<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Of Science, Faith, and Feelings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:11:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: TLTB</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95461</link>
		<dc:creator>TLTB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95461</guid>
		<description>Ironically, amongst Darwin&#039;s things found after his passing was a copy of Mendel&#039;s manuscript on his findings on selective plant breeding. It was in a sealed envelope, never opened. Mendel had sent it to Darwin, hoping he would get feedback. If Darwin had read it, we might have had a synthesis view decades earlier than we did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ironically, amongst Darwin&#8217;s things found after his passing was a copy of Mendel&#8217;s manuscript on his findings on selective plant breeding. It was in a sealed envelope, never opened. Mendel had sent it to Darwin, hoping he would get feedback. If Darwin had read it, we might have had a synthesis view decades earlier than we did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry B</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95372</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:31:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95372</guid>
		<description>Peter - you are correct about Darwin and Mendel.  I remembered that they needed mendels work to support Darwins natural selection theory, but had forgotten that the linking of the two didn&#039;t occur until after both had passed on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter &#8211; you are correct about Darwin and Mendel.  I remembered that they needed mendels work to support Darwins natural selection theory, but had forgotten that the linking of the two didn&#8217;t occur until after both had passed on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Kirk</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95246</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Kirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95246</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;But all of this trust starts to fall apart for many people over one scientific theory: evolution.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I was expecting this sentence to end with &quot;global warming&quot;. The build-up, and the title, would fit that direction of argument just as well. And they are both stories which are true, at least according to most scientists, but which many people reject not because of the evidence but because they are terrible.

Larry, I am not a biologist either, but from what I remember reading Darwin was not aware of Mendel&#039;s work on genetics. It was later generations of scientists who put it together with Darwin&#039;s work on the Origin of Species to put together modern evolutionary theory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>But all of this trust starts to fall apart for many people over one scientific theory: evolution.</p></blockquote>
<p>I was expecting this sentence to end with &#8220;global warming&#8221;. The build-up, and the title, would fit that direction of argument just as well. And they are both stories which are true, at least according to most scientists, but which many people reject not because of the evidence but because they are terrible.</p>
<p>Larry, I am not a biologist either, but from what I remember reading Darwin was not aware of Mendel&#8217;s work on genetics. It was later generations of scientists who put it together with Darwin&#8217;s work on the Origin of Species to put together modern evolutionary theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TLTB</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95220</link>
		<dc:creator>TLTB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:31:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95220</guid>
		<description>The compatibility of science and religion has long been recognized. But its not enough. Theology has to take science seriously. We can&#039;t accept evolution, the Big Bang, deep time and other major findings of the past 200 years and continue to stick to our Aristotelian/Thomasian assumptions about God and his creation. 

Really taking science seriously means asking what the theological implications of evolution, etc. are for our conceptions of God and creation. That&#039;s a big task which few theologians have taken up (John Haught being a notable exception), but that&#039;s what needs to happen. Only after we have an understanding of where evolution fits into theology are we going to be able to have a real discussion about it in popular Christian circles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The compatibility of science and religion has long been recognized. But its not enough. Theology has to take science seriously. We can&#8217;t accept evolution, the Big Bang, deep time and other major findings of the past 200 years and continue to stick to our Aristotelian/Thomasian assumptions about God and his creation. </p>
<p>Really taking science seriously means asking what the theological implications of evolution, etc. are for our conceptions of God and creation. That&#8217;s a big task which few theologians have taken up (John Haught being a notable exception), but that&#8217;s what needs to happen. Only after we have an understanding of where evolution fits into theology are we going to be able to have a real discussion about it in popular Christian circles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Neufeld</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95211</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:17:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95211</guid>
		<description>PS:  I checked out your blog.  Gorgeous pictures.  You do &quot;brief&quot; better than I do!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PS:  I checked out your blog.  Gorgeous pictures.  You do &#8220;brief&#8221; better than I do!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Neufeld</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95210</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95210</guid>
		<description>I hadn&#039;t seen that book either.  I&#039;ll have to put it on my list.  I&#039;m currently reading Richard Colling&#039;s book &lt;em&gt;Random Designer&lt;/em&gt;, and blogging about it.  Colling is an evangelical Christian, by all appearances somewhat more conservative theologically than I am, and accepts evolution.  He looks at how his faith and science relate.

Check out the posts, and possibly his book.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hadn&#8217;t seen that book either.  I&#8217;ll have to put it on my list.  I&#8217;m currently reading Richard Colling&#8217;s book <em>Random Designer</em>, and blogging about it.  Colling is an evangelical Christian, by all appearances somewhat more conservative theologically than I am, and accepts evolution.  He looks at how his faith and science relate.</p>
<p>Check out the posts, and possibly his book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Neufeld</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95209</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95209</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
In conclusion, I think you have some good points. However, I think the educational establishment is too hostile to Christianity in general. And, Fundamentalist really get worked over in college.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I am in agreement with you here, though the solutions would be different at the college level than in High School, in my view.  Personally, I think that educational institutions need to become much more responsive to their customers, the students.  I know that I was a pain to many of my professors (I went entirely to Christian colleges), and I think I would be much worse now.

Some professors don&#039;t like to be challenged in their classroom, and they consider &quot;doing a good job in their class&quot; to be the equivalent of coming to understand things their way.

In high school science, however, I believe consensus science should be taught.  Now that &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; mean that the science teacher should not draw atheistic conclusions from the science any more than theistic ones.  Just teach the science as far as it properly goes.

The place to carry it forward after that is in church.  Religious education in churches is another area that really needs some improvement.  With a better job done on Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights, young people would be less shocked by what happens to them in college.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>
In conclusion, I think you have some good points. However, I think the educational establishment is too hostile to Christianity in general. And, Fundamentalist really get worked over in college.
</p></blockquote>
<p>I am in agreement with you here, though the solutions would be different at the college level than in High School, in my view.  Personally, I think that educational institutions need to become much more responsive to their customers, the students.  I know that I was a pain to many of my professors (I went entirely to Christian colleges), and I think I would be much worse now.</p>
<p>Some professors don&#8217;t like to be challenged in their classroom, and they consider &#8220;doing a good job in their class&#8221; to be the equivalent of coming to understand things their way.</p>
<p>In high school science, however, I believe consensus science should be taught.  Now that <em>does</em> mean that the science teacher should not draw atheistic conclusions from the science any more than theistic ones.  Just teach the science as far as it properly goes.</p>
<p>The place to carry it forward after that is in church.  Religious education in churches is another area that really needs some improvement.  With a better job done on Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights, young people would be less shocked by what happens to them in college.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95187</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95187</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neufeld, you make good arguments in favor of teaching evolution.  In addition you say, &#8220;Physicists debating their observations on the tracks of particles that have been theorized may be dealing with data that is much more difficult to interpret, but nobody puts the kind of emotion into that debate that goes into the debate about evolution. Why is this? Well, we’re dealing with myth, and more importantly about a creation myth, our basic story about who we are. And I’m not going to back off of the word “myth” here either. Myths are essentially powerful stories that help us define ourselves&#8221;. </p>
<p>This is a rational point.  However, the secular view in education worries me.  I took a class titled Philosophy of Religion in public college.  It was taught by an atheist.  She did not believe in any faith experience and thought is was all just a myth.  Anyone who suggested that religion was anything but a myth was over ruled. </p>
<p>I had two psychology professors state boldly that religion has no place in the study of psychology or counseling clients.  </p>
<p>In one human resource class, the professor lead a class attack on me, because I disagreed with their view about Christians.  Their view was that a Fundamental Christian should not be allowed to teach or hold any government job.  </p>
<p>In conclusion, I think you have some good points.  However, I think the educational establishment is too hostile to Christianity in general.  And, Fundamentalist really get worked over in college.  </p>
<p>I am not a Fundamentalist.  I came from a Fundamentalist background, but I have moved to a more understanding and tolerant United Church of Christ / Congregationalist faith journey.  Regardless, our educational establishment needs to be more tolerant of Christian view points.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry B</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95151</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95151</guid>
		<description>I wasn&#039;t aware of this book, but found it today while digging around.  Sounds like it attempts to do what you propose here.  
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627120520.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wasn&#8217;t aware of this book, but found it today while digging around.  Sounds like it attempts to do what you propose here.<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627120520.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627120520.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Neufeld</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2007/12/of-science-faith-and-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-95051</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1036#comment-95051</guid>
		<description>I think you make a number of good points, and yet it seems to me that there is rather substantial evidence for evolution that a layperson can check.  I&#039;m a Bible teacher, and neither in the physical nor the life sciences, but by taking time to do some reading and some informal field trips with the appropriate guides at hand has given me &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; knowledge.  I can&#039;t argue the deep issues scientifically, but I can generally follow the debate.

I say that simply to note that people can pick up an understanding of how evolution works, and what its impact is on our current understanding--or so it seems to me.  It&#039;s harder to follow, and it doesn&#039;t do things as identifiable as making aircraft fly, but it does impact research in medicine.

That said, I do agree that a lack of easy to grab handles on the theory does make it harder for the non-specialist to follow.  To me, that makes it all the more important that it be explicitly taught in science programs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you make a number of good points, and yet it seems to me that there is rather substantial evidence for evolution that a layperson can check.  I&#8217;m a Bible teacher, and neither in the physical nor the life sciences, but by taking time to do some reading and some informal field trips with the appropriate guides at hand has given me <em>some</em> knowledge.  I can&#8217;t argue the deep issues scientifically, but I can generally follow the debate.</p>
<p>I say that simply to note that people can pick up an understanding of how evolution works, and what its impact is on our current understanding&#8211;or so it seems to me.  It&#8217;s harder to follow, and it doesn&#8217;t do things as identifiable as making aircraft fly, but it does impact research in medicine.</p>
<p>That said, I do agree that a lack of easy to grab handles on the theory does make it harder for the non-specialist to follow.  To me, that makes it all the more important that it be explicitly taught in science programs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

