In an interview on ABC's Nightline last night, co-anchor Cynthia McFadden asked President George W. Bush about evolution and creation:

Cynthia McFadden: So you can read the Bible and not take it literally. I mean you can—it's not inconsistent to love the Bible and believe in evolution, say.
George W. Bush: Yeah, I mean, I do. I mean, evolution is an interesting subject. I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life and ...

McFadden: But do you believe in it?
Bush: That God created the world, I do, yeah.

McFadden: But what about ...
Bush: Well, I think you can have both. I think evolution can—you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.

Stephen Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a devout Christian, expressed a similar view in an in-depth profile published in The Philadelphia Inquirer this past weekend. Asked about evolution and creation, Johnson, who majored in biology at Taylor University, an evangelical college, said, "It's not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there's theistic or God-controlled evolution and there's variations on all those themes." —Heather Wax

Check out the clips of Michael Shermer interviewing Karl Giberson (editor-at-large of Science & Religion Today) at The Harvard Club in New York last week. The two talk about Giberson's new book Saving Darwin, whether Christianity is compatible with evolution, and the spiritual implications of science. While Giberson is a physicist and a firm believer in evolution, "I think it's very important to acknowledge that there are loads and loads of things that are eminently worth believing that are not the conclusions of scientific arguments," he says. "If the only thing that we're going to be allowed to believe is something that comes at the end of a scientific argument, then we're going to have a very emaciated worldview."

Over on his blog, Brain Thompson has posted a podcast of his interview with Karl Giberson, author of the new book Saving Darwin. The two of them discuss "why Darwin has become the Christian right's new Satan, how science can harmonize with religious belief, and whether Darwin's or Lincoln's beard would be the bigger handicap in a fistfight." Enjoy.

Our friend Steve Martin has just finished a neat guest-post series on "Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics" over on his blog, and he's posted an index to the series for easy searching. Check out what some of the biggest names in the field have to say about the topic.

FROM KARL GIBERSON: Salon.com made its interview with me the top story this morning, which has done wonders for the Amazon ranking of my book, Saving Darwin. There are already more than a hundred letters in response, some of them pretty vicious. I guess some people don't want Darwin saved, at least not by a Christian.

We got a note last night from Denis Lamoureux, an assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta and the biggest name in this field up in Canada. Lamoureux is the author of the upcoming book Evolutionary Creation, and he responds to Ken Miller's opinion on the term "theistic evolution" and shares a bit about his own view of origins:

"I certainly appreciate Ken Miller's approach to the term 'theistic evolution.' For example, I practiced dentistry, and in the early years I was an atheist and later I became a theist (evangelical Christian). I never practised 'atheist dentistry' or 'theistic dentistry.' I practiced dentistry, period. I found that there was one good way to extract a wisdom tooth, and atheism or theism had nothing to do with my protocol. So in may ways I'm with Dr. Miller.
However, Ken Miller is a leading figure in the modern origins controversy, and the term 'theistic evolution' does assist us in understanding his position. Clearly, he does not embrace the views of Richard Dawkins, an 'atheistic evolutionist' or 'dysteleological evolutionist.' I think that in the context of this controversy these qualifications are necessary.
I must also add that I find the term 'theistic evolution' problematic because which 'theism' are we referring to? Pantheism? Panentheism? Traditional theism? Or even a deistic spin on theism? As well, and this is my personal twist, I don't like the inversion of priority in the term theistic evolution--a scientific theory as the substantive (noun), and God as a qualifying term (adjective). Consequently, I prefer 'evolutionary creation.' This term also seems to be emerging with those who accept evolution and have distinctly conservative Christian views."

Thanks, Denis, for introducing another term into the discussion. What do you think: Is "evolutionary creation" better or worse than "theistic evolution"?

Ken Miller, on a train to New York City for a radio interview about his new book Only a Theory, just sent us this quick note from his iPhone:

"I always reject the term 'theistic evolutionist.' I am a theist and an evolutionist, to be sure, but the combined term makes no sense to me. Never heard anyone described as a 'theistic chemist,' have you?"

Thanks, Ken, for setting the record straight. What do you think: Is there value in the term "theistic evolutionist"?

Darrel Falk, a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University in California who's known for being an anti-creationist, spoke to an all-Christian audience about "Bridging the Worlds of Faith and Biology" last night at Eastern Nazarene College in Massachusetts. Beginning with Scripture and ending with prayer, the central part of Falk's talk focused on evolution—or what he calls "gradual creation"—as he explained the role of chromosomal mutation in the process. "God has guided creation to where it has gone, but has not micro-managed all the details," he said. And just like enjoying a beautiful sunset can be a way of meditating on God, Falk said, exploring evolution can be a "worship experience because it's God creation and God's truth."
Falk, who also addressed the evolution-creation controversy in his 2004 book Coming to Peace With Science, is currently working with Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and Rick Warren, founder and pastor of the Saddleback Church, to address the divide between science and evangelical Christianity. —Heather Ciras

Denis Lamoureux, an assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta, will speak about "Evolutionary Creation" at the next Suter Science Seminar on February 15 at Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia. Peter Dula, an assistant professor of religion and culture at EMU, and Nancy Heisey, chair of EMU's Bible and religion department will respond.

John Haught, a senior fellow in science and religion at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University and author of Deeper Than Darwin and God After Darwin, recently spoke with Salon.com about his theology, the new atheists, and why there should be no conflict between science and religion, evolution and God. —Heather Wax

FROM THOMAS JAY OORD, A PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY AT NORTHWEST NAZARENE UNIVERSITY: Karl Giberson has a way of sneaking up on you. Last night, his lecture to 300-plus students, professors, and interested others at Northwest Nazarene University was a subtle yet convincing sneak attack.
Giberson, a physicist and Christian evangelical scholar, began by innocuously noting that as some scientists gain fame, they come to represent the face of science. Yet the statements that these famous "oracles of science" utter on life's big questions do not necessarily represent science in general or even the opinion of a majority of scientists. Most of the scientific oracles Giberson had in mind have names as famous as political leaders and televangelists: Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, E.O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Weinberg, and Stephen Hawking.
Giberson offers a convincing case that science is not and has never been essentially at odds with theology. Some scientists hate religion, sure. But numerous scientists believe in God, even the kind of God that's taught in Sunday School. To the crowd of God-believers Giberson addressed last night, this criticism of atheistic scientists was music to the ears. Most had intuited something like Giberson was saying, but it was heart-warming to hear a world-renowned science-and-religion scholar explain well their intuitions.
But then Giberson turned the temple tables. While the oracles of science do bad theology, said Giberson, critics of evolution do bad science. Philip Johnson rightly rejects a scientism that has no room for God, but evolutionary theory need not be—and, in fact, is not—scientism. (Scientism is the religion of those who find their purpose, ethics, and explanation of reality in mindless materialism alone.) Johnson and his ilk are misguided.
Ken Ham suffered even more from Giberson's criticisms. Ham and other anti-evolutionists regard all social evils as the product of evolution. This inference is at best hilarious and at worst destroys the impulse to love God with one's mind.
Giberson called on his audience to reject the megaphones at the extremes of the science-and-religion "discussion." Instead of embracing the scientism of the oracles and instead of rejecting evolution like the young-earthers, Giberson called for a sophisticated scientifically and theologically informed approach to the ultimate questions of life.
Just when we thought that the explanation of life could be captured on a bumper sticker, Giberson sneaks up and obliterates our simplistic answers. Hallejuah!

Dr. Francis Collins, a research scientist best known for his work in genetics, made the case for faith this past weekend when he spoke about the compatibility of science and religion at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. —Sara Kern

Dr. Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, was honored today with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the nation's highest civilian honors. Collins' work with the Human Genome Project revolutionized genetic research and has made progress toward finding genetic contributors for many common diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, and mental illness. His book The Language of God made an impact in the field of science and religion by affirming the concept of "theistic evolution." Collins and seven other recipients received their awards from President Bush at a White House ceremony. —Stephen Mapes