Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

TravelJunkie

In Metro today

'The Church of England yesterday apologised to Charles Darwin for 'misunderstanding' his theory of natural selection, even though he died 126 years ago. The letter to the scientist, who scandalised Victorian society by saying humans are descended from apes, comes because bishops want to atone for their predecessors' venomous treatment of Darwin in 1860s. The church wants to counter the view that its teaching is incompatible with science and to distance itself from fundamentalists, who ignore evolution and believe God created the world in seven days. Officials compared the apology with the late Pope John Paul II's for the 1633 Vatican trial of Galileo, who had declared that the Earth revolved around the sun. Andrew Darwin, a great-great grandson of the eminent scientist, said the apology seemed 'pointless'. However, Horace Barlow, 87, another great-granchild of Darwin, said he thought Darwin would have been pleased by the apology.'


Ok... so what does this mean to Christianity? Is Church of England saying Evolution is right? That Genesis is wrong?

What does this mean for the bible?

Very disturbed by the churche's approach in this article.

PDN

I don't think there's any need to be disturbed.

At the time when Darwin first proposed his theories the Church of England reacted very negatively and attacked Darwin as mad, bad and dangerous.

They now realise that there is no necessary conflict between Darwin's theories and the Christian faith, but rather only with a particular interpretation of Genesis.

They are not saying that Genesis is 'wrong', and the apology itself does not say that evolution is 'right' - although most members, and leaders, of the Church of England probably would believe in evolution.

BTW, I think apologising to a dead guy may well seem pointless, but it probably helps the Church feel better.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I don't think there's any need to be disturbed.

At the time when Darwin first proposed his theories the Church of England reacted very negatively and attacked Darwin as mad, bad and dangerous.

They now realise that there is no necessary conflict between Darwin's theories and the Christian faith, but rather only with a particular interpretation of Genesis.

They are not saying that Genesis is 'wrong', and the apology itself does not say that evolution is 'right' - although most members, and leaders, of the Church of England probably would believe in evolution.

BTW, I think apologising to a dead guy may well seem pointless, but it probably helps the Church feel better.

They are distancing themselves from the wacko creationists. Good move.

TravelJunkie

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They are distancing themselves from the wacko creationists. Good move.

Yes, exactly. It seems a very 'politically correct' move. (I'm not C of England btw). Anyone from Church of England have a viewpoint on this?

jtsuited

PDN wrote: »

They now realise that there is no necessary conflict between Darwin's theories and the Christian faith,

what?
please explain how. Christianity is based on teachings of the New Testament, and on the fundamental tenet that a creator deity sent his son to the earth about 2000 years ago.

Now I think you'll find that it is very difficult to reconcile this stuff with the science of evolution. Very difficult indeed.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They are distancing themselves from the wacko creationists. Good move.

Well, though I would choose to phrase it differently, this is exactly what they are doing.

It seems that the clamour being made by the proponents and opponents of YEC could confuse people into supposing that creationism is the only option for Christians.

TravelJunkie, you will find that many Christians don't view Genesis as a literal, step-by-step guide as to how the universe was created.

auerillo

TravelJunkie wrote: »

In Metro today

'The Church of England yesterday apologised to Charles Darwin for 'misunderstanding' his theory of natural selection, even though he died 126 years ago. The letter to the scientist, who scandalised Victorian society by saying humans are descended from apes, comes because bishops want to atone for their predecessors' venomous treatment of Darwin in 1860s. The church wants to counter the view that its teaching is incompatible with science and to distance itself from fundamentalists, who ignore evolution and believe God created the world in seven days. Officials compared the apology with the late Pope John Paul II's for the 1633 Vatican trial of Galileo, who had declared that the Earth revolved around the sun. Andrew Darwin, a great-great grandson of the eminent scientist, said the apology seemed 'pointless'. However, Horace Barlow, 87, another great-granchild of Darwin, said he thought Darwin would have been pleased by the apology.'


Ok... so what does this mean to Christianity? Is Church of England saying Evolution is right? That Genesis is wrong?

What does this mean for the bible?

Very disturbed by the churche's approach in this article.

Its possible for Darwin to be right, and for Genesis to be also right. The only way it's not possible for both to be right is if one is a fundamenatlist and believed every word in the bible is literally correct.

jtsuited

auerillo wrote: »

Its possible for Darwin to be right, and for Genesis to be also right.

Have you read either? This is clearly not true.

Fanny Cradock

jtsuited wrote: »

what?
please explain how. Christianity is based on teachings of the New Testament, and on the fundamental tenet that a creator deity sent his son to the earth about 2000 years ago.

Now I think you'll find that it is very difficult to reconcile this stuff with the science of evolution. Very difficult indeed.

How so? It is arguable that Jesus had no more effect on evolution than a mere mortal who lived his life without producing any progeny. Evolution is entirely incidental to Jesus being sent to the Earth. A literal interpretation of Genesis (the Earth is ~6000 yrs old type thing) would appear to be a larger impediment to evolutionary science. This statement from the CoE would appear to be an attempt to remove this obstacle.

Fanny Cradock

jtsuited wrote: »

This is clearly not true.

For millions of Christians it is. Though it's a quote a little too often trotted out it's still a good one.

"Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with religious beliefs —and equally compatible with atheism" (Stephen J. Gould)

TravelJunkie

auerillo wrote: »

Its possible for Darwin to be right, and for Genesis to be also right. The only way it's not possible for both to be right is if one is a fundamenatlist and believed every word in the bible is literally correct.

I haven't read Darwin in detail.

In terms of biblical interpretation I could make a provision that maybe one day wasn't 24hours but say, 1,000 years. 'Day' could be a loose term.

Generally the creation is a grey area but that is neither here nor there, because, a lot of people in the church will believe Genesis 100%. Their leaders going and apologising would be disturbing.

If it was me I would think, what's next? Why are (my leaders) being political? How come they're changing what they've said for hundreds of years? Why are they changing what they've taught me ?

Galvasean

TravelJunkie wrote: »

How come they're changing what they've said for hundreds of years? Why are they changing what they've taught me ?

Because a very large amount of data suggests evolution is a fact of life I would imagine.

Just for the record do you believe the world was created literally in 6 days?
Or like many (most?) Christians do you believe the account of Genesis to be metaphorical in some ways?
If you fall into the latter camp I can't see why anyone would get hung up over this.

jtsuited

TravelJunkie wrote: »

If it was me I would think, what's next? Why are (my leaders) being political? How come they're changing what they've said for hundreds of years? Why are they changing what they've taught me ?

because frankly, they've been talkin through their arse.

TravelJunkie

Galvasean wrote: »

Because a very large amount of data suggests evolution is a fact of life I would imagine.

Just for the record do you believe the world was created literally in 6 days?
Or like many (most?) Christians do you believe the account of Genesis to be metaphorical in some ways?
If you fall into the latter camp I can't see why anyone would get hung up over this.

Personally, I don't believe the world was created in 6 24-hour days. But I don't believe in a science-only view either. But this is moot. My point is that church leadership, by apologising, is eluding that Darwin is right.

jtsuited

TravelJunkie wrote: »

But I don't believe in a science-only view either.

Just in relation to how we came about, creation, etc?

Or in all areas of life- like medicine, geology, etc. ?

Like it seems that christians want to be able to live in a world with modern medicine, computers, cars, etc. technology in general that is based purely on science but when it comes to other questions, they somehow feel that science is not valid.

I don't understand how people can choose to believe some areas of science (medicine for example, gravity, etc) but then turn to some book of Middle Eastern mythology written 2000 years ago as being somehow equally valid (or sometimes more valid) as science when it comes to certain questions about the origins of mankind.

It's a massively inconsistent, illogical and contradictory perspective to take.

PDN

jtsuited wrote: »

Like it seems that christians a minority of Christians want to be able to live in a world with modern medicine, computers, cars, etc. technology in general that is based purely on science but when it comes to other questions, they somehow feel that science is not valid.

Fixed.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Fixed.

May I say PDN, you have backed out of evolution discussion several times by stating "it doesn't matter" etc.

Galvasean

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Personally, I don't believe the world was created in 6 24-hour days. But I don't believe in a science-only view either. But this is moot. My point is that church leadership, by apologising, is eluding that Darwin is right.

And so what if he was? Since you don't believe in the literal account of Genesis it shouldn't bother you in the slightest. When presented with new evidence churches have changed their minds about things such as the world being flat, the sun revolving around the Earth etc. Why should Darwin's theory be any different?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

May I say PDN, you have backed out of evolution discussion several times by stating "it doesn't matter" etc.

And that is because it really doesn't matter to me one jot just which method God used to put me here. I'm more interested in making a positive difference to the world while I am here.

I have no quarrel with evolution and it may well be true, but it won't upset me unduly if it turns out to be a load of codswallop.

What I do object to is those posters who state that all Christians are Creationists, or that a theory of theistic evolution is incompatible with Biblical Christianity. And when I see them making such errors, deliberately or otherwise, I will point it out.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

And that is because it really doesn't matter to me one jot just which method God used to put me here.

Well evolution does not necessitate a designer for the creation of species so it seriously challenges a central Christian dictum that man was created in the image of God. In evolution, the process is blind and without intent. Mutations are random not designed.

Most intellectuals when they have a good understanding of evolution, find it impossible to belief in anything like a Christian - Judeo God. This is why most intellectuals post Darwin, don't have anything close to a strong faith.

Evolution is arguably one of the strongest challenges to any Christian which is why, in my opinion, they have a major aversion to having an indepth understanding of it.

I'm more interested in making a positive difference to the world while I am here.

The biggest difference anyone can make is to alleviate human suffering.
Our understanding of how we treat all disease is based on no small part on our understanding of evolution. Why do you think triple anti-retroviral drugs are used to treat AIDs? For a laugh?

Evolution isn't just some past event, it's constantly happening.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well evolution does not necessitate a designer for the creation of species so it seriously challenges a central Christian dictum that man was created in the image of God. In evolution, the process is blind and without intent. Mutations are random not designed..

That's quite a leap of logic. Just because evolution does not necessitate a designer it does not follow that therefore the process is blind and without intent. It certainly does not challenge the Christian doctrine that man is made in the image of God. That doctrine holds true just as well with evolution as it does with any other method of Creation.

Most intellectuals when they have a good understanding of evolution, find it impossible to belief in anything like a Christian - Judeo God. This is why most intellectuals post Darwin, don't have anything close to a strong faith.

And what evidence do you have to support such an assertion? I am willing to concede that many intellectuals are atheists, but I think you are logically leaping again in claiming that is on account of evolution.

Evolution is arguably one of the strongest challenges to any Christian which is why, in my opinion, they have a major aversion to having an indepth understanding of it.

Evolution doesn't challenge me at all. I have little interest in it, but that is an entirely different matter. You really do have a habit of making some rather wild dogmatic claims and assertions.

The biggest difference anyone can make is to alleviate human suffering.
Our understanding of how we treat all disease is based on no small part on our understanding of evolution. Why do you think triple anti-retroviral drugs are used to treat AIDs? For a laugh?

I doubt that if I switched careers at this stage of my life that I am going to discover any wonderful drugs to cure any diseases. I'll stick with my present job thank you.

I am very happy when people discover drugs that can help other people. If they say that their understanding of evolution helps in this then fair play to them, I see no reason to doubt them. However, I personally am not particularly interested in what triple anti-retroviral drugs are, or in why they are prescribed. If the doctors think that they will help the patients then that is good enough for me. I'm happy to let the doctors keep on doing such a fine job.

Evolution isn't just some past event, it's constantly happening.

I'm very happy for you that you think so and that you think it is so important. It doesn't particularly interest me, but each to their own.

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Personally, I don't believe the world was created in 6 24-hour days. But I don't believe in a science-only view either. But this is moot. My point is that church leadership, by apologising, is eluding that Darwin is right.

He was right. So it is a pretty smart thing to do. As someone else said they are distancing themselves from the "wacko creationists"

AtomicHorror

jtsuited wrote: »

what?
please explain how. Christianity is based on teachings of the New Testament, and on the fundamental tenet that a creator deity sent his son to the earth about 2000 years ago.

Now I think you'll find that it is very difficult to reconcile this stuff with the science of evolution. Very difficult indeed.

Evolution is the theory regarding the emergence of variation within life. Evolution has nothing to say about superpowers, resurrection or God. These things are no more in conflict with evolution than they are with economics. That is to say, they do not enter into its considerations at all.

AtomicHorror

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well evolution does not necessitate a designer for the creation of species so it seriously challenges a central Christian dictum that man was created in the image of God. In evolution, the process is blind and without intent. Mutations are random not designed.

But at the same time, evolution would work just as it does if the creation of the first life were performed by God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It challenges our notion of what man is, surely, but the faithful can still attribute the initiation of the pattern of evolution to God. It's a God of the Gaps thing maybe, but the point is that evolution is not the attack on God that people would like it to be, and was never intended to be either.

0utpost31

Charles Darwin gets apology from church

Nice one.

santing

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Charles Darwin gets apology from Church
In Metro today ...

It won't help him a bit. He is facing his eternal destination.

Heb 9:27-28 BBE ... By God's law death comes to men once, and after that they are judged;
(28) So Christ, having at his first coming taken on himself the sins of men, will be seen a second time, without sin, by those who are waiting for him, for their salvation.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

That's quite a leap of logic. Just because evolution does not necessitate a designer it does not follow that therefore the process is blind and without intent. It certainly does not challenge the Christian doctrine that man is made in the image of God. That doctrine holds true just as well with evolution as it does with any other method of Creation.

There's no leap of logic. It's a negation of Adam and Eve which was held as a 100% factual account.

Evolution has no intent in it, the mutations are random if you understood evolution you'd understood that.

And what evidence do you have to support such an assertion? I am willing to concede that many intellectuals are atheists, but I think you are logically leaping again in claiming that is on account of evolution.

Famous Philosophers in the last century, nearly all of them are atheists.

Evolution doesn't challenge me at all. I have little interest in it, but that is an entirely different matter. You really do have a habit of making some rather wild dogmatic claims and assertions.

You are avoiding the elephant in the room.
If evolution is true and God is true, the Biblical God i.e the one who created Adam and Eve is most certainly not true or is as best an allegory.

You can't have it both ways, despite your best efforts at mental gymanstics.

I doubt that if I switched careers at this stage of my life that I am going to discover any wonderful drugs to cure any diseases. I'll stick with my present job thank you.

You are deliberately missing the point.
Our treatments of AIDs is based entirely on our understanding of evolution.

I'm very happy for you that you think so and that you think it is so important. It doesn't particularly interest me, but each to their own.

It's important to help suffering people, the best possible way. That means fully understanding evolution. Not dismissing it as "it doesn't matter me".

You can't have it both ways.

Tim Robbins

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But at the same time, evolution would work just as it does if the creation of the first life were performed by God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It challenges our notion of what man is, surely, but the faithful can still attribute the initiation of the pattern of evolution to God. It's a God of the Gaps thing maybe, but the point is that evolution is not the attack on God that people would like it to be, and was never intended to be either.

It utterly refutes Biblical literalism. The Bible contains myths and allegorys not 100% factual truths. Simple as.

jtsuited

this argument is genuinely laughable.

'god created man'. then when the whole world cops on this is not true we get:
'ok actually he created the process (which we now know to be true) that led to man. '

Then eventually they'll find out the actual reason for that process and we'll hear
' oh god created that reason for the process, blah blah blah'.

Pathetic argument.

Trying to argue that evolution and christianity are compatible IS impossible, as christianity is built on the judeo-christian principle of a 'creator god'.

And evolution makes it highly unlikely that that is the case (for all intents and purposes it's impossible).

jtsuited

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You can't have it both ways, despite your best efforts at mental gymanstics.

+1.
that pretty much is the crux of the matter.

I mean ignorance pretty much goes hand in hand with organised religion, but to not see the contradictory nature of evolution and christianity takes it to a whole new level.

Tim Robbins

jtsuited wrote: »

+1.
that pretty much is the crux of the matter.

I mean ignorance pretty much goes hand in hand with organised religion, but to not see the contradictory nature of evolution and christianity takes it to a whole new level.

Well a Christian has two options:
1. See the contradiction and deal with it. This certainly means asking more questions about your faith.
2. Pretend there's no contradiction. Either because evolution isn't true or because "it just doesn't matter".

I think PDN falls into number 2.

fatmammycat

To me the bible is either correct or it is not. If it is not, then why should any of it be taken seriously. Who is to say what should be adhered to and what should be disregarded? Cherry picking from the book to suit your own ends is what a lot of Christians do and then wonder why people are a little short with them when they expound on the 'sin' of being gay or, oh I don't know, the many 'sins' of being entirely human. Of course people have the right to believe in whatever they choose, and live as they see fit. But a little self assessment goes a long way.

TravelJunkie

jtsuited wrote: »

Just in relation to how we came about, creation, etc?

Or in all areas of life- like medicine, geology, etc. ?

Like it seems that christians want to be able to live in a world with modern medicine, computers, cars, etc. technology in general that is based purely on science but when it comes to other questions, they somehow feel that science is not valid.

I don't understand how people can choose to believe some areas of science (medicine for example, gravity, etc) but then turn to some book of Middle Eastern mythology written 2000 years ago as being somehow equally valid (or sometimes more valid) as science when it comes to certain questions about the origins of mankind.

It's a massively inconsistent, illogical and contradictory perspective to take.

What, according to you all christians should sit in a shack with no electricity, heating, tv, etc etc? A bit harsh.

Why can't God have inspired the people that used science to discover things. If he can inspire people spiritually, why not intellectually. What if the 'Eureka' moment is God-given?

You could also open your mind a little.

Galvasean

santing wrote: »

It won't help him a bit. He is facing his eternal destination.

I wonder if an angel went down to hell, plucked out Darwin, dusted him off, "sorry old chap", gave him a frontal lobe lobotomy so he would forget his time in hell and let him into heaven.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

I wonder if an angel went down to hell, plucked out Darwin, dusted him off, "sorry old chap", gave him a frontal lobe lobotomy so he would forget his time in hell and let him into heaven.

Can't have happened. If he was given a labotomy, he'd be an atheist:pac:

jtsuited

TravelJunkie wrote: »

What, according to you all christians should sit in a shack with no electricity, heating, tv, etc etc? A bit harsh.

Why can't God have inspired the people that used science to discover things. If he can inspire people spiritually, why not intellectually. What if the 'Eureka' moment is God-given?

You could also open your mind a little.

my point is that if christians are willing to accept cold hard science in the rest of their life without disregarding it as 'just a theory' etc., why do they undermine science when it comes to things that conflict with some illogical dogma?

You can't have it both ways.

Tim Robbins

jtsuited wrote: »

You can't have it both ways.

+1. When they are sick, science all of sudden does matter. But when science says evolution, it doesn't matter.

I wonder why.

Fanny Cradock

jtsuited wrote: »

this argument is genuinely laughable.

'god created man'. then when the whole world cops on this is not true we get:
'ok actually he created the process (which we now know to be true) that led to man. '

Then eventually they'll find out the actual reason for that process and we'll hear
' oh god created that reason for the process, blah blah blah'.

Pathetic argument.

Trying to argue that evolution and christianity are compatible IS impossible, as christianity is built on the judeo-christian principle of a 'creator god'.

And evolution makes it highly unlikely that that is the case (for all intents and purposes it's impossible).

In your posts here you have provided no evidence to support your claim that Christianity and evolution are wholly incompatible. Instead of fleshing out your position you have simply restated it time and time again and tossed in some charged words like 'pathetic' for good measure.

It's quite easy. There are millions upon millions upon millions of people who feel that evolution is in no way an impediment to their belief in God. But I guess they should all abandon this because of your 4 or 5 posts in this thread.

Science is based upon the notion that even the most hallowed, elegant theory can be refuted given sufficient evidence. A theory is only as established in relation to the strength of the factual evidence supporting it. If a better explanation is later found, well, so be it. The old is replace by the new and everybody moves along. I see no valid reason - other than an apparent dislike for the belief in God - for you to deny the same to religion. Human understanding and interpretation aren't infallible.

You have drawn a line in the sand and said that you either believe in God and must reject evolution, or you reject God and accept evolution. Thankfully this is patently untrue. However, your type of obtuse thinking - which attempts to shoehorn people with an 'either/ or' argument - is very much counter productive. Not only do you dismiss the belief of billions for their belief in God, you also dismiss those of faith who would otherwise fully accept evolution.

As a side note, I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention discovering 'the actual reason for the process'. Are you suggesting that there is actually a hitherto unknown process behind evolution?

jtsuited

Tim Robbins wrote: »

+1. When they are sick, science all of sudden does matter. But when science says evolution, it doesn't matter.

I wonder why.

I think deep down they know that science is right but denial takes over.

jtsuited

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In your posts here you have provided no evidence to support your claim that Christianity and evolution are wholly incompatible. Instead of fleshing out your position you have simply restated it time and time again and tossed in some charged words like 'pathetic' for good measure.

It's quite easy. There are millions upon millions upon millions of people who feel that evolution is in no way an impediment to their belief in God. But I guess they should all abandon this because of your 4 or 5 posts in this thread.

Science is based upon the notion that even the most hallowed, elegant theory can be refuted given sufficient evidence. A theory is only as established in relation to the strength of the factual evidence supporting it. If a better explanation is later found, well, so be it. The old is replace by the new and everybody moves along. I see no valid reason - other than an apparent dislike for the belief in God - for you to deny the same to religion. Human understanding and interpretation aren't infallible.

You have drawn a line in the sand and said that you either believe in God and must reject evolution, or you reject God and accept evolution. Thankfully this is patently untrue. However, your type of obtuse thinking - which attempts to shoehorn people with an 'either/ or' argument - is very much counter productive. Not only do you dismiss the belief of billions for their belief in God, you also dismiss those of faith who would otherwise fully accept evolution.

As a side note, I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention discovering 'the actual reason for the process'. Are you suggesting that there is actually a hitherto unknown process behind evolution?

'God' was originally thought to be the creator of everything and in particular humans (whom he built in his own image according to the book where pretty much all our knowledge about God comes from).

But then when science showed there is absolutely no reason to think this is true, some christians say 'well god put the whole thing in motion', and it's only a matter of time before everyone realises there is no reason to suggest that either.

And the process will continue.

The point is that if you accept that evolution is true, where the hell does a creator God (who sent his only son to earth - remember we're talking Christian God here) come into it?

The more you understand and read evolution, the more you realise how ludicrous the idea of a Creator God is.

jtsuited

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In your posts here you have provided no evidence to support your claim that Christianity and evolution are wholly incompatible.

that's because typing in all scientific knowledge of evolution would crash the boards servers, and probably take a long time.

If you want to know why they are incompatible, I recommend you sit down with a Bible and a great big book of Evolutionary science and compare and contrast.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

+1. When they are sick, science all of sudden does matter. But when science says evolution, it doesn't matter.

I wonder why.

What is your problem? Anibiotics work with or without the theory of evolution! What has believing or not believing that apes are our ancestors got to do with accepting medical help?

JimiTime

jtsuited wrote: »

that's because typing in all scientific knowledge of evolution would crash the boards servers, and probably take a long time.

If you want to know why they are incompatible, I recommend you sit down with a Bible and a great big book of Evolutionary science and compare and contrast.

Is it only then we'll be worthy of modern medicine?

TravelJunkie

jtsuited you sound quite angry. No need to be really.

You're also assuming evolution will really dent the belief of a Christian. I could say, alright evolution has been proven, I accept that. But where does evolution begin? God didn't start at evolution, in my belief God is , he has no beginning, no end. So, evolution is only just a tiny dent in our significance.

AtomicHorror

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It utterly refutes Biblical literalism. The Bible contains myths and allegorys not 100% factual truths. Simple as.

Biblical literalism is no longer the normal interpretation in Christianity. They're still wrong, but evolution does not contradict the rather vague views of the average Christian.

jtsuited wrote: »

this argument is genuinely laughable.

'god created man'. then when the whole world cops on this is not true we get:
'ok actually he created the process (which we now know to be true) that led to man. '

Then eventually they'll find out the actual reason for that process and we'll hear
' oh god created that reason for the process, blah blah blah'.

Pathetic argument.

Let them put God wherever they like. So long as it is science leading religion and not the other way around there's little worry about.

jtsuited wrote: »

Trying to argue that evolution and christianity are compatible IS impossible, as christianity is built on the judeo-christian principle of a 'creator god'.

Evolution seems to be taken by many non scientists and even some scientists as an answer to everything. It is not. Its jurisdiction is well-defined. It begins at the moment that the first living cell. We have no biological theories that go beyond that moment at the present time. The origin of life, abiogenesis, is hypothesis and not theory. Going beyond this, the origins of the universe are understood to the point of "creation" and no further. You can still have your creator God at the fringes of the theories. and it is not the place of scientists to attempt to called disproved that which is not. I can offer my personal opinion on the whole matter, but my beliefs are based more on the scientific method itself than on scientific data.

AtomicHorror

jtsuited wrote: »

'God' was originally thought to be the creator of everything and in particular humans (whom he built in his own image according to the book where pretty much all our knowledge about God comes from).

But then when science showed there is absolutely no reason to think this is true, some christians say 'well god put the whole thing in motion', and it's only a matter of time before everyone realises there is no reason to suggest that either.

And the process will continue.

So let it. In time God will run out of places to hide. We've been chasing him since the man first climbed mountains and couldn't find Zeus.

jtsuited wrote: »

The point is that if you accept that evolution is true, where the hell does a creator God (who sent his only son to earth - remember we're talking Christian God here) come into it?

The creation of life. That would be theistic evolution.

jtsuited wrote: »

The more you understand and read evolution, the more you realise how ludicrous the idea of a Creator God is.

I gotta say man, I think the vast majority of people, myself probably included, could stand to read and understand evolution better.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

What is your problem? Anibiotics work with or without the theory of evolution! What has believing or not believing that apes are our ancestors got to do with accepting medical help?

All treatment of disease is based on understanding of DNA including its random mutation and natural selection. That is why triple anti - retro viral treatments are used in the treatments of AIDs.

Triple being the key word. Because the virus can mutate while replicating and be immune to one anti - retroviral drug, but the chances of it being immune to all three in one mutation are staggeringly slim.

Triple anti-retro viral though is far more expensive.

So is the cost worth it? Well it wouldn't really be if the principles of evolution weren't true.

There are many other examples in many other diseases.

So what's your position? Yes I accept the principles of evolution when used in medicine because I like that conclusion, but not when used to explain the origin of my species because I don't like that conclusion.

That's non - rational. You either accept the principles or you don't.

Fanny Cradock

jtsuited wrote: »

that's because typing in all scientific knowledge of evolution would crash the boards servers, and probably take a long time.

If you want to know why they are incompatible, I recommend you sit down with a Bible and a great big book of Evolutionary science and compare and contrast.

Again and again you have repeated yourself but refuse to offer anything to support your claim. This time round you spout some intellectually bankrupt excuse that 'typing in all scientific knowledge of evolution would crash the boards servers'. I didn't ask you to provide evidence for evolution. There would be little point as you would be preaching to the converted. Instead, I have asked you to back up your claim that evolution is wholly incompatible with the Christianity. Remember: this affects countless millions of people (billions, even), so make it good.

As a friendly bit of advice, it would also be best if you didn't automatically assume that Christians haven't previously sat down with the Bible and a great big book of evolutionary science. For Christians like Francis Collins (who just so happens to be scientist of repute) faith and evolution hold no conflict in their lives. Can you not grasp this?

You never answered my question - something I couldn't quite figure out. Are you suggesting that there is actually a hitherto unknown process behind evolution? I have a reasonable understanding of evolutionary theory, but I'm confused by your statement.

As for where God fits into it, I recommend you read a great big web page on theistic evolution.

AtomicHorror

Tim Robbins wrote: »

All treatment of disease is based on understanding of DNA including its random mutation and natural selection. That is why triple anti - retro viral treatments are used in the treatments of AIDs.

Triple being the key word. Because the virus can mutate while replicating and be immune to one anti - retroviral drug, but the chances of it being immune to all three in one mutation are staggeringly slim.

Triple anti-retro viral though is far more expensive.

So is the cost worth it? Well it wouldn't really be if the principles of evolution weren't true.

There are many other examples in many other diseases.

So what's your position? Yes I accept the principles of evolution when used in medicine because I like that conclusion, but not when used to explain the origin of my species because I don't like that conclusion.

That's non - rational. You either accept the principles or you don't.

I think this is kinda moot- most Christians are not in the business of rejecting science whether it is convenient or not. Now you certainly have a case against biblical literalists. In terms of evolution's influence on medicine, it has indeed been profound. More or less anything to do with modern genetics is a direct result of the work of Mendel, Darwin and the combination of their work into the modern synthesis of evolution. There has been no greater advance in medicine since Pasteur's time.

However the antibiotics bit is rather off- that had nothing to do with genetics or evolution. Even the bible-thumpers could still take antibiotics and not be labelled hypocritical as such.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

All treatment of disease is based on understanding of DNA including its random mutation and natural selection. That is why triple anti - retro viral treatments are used in the treatments of AIDs.

how do you know the mutations are random?

So is the cost worth it? Well it wouldn't really be if the principles of evolution weren't true.

What are the 'principles' of evolution?

You either accept the principles or you don't.

Let me know what you think the 'principles' are and i'll let you know if i accept them.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

how do you know the mutations are random?

I feel like I'm jumping sides here a lot but: Because the distribution of mutations is random. There's no evidence of any form of selection other than natural and artificial selection nor evidence of a bias in favour of beneficial mutation. Quite the opposite. The minority are beneficial, the vast majority detrimental or merely non functional.