What do you call a PRIEST who believes in DARWIN & a SCIENTIST whol believes in GOD?

Question

is it hyprocrytical for any religious clergy to be a follower of theory of evolution & for any man of science to back up the bible's creation? is it possible anyways?

Answer 1

I encountered Teilhard de Chardin's work in anthropology long before I read what he wrote in theology, and found excellent material in both areas both logical and consistent.

There are no fewer than six several and separate creation stories in the Book of Genesis either in whole or in part, and the two major ones in the first three chapters definitely do not agree with each other in order or chronology or the particular mechanics of things coming into being. Some of our cherished biblical figures share many characgteristics and inconsistencies with Nanaboju, or the "trickster" figure of Algonquin mythology of North America, some stories seemingly joined together by names of the principle characters only. Prior to the Babylonian exile there was one book, after there were five. Moses never saw, much less wrote Genesis. The Torah was first codified by Ezra the scribe. Who do you suppose took notes on all the "facts" you believe represented in the literal biblical record? What did they write with, on, and in what language? Why do we find distinct variants in ancient texts which have more provenence, dating long before there was a Hebrew language or monotheistic religion? If all myths, being stories which do not deal with identifiable characters who actually lived are in your literalist understanding "lies", what do you do with the teachings of Jesus imparted in parables?

How do you explain all the dead ends in the archaeological record, especially those primates like Homo habilis, Australopithecus, Zinjanthropus pekinensis, and everybody's favorite Neanderthal man who were no more our ancestors than Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Baboons or any of the apes? How do you explain the greater then 98% correlation of human and binobo genetics? God definitely has a sense of humor.

Charles Darwin's doctorate was in divinity, not science. What, indeed, is it to believe in Darwin? How can you possibly limit belief in a God who is limitless without misplacing your faith in something which is in fact nothing more than a conceptual idol of your own smaller consciousness? Faith provides the security requisite to all we know, and science the enlargement of our faith. Men of faith are inevitably scientists, those who seek to know. Scientists are inevitably persons of faith, people who stand in relationship with the ground of their knowledge humble before all that they do not yet know. A hypocrite is someone more interested in judging the beliefs and opinions of others than questioning the inconsistencies of their own. One must be open to all the questions and information pertinent to one's profession including those which inspire controversy and doubt. Einstein believed in God, did that make him any less a scientist? Pope John Paul II found no real conflict between faith and evolution, did that make him less a priest?

I would call either a person of integrity.

Answer 2

Good Question! I would have to call the Priest a Hypocrite, since they Preach "Faith" in gods creation without question, but the scientist open minded.... Since Darwin's Theory of "Evolution" only involves the development of living species on earth, but not the creation of the Universe.

The Creation of The Universe is thought to be the cause of the "Big Bang" Theory. If the Scientist believed in gods creation, then he still might not necessarily be a hypocrite if he is using science to prove or disprove the religious belief. He would only be an open minded realist who considers all possibilities. Just because he might believe in gods creation of life, doesn't mean that god ( if he truly exists ) didn't create "Evolution" so it had a way to develop a diverse life cycle and have a way to evolve living things so they can survive changes in its environment.

Answer 3

You must understand the core nature of science isn't based on authority like religion and an argument from authority holds no weight in science. Also, Einstein was deist. Evolution is a fact, an observable phenomenon, and the theory of evolution (the mechanism that explains the fact) would be very much un-recognizable to Darwin and he would be amazed at all the work that has happened in a mere few hundred years. We didn't evolve from Apes, we are Apes. Anything like Adam and Eve very likely did not exist.

Answer 4

Your question assumes that Science and Religion are naturally opposed to each other. That is not natrually the case. Some forms of very conservative religious thought--no matter the religion, Christianit, Islam, etc. hold to a strict interpretation of all religious texts like the Bible so that all words contained therein are factually true.
Many theologians and scienists have no problem reconciling the two. In general terms, Religion may answer questions such as: "Who we are?"; "Why are we here?", What should be be doing--i.e.; living our lives?"
Science is based on observable data that can be tested and observed repeatedly. Science may answer questions such as: "How does this work?"; "How did horses develop as they did?"; etc. Science can never answer "Why we are here?" other than in terms of facts--atoms came together, etc.

Answer 5

It's not unusual at all for either case. My grandfather, a state biologist in Mississippi, was quite religious. I know a few pastors that accept evolution. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a book called Rocks of Ages which dealt with science and religion. I'd suggest it to anyone who can't see that you can believe in God and accept Darwin's theory.

Answer 6

realistic! its unrealistic to believe that one isnt apart of the other. progress is inevitable in all its guises. and religion is an explanation the same as science. they're one and the same. in science there has to be a form of belief everytime we explain something it leads to more questions. nothing is ever explained away....so alot of scientist belive in some sort of original creator because they recognize how amazing just the inner working of a human cell works let alone things on a larger scale. its the life long question. is it the chicken or the egg? as many arguements that are made for either side we still have no real answer. so to intergrate them is just one more step to possible understanding of what can never be explained.

Answer 7

Catholics do NOT have a problem with the theory of evolution. They believe that God created the universe to work according to scientific laws. So there is no problem with a Catholic priest believing in evolution.

Answer 8

I would call them open minded. I don't think it is hypocrytical at all to compliment a belief by allowing for the possibilities of an additional theory. I think that they can enhance each other in spiritual ways. It allows the congregation and the scientific communities to merge instead of divide. Any thing is possible.

Answer 9

A lot of us land up in wrong or inappropriate profession..... doesn't mean we need to change our beliefs.... if that scientist or the priest has no qualms about admitting their genuine beliefs, they may be considered unfit for the profession, but not hypocritical.

Answer 10

Apostates