to the big one. "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" To which he offers the resounding answer: "Absolutely!"
CaptainCack at 1:28PM on Jun 12th 2008
39.
Of course God (if God exists) created evolution. Didn't God create all of existence? Why would a God create such an incredibly complex system and then ignore it?
The real problem for Christians (or Jews or Muslims, who all, afterall, believe in the same one God) is that evolution implies that
we, in our current state, are not the last in line. The evolutionary ladder stretches far above us. How then can we have been created in
God's image?
Evolution also implies that God simply created the system (I like to think that God exploded into the Big Bang) and just sat back to watch the whole thing unfold. That would esssentially mean that God does not get involved in our daily affairs, so praying for some particular result is meaningless. Christians like Dinesh try to avoid this conclusion by arguing that God just steps in here or there to modify the genetic path to help things along, and that at some point, God
stepped in to manipulate the genetic structure to create man. That's one fundamental aspect of the intelligent design theory.
John Nestico at 1:36PM on Jun 12th 2008
40. It may seem I'm a bad speller, but I'm not. Just have faith.
tmo at 1:30PM on Jun 12th 2008
41. Captain:
I think that both statements (yours and mine) are accurate. Dinesh is attempting to appeal to both sides - via media...
Mark at 1:32PM on Jun 12th 2008
42. The clinging to Darwin when discussing evolution is very much like referring to the inventor of the abacus when discussing nuclear engineering.
It's an attempt to quantify science as what it was in 1859.
Since the discovery of pcr and the rise of the science of cladistics, the door on debate regarding evolution is closed. The only counter to molecular genetics is some other equally disciplined science and there's no such thing.
The fact that a single strand of dna can now be analyzed in hours and its genome produced and cross referenced with all others isn't anything fundamentalism is going to be able to even understand, let alone counter with equally convincing experimental results, so whatever your beliefs, evolution is in the same category now as the shape of the earth, celestial mechanics or the speed of light.
I don't think too many sects still hold that the earth is flat but it took probably 300 years to move the marker. We're about halfway there on evolution. As to celestial mechanics, I think most religions believe that the solar system exists generally the way science and photographs depict it.
However, there are many people who hold the earth is only 6000 years old, which would make the farthest the Hubble could see equal 6000 light years.
Since calculations say the distance is 2 million times that, apparently fundamentalists believe that light travels 2 million times faster than what we measure it to be.
This says that there is a problem not just with Einstein, but with everything that came before him as well, all the way back to number theory.
About the only way you can hold such a belief is to be as illiterate of even nineteenth century science as John mcsame is of computers (by his admission yesterday - he has a servant do his computer work - he has no understanding of them)
Clif Kuplen at 1:37PM on Jun 12th 2008
43. Mark, you might be right on this one. Normally he is anti-athiest, anti-evolution, and anti-Richard Dawkins. Here he is vague.
I personally think that the two ideas are not compatible. However in the interests of knowledge, if anyone here does share both views, how do you reconcile the two?
CaptainCack at 1:48PM on Jun 12th 2008
44. "I personally think that the two ideas are not compatible. However in the interests of knowledge, if anyone here does share both views, how do you reconcile the two?"
Dinesh covered this, the creation account in the bible is read figuratively. I can't deny the existence of God, evil, or the need for a redeemer. But I earned a physics degree at one point and gained an understanding of the natural world that I can't deny either. Turns out they complement each other nicely.
bigTuna at 2:16PM on Jun 12th 2008
45. Bigtuna; If the creation account is not literal, then it could be argued that it's "wrong". Plants did not exist before the sun existed. Not sure what the allegorical significance of that is, but just taken at face value, it's "wrong".
What else is wrong? Pork is delicious, gays should be able to marry, my wife should be able to sleep in the house when she menstrates, witches aren't all bad... etc...
Ryan Anderson at 2:21PM on Jun 12th 2008