Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

JimiTime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

wolfsbane

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.

Science doesn't say evolution - many scientists do.

Creationists are happy with science - just not with interpretations of scientific data that are unproven and conflict with both the obvious evidence of design ,and the revelation God has given them in the Bible. Check the creationist sites for the qualifications and experience of the creationist scientists.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

You forgot the creationists! We claim 1a. See the contradiction and deal with it. This certainly means exposing the fallacy of evolution.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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

It certainly refutes the Bible taken in the normal sense. There are allegories, metaphors and similies in the Bible just as in most literature - but it is dishonest to take what appears to be historical narrative - and is treated throughout the book as such - and say it is metaphor.

Genesis is as obviously historical narrative as Matthew's Gospel. If one wants metaphor, etc, one looks to the prophetical books, not the historical ones. Genesis and evolution cannot both be true, and the theory of evolution is as likely to be metaphorical as is the Genesis account - ie, not at all.

Tim Robbins

wolfsbane wrote: »

You forgot the creationists! We claim 1a. See the contradiction and deal with it. This certainly means exposing the fallacy of evolution.

If you read through the logic of my point you fit into number 2 because you think evolution isn't true. So hence you see no contradiction.

Tim Robbins

wolfsbane wrote: »

Genesis is as obviously historical narrative as Matthew's Gospel. If one wants metaphor, etc, one looks to the prophetical books, not the historical ones. Genesis and evolution cannot both be true, and the theory of evolution is as likely to be metaphorical as is the Genesis account - ie, not at all.

You're in the minority on that. Most Christian Churches accept evolution just like they accept the problem of evil. The Anglican church would be just more sophisticated, mature and intelligent in its theology than the wacky creationists.

0utpost31

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

Are you serious?

MrPudding

0utpost31 wrote: »

Are you serious?

Deadly.

MrP

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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

Tim, you're straw-manning again.

I have never, in all my life and in 24 years as an ordained minister, met a Christian who didn't think that the Bible contains allegories.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

No, I fall into number 3, recognising that there is no contradiction with no pretence involved.

Evolution, if it is true, does not contradict any central truth of Christianity.

TravelJunkie

The below article wasn't on the Anglican website when I first posted. See link below (I have just cut and paste the link, not sure if it will work automatically)

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

Anyway, have a read and see what you think from the 'horse's mouth', rather than media reports.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

No, I fall into number 3, recognising that there is no contradiction with no pretence involved.

Evolution, if it is true, does not contradict any central truth of Christianity.

I think that Tim enjoys creating posts that have a number of options. These options usually follow the line of:

1) This supports his preconceived opinion;
2) This limits Christians into accepting opinion 1 by providing even less representative alternative;
3) Option 3? There is no option 3.

PDN

fatmammycat wrote: »

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.

It is hardly 'cherry picking' to recognise the different kinds of literature and figures of speech that are in the Bible. For example, no Christian thinks that when Jesus says "I am the door" that it means that he transforms into a literal door with hinges and a door bell. We use language in symbolic ways in every area of life - historians speak about "the Russian bear sweeping across the steppes to confront the Nazi eagle" when writing factual history about World War II. Any rational person recognises that the Bible uses language in similar ways.

The issue for Christians is how the language in the first Chapters of Genesis is intended to be understood. This is the crucial matter, irrespective of what scientific theories might assert.

1. Some Christians, as represented on this board by JC and Wolfsbane, believe that the first few Chapters of Genesis should definitely be understood as literal history. Historically, and indeed today, this would be a minority view within Christianity (albeit a fairly substantial minority).

2. Other Christians believe that the first few Chapters of Genesis are to be understood as poetical, or symbolic language. This view was advanced by many leading Christian thinkers and theologians centuries before Darwin ever dreamed of evolution. I would lean to this view myself, but I am not 100% sure because of a few issues I have with the nature of the Genesis text. The fact that I am not dogmatic on this issue seems to cause Tim Robbins no end of irritation (he apparently cannot understand that not all of us share his penchant for making dogmatic assertions about stuff he doesn't really know very much about).

3. There is also a wide variety of positions between 1 & 2. For example, BB Warfield was a 19th Century Professor of Polemical Theology at Princeton and wrote what is probably the definitive work on biblical inerrancy. He hailed Darwin as a genius and embraced the theory of evolution. However, he also argued that once Adam had evolved that Eve was still created from his rib! Other Christians would see Adam and Eve as two products of an evolutionary process (described in metaphorical terms in Genesis 1 & 2) but that the events of Genesis 3 (the serpent and the trees) were intended to be understood literally.

The key issue is not how do we shoehorn Christianity or the Bible into the existing scientific orthodoxy, but rather how was the book of Genesis originally intended to be understood.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Evolution, if it is true, does not contradict any central truth of Christianity.

Unless you're a red-blooded creationist, in which case, people who accept evolution are said to be in a dangerous state of religious error (as some of our local creationists have pointed out).

It really depends on one's own personal interpretation of the bible. A reasonable person will interpret stories which contradict real-world experience as allegorical tales of one kind or another. Other people will claim that the stories are factual, rather than allegorical, and say that the real-world experience (or other people's reporting of it) is false.

This latter position is interesting, since the act of reading is itself a real-world experience reporting a real-world experience, or a vicarious version of it, and all it's difficult to see how one experience can credibly trump another by any means other than personal preference.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Tim, you're straw-manning again.

I have never, in all my life and in 24 years as an ordained minister, met a Christian who didn't think that the Bible contains allegories.

You're missing the point. Some of the allegories in the Bible, it's clear that they are intended as an allegory and there has never been any attempt to interpret them any other way.

That's not the case for Genesis, which was considered literal factual truth until evolution and all that evidence came along.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No, I fall into number 3, recognising that there is no contradiction with no pretence involved.

Evolution, if it is true, does not contradict any central truth of Christianity.

If you think there's no contradiction, you're option 2.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you think there's no contradiction, you're option 2.

Welcome to Timland. My house My rules!!

Why not ask why PDN thinks theres no contradiction, before you tell him that he contradicts himself?

Fanny Cradock

Pfft.. Because Tim makes the rules, Jimi. Get with it!

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Pfft.. Because Tim makes the rules, Jimi. Get with it!

With respect lads, 1,850 years of Christian Theology and Mr. Darwin came along. It was an extremly difficult scientific reality to accept for any Christian, including at that time Mr. Darwin. If there was no contradiction, what was the fuzz about then? Was the fuzz because:

1. People thought there was a contradiction, but there really wasn't.
2. There actually was a major contradiction, which challenged orthodox beliefs in a way they had never been challenged before.

I think most peoples, including the Anglicans would be option 2 on this one.

CDfm

Richard Dawkins should get of his biological butt and apologise to the church.

Darwin was a Christian and saw nothing inherently wrong with his discovery and his faith.

Why is it Atheists claim Darwin -where do you guys get off. Leave our scientists alone.

You can have Dawkins and whoever else they are atheist scientists.:mad:

The only thing Dawkins is famous for is atheism. Thats soo cool - did he get it from the script of that 70s show:eek:

Tim Robbins

CDfm wrote: »

Richard Dawkins should get of his biological butt and apologise to the church.

Darwin was a Christian and saw nothing inherently wrong with his discovery and his faith.

Why is it Atheists claim Darwin -where do you guys get off. Leave our scientists alone.

You can have Dawkins and whoever else they are atheist scientists.:mad:

The only thing Dawkins is famous for is atheism. Thats soo cool - did he get it from the script of that 70s show:eek:

Darwin lost his Christian faith but mainted his respect for the Anglican Church. I wouldn't be a million miles away from that position myself.

Dawkins is famous for popularising the idea that evolution works at the level of the gene. He is also arguably one of the best science writers that has ever lived.

CDfm

So what - I see nothing inconsistant with Christianinty and evoloution.

I also believe in a creator - nothing and a big bang doesnt do it for me.

If look at Jewish Mysticism and the gnostic faith you had a character called Lileth an icon to radical feminists and a sort of female satan.

The Church looks at matter of faith over time where as the Dawkins type model is careerists in its attacks.

So what of the bible does stack up to scientific and mathematical scrutiny - scientic matters and physics arent absolute either. Wasnt Einstein a theist as some sceintists would say.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

Richard Dawkins should get of his biological butt and apologise to the church.

Darwin was a Christian and saw nothing inherently wrong with his discovery and his faith.

Why is it Atheists claim Darwin -where do you guys get off. Leave our scientists alone.

You can have Dawkins and whoever else they are atheist scientists.:mad:

The only thing Dawkins is famous for is atheism. Thats soo cool - did he get it from the script of that 70s show:eek:

Darwin was decidedly not a Christian.
Darwin’s slippery slide into unbelief
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1025

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you read through the logic of my point you fit into number 2 because you think evolution isn't true. So hence you see no contradiction.

Apologies.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Genesis is as obviously historical narrative as Matthew's Gospel. If one wants metaphor, etc, one looks to the prophetical books, not the historical ones. Genesis and evolution cannot both be true, and the theory of evolution is as likely to be metaphorical as is the Genesis account - ie, not at all.
You're in the minority on that. Most Christian Churches accept evolution just like they accept the problem of evil. The Anglican church would be just more sophisticated, mature and intelligent in its theology than the wacky creationists.

It is not more sophisticated, mature and intelligent to violate the rules of language and hermeneutics to square one's scientific understanding with the Genesis account (true believers among the evolutionists do this), nor to reject as mere fable the Genesis account and so repudiate the very Scripture the Anglican Church was formed on (the unbelieving majority do so).

The wacky creationists are the standard-bearers of the authentic Christian faith, believing the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. You might think them foolish for doing so, but you should see that their's is the position demanded by both the historic faith and by literary integrity.

wolfsbane

0utpost31 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

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.
Are you serious?

Mr P put it well:
Deadly.

CDfm

Wolfsbane I dont fully understand your point.But it is well made and understanding the bible takes a lot of study and time.

Lovely hurling.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

Wolfsbane I dont understand your point.

Surely some of the meaning was lost in translation and there a many anomilies to be accounted for. Many would say that to be human is to be fallible.

Yes, there are many minor uncertainties in the Bible due to translation difficulties. But the issue of the Genesis account is not about minor details like what sort of wood was used for the Ark, but a big plain issue: on what basis can one treat what appears to be historical narrative as metaphor? How can one then decide what other apparently historical narratives (the resurrection of Christ, for example) are literal or metaphoric?

There are also crucial theological objections to an evolutionary understanding of Genesis, a chief one being suffering and death being classified as 'very good' by God, and made a part of how God intended the world to be.

Creationists hold to the historic Christian understanding, that suffering and death are the penal consequences of man's fall into sin, and not how God intended things to be.

CDfm

I edited my post later.

But I like what you say - it made me think.

And often when I read scientific arguments they cherrypick aqnd I find them patronising

Tim Robbins

CDfm wrote: »

I edited my post later.

But I like what you say - it made me think.

And often when I read scientific arguments they cherrypick aqnd I find them patronising

Science doesn't cherry pick, it's the most objective process we have for understanding the material world. Do you go to your Doctor when you're sick? Or does it get it wrong by cherry picking?

How about flying on an airplane? Cherry picking the laws of gravity or is the scientific understanding good enough for you.

It doesn't matter what you find patronising. What matters is what's true and what's stacks up with the evidence.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

often when I read scientific arguments they cherrypick aqnd I find them patronising

Out of interest, where do you find your scientific arguments? What scientific journals do you subscribe to?

CDfm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Science doesn't cherry pick, it's the most objective process we have for understanding the material world. Do you go to your Doctor when you're sick? Or does it get it wrong by cherry picking?

How about flying on an airplane? Cherry picking the laws of gravity or is the scientific understanding good enough for you.

It doesn't matter what you find patronising. What matters is what's true and what's stacks up with the evidence.

Not at all Tim. Science puts all the ducks in a row and the most unlikely are filled with assumptions and you are left with a thing is called a Theory.

How the universe was made. Just a theory man.

Makey uppey stuff - big bang.

Tim Robbins

CDfm wrote: »

Not at all Tim. Science puts all the ducks in a row and the most unlikely are filled with assumptions and you are left with a thing is called a Theory.

How the universe was made. Just a theory man.

Makey uppey stuff - big bang.

The word theory has a completly different meaning in science and is then misused, just like you have just done there.

For a something to be a theory in science it has to be satisfy a number of conditions. It has to be testifiable, falsifiable, peer reviewed and have all evidence consistent with it.

That's the way it is with evolution, the big bang and gravity.

All that makey up stuff comes in handy if you wish to fly in aerplane. It's also comes inhandy if you wish to argue against evolution. You misunderstand it and then argue against that, rather than doing a simple bit of research into your opinions.

Here's agood book by a devout Catholic, that might help with some basic scientific education.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221691156&sr=8-4

CDfm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The word theory has a completly different meaning in science and is then misused, just like you have just done there.

For a something to be a theory in science it has to be satisfy a number of conditions. It has to be testifiable, falsifiable, peer reviewed and have all evidence consistent with it.

That's the way it is with evolution, the big bang and gravity.

All that makey up stuff comes in handy if you wish to fly in aerplane. It's also comes inhandy if you wish to argue against evolution. You misunderstand it and then argue against that, rather than doing a simple bit of research into your opinions.

Here's agood book by a devout Catholic, that might help with some basic scientific education.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221691156&sr=8-4

Ya Tim - in archaeoligy they collect bones etc" and adjust the theory to fit the evidence collected. Is Einstein reliable? Father of modern physics? Light bends:eek: And thats a current science debate when ya cant find the evidence you fill in a gap with an assumption.

Scientists never admit they dont know something they need theories to fill the gaps. I suppose its a cute way of rationalising their atheism - throw a temper tantrum and blame the Christians.

Darwins atheism had its roots in his inability to come to terms with the loss of a daughter- nowadays we would call that unresolved grief or depression. Poor chap.It was not related to his findings and he never argued that.

Empirical evidence my foot.

Anyway - I already have a good book and its called the .............:p

philologos

TravelJunkie wrote: »

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?

I'm an Anglican anyway, and I would agree with PDN's point of view that most in the Church of Ireland / England and in other national Anglican churches would believe that Christianity is compatible with the science that has been found before. I myself need to research the area more before I make a decision to go on either camp. For me though, it isn't a question between Christianity and Atheism, it's a question of how the world was created not that there isn't a God at all.

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Ya Tim - in archaeoligy they collect bones etc" and adjust the theory to fit the evidence collected. Is Einstein reliable? Father of modern physics? Light bends:eek: And thats a current science debate when ya cant find the evidence you fill in a gap with an assumption.

I think it is better to fill a gap with a temporary assumption, which can be tested, amended and even discarded. You fill the gaps with magic.

CDfm wrote: »

Scientists never admit they dont know something they need theories to fill the gaps.

Scientists admit to not knowing things all the time. Lack of knowledge in something is what drives them.

CDfm wrote: »

I suppose its a cute way of rationalising their atheism - throw a temper tantrum and blame the Christians.

I think it has been pointed out before that a very large proportion of scientists are not atheists.

CDfm wrote: »

Empirical evidence my foot.

Can you really not see the irony in this statement?

CDfm wrote: »

Anyway - I already have a good book and its called the .............:p

Quite.

MrP

CDfm

Hiya Mr P - havent seen your posts since the abortion thread.

Thanks for the tempoarary assumptions bit - Homer type Woo Hoo

Nuthin wrong with a bit of irony-

CDfm

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Hiya Mr P - havent seen your posts since the abortion thread.

Thanks for the tempoarary assumptions bit - Homer type Woo Hoo

Nuthin wrong with a bit of irony-

CDfm

I usually hang out here and A & A, typically on the verge of a banning, mostly providing comic relief for the christians. It is all about finding your niche. The abortion threads are a bit of a waste of time, I tend to ignore them, but occasionally get dragged in...

MrP

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, where do you find your scientific arguments? What scientific journals do you subscribe to?

What you call scientific journals I call comics. Most of the assumptions made are a rehash of Hollywood or Marvel Comics. At least the guys at Marvel know its entertainment and dont try to dress it up as art or science:pac:

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You're missing the point. Some of the allegories in the Bible, it's clear that they are intended as an allegory and there has never been any attempt to interpret them any other way.

That's not the case for Genesis, which was considered literal factual truth until evolution and all that evidence came along.

Tim, if confidence was an indication of truth then I would give 10 out of 10 for that dogmatic statement on the history of how Christians have interpreted Genesis. Unfortunately the facts reveal your confidence (as often seems to be the case) to be sadly misplaced.

Let's see what some of the key thinkers in Church history had to say about Genesis centuries before "evolution and all that evidence came along":

Clement of Alexandria wrote:

And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son (208 AD)

Origen wrote:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally. (225 AD)

Origen wrote:

We have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world. (248 AD)

Cyprian wrote:

The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years. (250 AD)

Chris Gousmett wrote:

Augustine understood the creation of the world to have taken place not over six days, or any other actual period of time, but instantaneously. This idea was characteristic of the Alexandrian school of theology (e.g. Clement, Origen). The ‘six days’ of Genesis 1 were according to Augustine actually ‘six simultaneous moments of angelic consciousness through which God’s creative activity was understood by the angels’ through God’s revelation to them. (Creation Miracle and Order According to Augustine)

Now, of course their understandings are very different from that informed by modern evolutionary theory, but these guys are all unmistakably interpreting the Creation accounts in Genesis as an allegory not as literal fact of truth.

So, in Tim-fashion, I offer the following 2 alternatives:
1. Some crafty evolutionist zipped back two millenia in a time machine and told these early theologians about "evolution and all that evidence".

2. Tim is utterly and completely wrong when he asserts that Genesis "was considered literal factual truth until evolution and all that evidence came along".

Just an idea Tim, but if you're going to make dogmatic assertions about what Christians have always believed throughout history, then might it be an idea to actually learn something about the subject first?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I edited my post later.

But I like what you say - it made me think.

And often when I read scientific arguments they cherrypick aqnd I find them patronising

I think that can be said of both sides of the debate- but try not to confuse scientific opinion for actual science. Science does not patronise or cherry pick. Many science writers, particularly for a mainstream audience, are the ones doing that.