We were wrong Mr Darwin.

#1
The Church wants to say sorry to Charles Darwin. Apparently he didn't bob about on the oggin for years and come up with a load of old twaddle.

An article to be posted on the Church’s website will say: ‘Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth [in 1809], the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still.

‘But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests.’
Daily Hate Linky

But how do the creationists feel about it I wonder? Are they being marginalised by new "Scientific" Christians?
 
#2
MrShanklysboots said:
The Church wants to say sorry to Charles Darwin. Apparently he didn't bob about on the oggin for years and come up with a load of old twaddle.

An article to be posted on the Church’s website will say: ‘Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth [in 1809], the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still.

‘But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests.’
Daily Hate Linky

But how do the creationists feel about it I wonder? Are they being marginalised by new "Scientific" Christians?


Excerpt "Former Conservative Minister Ann Widdecombe, who left the Church of England to become a Roman Catholic, said: ‘It’s absolutely ludicrous. Why don’t we have the Italians apologising for Pontius Pilate?"


Noooooooooooo just realised this is C/A and not the NAAFI. toodle pip
 
#3
Wait for the comment from Tom Cruise. Beam me up Scottie!!!
 
#4
Why can't God people just believe that evolution was the cunning work of God? Do they really have to follow every single line in that Jewish/Greek book.
 
#5
I am a Church going type. Seems to me that Christianity is the best show in town. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants a bit of meaning to their lives. Certainly, it has helped me.

Unfortunately, (in the media and in the public mind) Christianity is often equated with Christian fundamentalism. We believers are accused of being anti-intellectual etc etc.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no conflict between Science and Religion. Science seeks to find how it happened. Relegion seeks to explain why it happened.

Was the world created 10000 years ago? Of course not! Was it created in six days? Pretty damned unlikely! On the other hand, is the complexity of the universe simply the result of chance? That also seems pretty damned unlikley!

Surely, it is possible to beleieve in evolution, whilst still believing in an Intelligence driving it forward?
 
#6
Steezy said:
Why can't God people just believe that evolution was the cunning work of God? Do they really have to follow every single line in that Jewish/Greek book.
And who says that Bible doesn't recognise evolution?

"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." (Wiki) As a Christian I have no problems with that. It's only when I hear how EVERY natural organism from the most primitive life forms to humans came to existence by chance and genetic "mistake" I have to ask, are there a bit too many "mistakes" and "chances" that on closer inspection form one interdependent, interconnected, flexible perfectly designed world of life?

Darwin was a great man without a shadow of a doubt, but he stood at the very beginning of science at the time when it was not even divided on the most basic branches like Biology, Physics, Geology... He had no idea of genetics or quantum physics. He formed his theories on the body of knowledge available to him. And as a result, certain things he got wrong, which in no way diminishes his achievement.

Incredibly, some people who renounce God as an absolute absolutely believe in Darwin, effectively putting him in place of God thus creating a new religion out of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
 
#8
t's only when I hear how EVERY natural organism from the most primitive life forms to humans came to existence by chance and genetic "mistake" I have to ask, are there a bit too many "mistakes" and "chances" that on closer inspection form one interdependent, interconnected, flexible perfectly designed world of life?
But the fact is that repeated chances and mistakes as you call them, i.e. genetic mutations leading to survival of the fittest happen routinely in every living organism. When looking individually at a transcription or translation or duplication of DNA/RNA it is extremely unlikely for a mistake to occur. However multiply a small probability by an immense number of times which these processes occur and you get a large occurrence of mistakes. Multiply that by billions of living creatures and you get many mistakes every day. Do this over millions of years and apply the ideas of natural selection and it seems obvious to me that there is no design occurring, merely the adaptation of organisms to environmental and social pressures.

Darwin was a great man without a shadow of a doubt, but he stood at the very beginning of science at the time when it was not even divided on the most basic branches like Biology, Physics, Geology... He had no idea of genetics or quantum physics. He formed his theories on the body of knowledge available to him. And as a result, certain things he got wrong, which in no way diminishes his achievement.

Incredibly, some people who renounce God as an absolute absolutely believe in Darwin, effectively putting him in place of God thus creating a new religion out of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
I would have to disagree. Sure there are a few nutters who think this way, but for the majority Darwin is just a figurehead that represents the use of the scientific method and non-adherence to strict biblical ideals. I'm not aware of the mistakes you talk about but I think any reasonable biologist would readily admit that his work has been expanded upon by the rediscovery of Mendel's work as well as various new selective theories.

The issue I have with Christianity is that modern Christians pick and choose the bits they want to believe, fully accepting parts of the good book and yet with the same breath dismissing other bits as ridiculous.
 
#9
I'm all for anything that upsets that bigot Anne Widdecombe, but I never saw Darwinism as being inconsistent with divinity, only with creationalism such as that described in a book that wasn't even published until many years after the events to which it refers.

Like their mumbled apologies for having participated in the slave trade, their half hearted expressions of regret for the centuries of abusive practices, this "apology" to Darwin smacks of shallow opportunism. The expression "damnation by faint praise" springs to mind, a stunt to attract cheap publicity for the church's wish to be viewed as progressive and inclusive.
 
#11
The_Big_Show said:
t's only when I hear how EVERY natural organism from the most primitive life forms to humans came to existence by chance and genetic "mistake" I have to ask, are there a bit too many "mistakes" and "chances" that on closer inspection form one interdependent, interconnected, flexible perfectly designed world of life?
But the fact is that repeated chances and mistakes as you call them, i.e. genetic mutations leading to survival of the fittest happen routinely in every living organism. When looking individually at a transcription or translation or duplication of DNA/RNA it is extremely unlikely for a mistake to occur. However multiply a small probability by an immense number of times which these processes occur and you get a large occurrence of mistakes. Multiply that by billions of living creatures and you get many mistakes every day. Do this over millions of years and apply the ideas of natural selection and it seems obvious to me that there is no design occurring, merely the adaptation of organisms to environmental and social pressures.

Darwin was a great man without a shadow of a doubt, but he stood at the very beginning of science at the time when it was not even divided on the most basic branches like Biology, Physics, Geology... He had no idea of genetics or quantum physics. He formed his theories on the body of knowledge available to him. And as a result, certain things he got wrong, which in no way diminishes his achievement.

Incredibly, some people who renounce God as an absolute absolutely believe in Darwin, effectively putting him in place of God thus creating a new religion out of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
I would have to disagree. Sure there are a few nutters who think this way, but for the majority Darwin is just a figurehead that represents the use of the scientific method and non-adherence to strict biblical ideals. I'm not aware of the mistakes you talk about but I think any reasonable biologist would readily admit that his work has been expanded upon by the rediscovery of Mendel's work as well as various new selective theories.

The issue I have with Christianity is that modern Christians pick and choose the bits they want to believe, fully accepting parts of the good book and yet with the same breath dismissing other bits as ridiculous.
When I was referring to "mistakes" and "a chance" I was referring to this: "Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time."

If that is true, few questions can be asked: Did the process of evolution stop? If it didn't stop, where are the newly evolved species? Why apes no longer turning into humans? Why there are no "flashbacks" of higher species producing species from which they evolved? Why cross-species NATURAL breeding does not produce offspring? etc.

I think, as science progresses it will come ever closer to Christianity. It already proved the stages and sequence in which universe was created as outlined by Bible: "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ----------------- this is your modern "Big Bang" theory, since God is pure energy (which is evident from the passages in the Bible that tell of how God appeared to Moses (lightning, fire...)).
Bible also tells of non-organic forms appearing before the organic; and plant life before animal life, with humans as the last stage of creation, -- all of which is now supported by science...
Yes, Bible says the world was created in 6 days, but it also says that to God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day ----- "6 days" is an allegory for the benefit of the people who lived few thousand years ago and didn't know of matter and anti-matter, genetics and so on.
"10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads.
............
14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates." ----------- according to one of the theories ME is a cradle of humankind...

"Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/)


And you don't have issues with Christianity, you have issues with those who call themselves Christians yet want to rewrite the very foundations of Christianity to suit them. It's the same as to say "I'm a pacifist, but I want to be in the military" --- nonsense.
 
#12
What is worrying (from a Control Engineering point of view) is that both the Church and Darwin agree that death has no factor in the feedback loops.

If there is a God then I infer he would not have been that poor at his sums.

Unless God is the missing factor and we in fact determine it as we go along.

If that is the case how the f-ck did it all start ?

So Church and Darwin are either both right or both wrong or both half right and half wrong hope this is helpful.

At the risk of being ungallant I think I can see why Ann Widdecombe might not favour Darwinist theory (By what process did I arrive to end my genetic line)
 
#13
Domovoy said:
If that is true, few questions can be asked: Did the process of evolution stop? If it didn't stop, where are the newly evolved species? Why apes no longer turning into humans? Why there are no "flashbacks" of higher species producing species from which they evolved? Why cross-species NATURAL breeding does not produce offspring? etc.
In order...

No.
Turning up, very slowly.
They may well be, but you seem to be expecting things to change in the space of 200 years, not 20,000 or 200,000.
There are - we call them chavs.
It does - you can cross-breed lions and tigers, horses and mules.
 
#14
Gravelbelly said:
Domovoy said:
If that is true, few questions can be asked: Did the process of evolution stop? If it didn't stop, where are the newly evolved species? Why apes no longer turning into humans? Why there are no "flashbacks" of higher species producing species from which they evolved? Why cross-species NATURAL breeding does not produce offspring? etc.
In order...

No.
Turning up, very slowly.
They may well be, but you seem to be expecting things to change in the space of 200 years, not 20,000 or 200,000.
There are - we call them chavs.
It does - you can cross-breed lions and tigers, horses and mules.
Agree.

Questionable, since it requires a degree of belief (a bit like religion, really).

Why 200 years? If the process never stopped the Earth would be full of Australopithecs, Homo ergasters, Neanderthals, etc. Where are they?

:D

Ligers as far as I know are a product of human tinkering with nature, as are mules and hinnies (cross between horses and donkeys); mules can't breed with other mules and hinnies are sterile. Isn't it natures way of fighting human unwarranted interference?
 
#15
Gravelbelly said:
Domovoy said:
If that is true, few questions can be asked: Did the process of evolution stop? If it didn't stop, where are the newly evolved species? Why apes no longer turning into humans? Why there are no "flashbacks" of higher species producing species from which they evolved? Why cross-species NATURAL breeding does not produce offspring? etc.
In order...

No.
Turning up, very slowly.
They may well be, but you seem to be expecting things to change in the space of 200 years, not 20,000 or 200,000.
There are - we call them chavs.
It does - you can cross-breed lions and tigers, horses and mules.
Part of the definition of species is that they can successfully breed only within the species. liger, mules etc cannot reproduce. the differences between species is very much a grey area, an interesting example is 'ring species', look it up!

Evolution, by natural selection of random mutations is, within the limits of scientific uncertainty, FACT. there is collosal ammounts of data, fossil records, dna records, its even been demonstrated in the lab. OK, there are those who for religious reasons choose not to believe the evidence, and those who go further and try to force religious view points onto others. Creationists in the various guises (biblical creation, christian science, intelligent design) have a deliberate plan to subvert the scientific process and replace science with their religious beliefs. this is being countered by those who are willing to stand up for science to ensure the advances we have made continue.

The principles of evolution are the backbone of modern biology. If we want to raise scientists who can develop new antibiotics which work against germs which have EVOLVED resistance, (MRSA being the most obvious example) we need to protect the school curriculums from the religious influence. As an atheist i rarely have much time for religious organisation, but in this case, the church has done the world a great service in speaking in support of evolutiona and by implication, against creationists.
 
#16
Domovoy said:
Questionable, since it requires a degree of belief (a bit like religion, really).

Why 200 years? If the process never stopped the Earth would be full of Australopithecs, Homo ergasters, Neanderthals, etc. Where are they?
Evolution has been happening for as long as we can study the evidence. the fossil records, the dna records, morhology..... the evidence is there, plese look it up. evolution is continuing, see my last post. (mrsa)

Domovoy said:
Ligers as far as I know are a product of human tinkering with nature, as are mules and hinnies (cross between horses and donkeys); mules can't breed with other mules and hinnies are sterile. Isn't it natures way of fighting human unwarranted interference?
ligers would also happen in the wild, but as the habitats of these animals do no coincide, it doesn't happen often. your last sentence implies a 'will' behind nature. there is no thought going on, its just that the genes in the animals are not sufficiently similar to produce a successful line of ancestors.
 
#17
SkiCarver said:
there is no thought going on, its just that the genes in the animals are not sufficiently similar to produce a successful line of ancestors.
Exactly! So, perhaps, humans didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys from dogs, dogs from birds and birds from fish? (I'm exaggerating a bit, but that't the idea of species evolving from one another).
 
#18
Winstanley said:
As far as I'm concerned, there is no conflict between Science and Religion. Science seeks to find how it happened. Relegion seeks to explain why it happened.
Nope, Religon seeks to TELL you how it happened, it doesn't explain anything! "Because the Bible says so" is not an explaination, especially when its so vague you can interpret it however you like.

Winstanley said:
Was the world created 10000 years ago? Of course not! Was it created in six days? Pretty damned unlikely! On the other hand, is the complexity of the universe simply the result of chance? That also seems pretty damned unlikley!
Chance is more likely than God. A God is MORE complex than the universe, because they can apparently create universes, and therefore are more unlikely. And where is this God you speak of? It seems pretty uninvolved in us don't you think? A few visits 2000 years ago and then no more? Thats a bit crap by any measure isn't it.

Winstanley said:
Surely, it is possible to beleieve in evolution, whilst still believing in an Intelligence driving it forward?
Knowledge (rather than belief) of evolution is deeply corrosive to religious belief. It shows Religion up for what it is, a pschological need to attach some importance to our lives, when in truth the Universe doesn't care about us, we're just another clump of atoms, due to be swallowed up by the Sun, provided we don't get annihalated in a galatic pile-up, or any other mass extinction event first.

The universe doesn't owe you a living, but feel free to kid yourself.

TB
 
#19
Winstanley said:
...is the complexity of the universe simply the result of chance? That also seems pretty damned unlikley!
As unlikely as the existence of an all knowing, all powerful being who can bend the laws of physics to the will of his followers as long as they ask him nicely and do as he says?

The theory of evolution alone does not rule out the existence of a god or gods, but it undermines a major tenate of religion that only a god can create something as complex as life. If god does exist, developments in science and the understanding of our natural world and the universe show that, having created the universe, he has done very little since other than a brief (in astronomical terms) interference with the human race a few thousand years ago about which a book was written.
 
#20
Domovoy said:
Exactly! So, perhaps, humans didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys from dogs, dogs from birds and birds from fish? (I'm exaggerating a bit, but that't the idea of species evolving from one another).
My bold. No, you're exaggerating a lot. It didn't happen that way at all. Lazy thinking at its worst.
 

Latest Threads

Top