Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

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?