Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

fatmammycat · 16-09-2008 10:39AM

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 · 16-09-2008 12:44PM

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 · 16-09-2008 12:54PM

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 · 16-09-2008 12:59PM

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 · 16-09-2008 01:26PM

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 · 16-09-2008 01:45PM

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 · 16-09-2008 01:53PM

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 · 16-09-2008 01:56PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:01PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:04PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:07PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:09PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:14PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:14PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:19PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:32PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:33PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:44PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:44PM

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 · 16-09-2008 02:49PM

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.

JimiTime · 16-09-2008 02:57PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

So why do they mutate? what causes them to mutate? Can evironment cause them to mutate in different ways etc?

Tim Robbins · 16-09-2008 02:58PM

JimiTime wrote: »

how do you know the mutations are random?

It's accepted scientific fact based on evidence of an infinite amount of replication of DNA analysis. The mutations follow no pattern and are considered mistakes in the copying mechanism.

What are the 'principles' of evolution?

1. Random mutation.
2. Non - random selection.

JimiTime · 16-09-2008 03:06PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1. Random mutation.
2. Non - random selection.

One can't accept those as principles of adaptation? Why must one accept that apes are our ancestors etc in order to accept the above principles?

Tim Robbins · 16-09-2008 03:40PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Why must one accept that apes are our ancestors etc in order to accept the above principles?

We are apes. They are not our ancestors. Other Apes are our cousins.

Accepting the simple principles of random mutation, non-random selection and a quick check of the evidence confirms all that.

AtomicHorror · 16-09-2008 08:42PM

JimiTime wrote: »

So why do they mutate? what causes them to mutate? Can evironment cause them to mutate in different ways etc?

This is getting into BC&P thread territory. You can bring it there if you like.

I will say though that accepting evolution means accepting you genetic relationship to other species, including the other great apes. That connection is very well established.

wolfsbane · 16-09-2008 08:56PM

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.

Let me point out, once again, that this 'microevolution' - change within kind - is part of both the creationist and evolutionist models. Viruses and bacteria changing into other forms of viruses and bacteria is no proof of the Theory of Evolution, any more than it is proof of the Theory of Mature Creation.

AtomicHorror · 16-09-2008 08:59PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me point out, once again, that this 'microevolution' - change within kind - is part of both the creationist and evolutionist models. Viruses and bacteria changing into other forms of viruses and bacteria is no proof of the Theory of Evolution, any more than it is proof of the Theory of Mature Creation.

We've got a thread for this debate and you've already admitted to knowing squat about science and to having no intention of learning.

wolfsbane · 16-09-2008 09:09PM

AtomicHorror said:

Biblical literalism is no longer the normal interpretation in Christianity.

Yes, in Christianity as represented by the main denominations. But many of these folk no longer believe in many of the basics of the historic faith - the bodily resurrection of Christ, for example. So they are no safe guide to authentic Christian doctrine.

Many true Christians also accept evolution and reject the Genesis account as history. They think they can do that without damaging the other historical claims of the Bible, but they have really disqualified themselves from being able to defend the bodily resurrection, Christ's literal Second coming, etc. They hold to those truths, but can no longer defend them.

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.

An excellent description of theistic evolution!

wolfsbane · 16-09-2008 09:11PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We've got a thread for this debate and you've already admitted to knowing squat about science and to having no intention of learning.

Just didn't want creationism to be misrepresented. The other thread is certainly the place to see what I've already said.

wolfsbane · 16-09-2008 09:27PM

jtsuited said:

'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).

Well put.

But then when science showed there is absolutely no reason to think this is true,

It hasn't - but to continue your otherwise valid point:

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.

Correct.

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?

One has only a totally subjective judgement left - I might say God started it all at the Big Bang and intervened at this or that time - but I have no grounds for doing so, having abandoned the historicity of Genesis. How do I tell what is metaphor and what is historical, when I have taken a seemingly historical account and declared it metaphorical?

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

Well, how unnecessary He is.

But let me, as a creationist, leave you with this: the more you understand and read the Bible, the more you realise how ludicrous the idea of evolution is.

Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

Comments