Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

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.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

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

Just found out Im subscribing to PDN on post 100.

He puts it more eloquently than I can.:p

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

Richard Dawkins has the Jade Goody Gene

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

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.

Theories, in science, are things that "surround" the gaps of knowledge in science. They are testable models of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. You are thinking of a hypothesis, which, in science, are essentially educated guesses, theories yet to be tested.

CDfm wrote: »

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

You think scientific journals like Macromolecules, Chemistrie Beristche, Journal of American Chemical Society, International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Cell and Animal Biology, Nature Photonics, Central European Journal of Physics etc are comic books :eek: . You must of had the worst childhood ever man.

CDfm wrote:

Richard Dawkins has the Jade Goody Gene

He has cervical cancer?

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

He has cervical cancer?

I dont pretend to be a scientist or a theologian

But Richard Dawkins is a media whore just like Jade Goody:rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

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?

There's no reference there to any human existing before Adam and Eve. Darwin's theory was about life and creation of species not the physical universe PDN.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

But Richard Dawkins is a media whore just like Jade Goody:rolleyes:

Under that reasoning Jesus also had the Jade Goody gene. Shameless self promoter, always wanting people to listen to him, getting himself an entourage to rival even modern day Divas.

OMG!!!... that means... Jade Goody is the Holy Grail :eek:

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Under that reasoning Jesus also had the Jade Goody gene. Shameless self promoter, always wanting people to listen to him, getting himself an entourage to rival even modern day Divas.

OMG!!!... that means... Jade Goody is the Holy Grail :eek:

I brought Jade Goody into this she is my joke - you cant have her.

Well you can but first you must answer as an atheist would you sleep with her and how much drink would you need.

This is not that much off thread as it relates to drunkeness and lust two off the Seven Enjoyable Passtimes atheists have to pass the time and which christians believe are sins.

Tim Robbins

CDfm wrote: »

I brought Jade Goody into this she is my joke - you cant have her.

Well you can but first you must answer as an atheist would you sleep with her and how much drink would you need.

This is not that much off thread as it relates to drunkeness and lust two off the Seven Enjoyable Passtimes atheists have to pass the time and which christians believe are sins.

Me smells a troll.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I dont pretend to be a scientist or a theologian

But Richard Dawkins is a media whore just like Jade Goody:rolleyes:

Actually I think he has a very important core message and one which is well worth putting across in as vocal a manner as possible. Whether you agree with his message or not, his motive there is quite clear. What does Jade Goody have to say?

CDfm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Me smells a troll.

a troll Tim -nah I think that poster was just dropping by.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

a troll Tim -nah I think that poster was just dropping by.

No i'm here to stay

I was just highlighting the absurdity of saying 2 people are similar in genes purely because both of them are in the public eye.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What does Jade Goody have to say?

Who's Jade Goodey?

CDfm

There is a duality in my point.

Richard Dawkins as a scientist has a reputation as an academic and writer in the same way Stephen Hawkings has. Hawkings I have heard described in Oxford as being a good scientist but not of Nobel calibre.

My point here is that Dawkins has used his reputation to write on spiritual and philosophical matters and this has created a bit of a stir. Some of his writtings are not very original and are in part reminiscent of Malcolm Muggeridge at times. Another boring git( His religous writtings were worse than his atheist).

Dawkins is not a good writer on religous or spiritual or philosophical matters probably a poor one. He reaches his audience thru his( scientific)reputation and his controversial populist stance. Hitler did the same in his book.

So I apologise to Jade Goody for lumping her in with Richard Dawkins on spiritual matters as I realise she has yet to publish in the field. But as a self publicist they have a lot in commom.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

There is a duality in my point.

Richard Dawkins as a scientist has a reputation as an academic and writer in the same way Stephen Hawkings has. Hawkings I have heard described in Oxford as being a good scientist but not of Nobel calibre.

Hawking. How much can you really know about a person whose name you cannot spell?

CDfm wrote: »

My point here is that Dawkins has used his reputation to write on spiritual and philosophical matters and this has created a bit of a stir. Some of his writtings are not very original and are in part reminiscent of Malcolm Muggeridge at times. Another boring git( His religous writtings were worse than his atheist).

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on that.

CDfm wrote: »

Dawkins is not a good writer on religous or spiritual or philosophical matters probably a poor one. He reaches his audience thru his( scientific)reputation and his controversial populist stance. Hitler did the same in his book.

Why bring Hitler into this? Seriously? The instant you start flourishing the fascist card you turn any debate into a brawl.

CDfm wrote: »

So I apologise to Jade Goody for lumping her in with Richard Dawkins on spiritual matters as I realise she has yet to publish in the field. But as a self publicist they have a lot in commom.

Self publication is a trait shared by many varied people. You have beef with Dawkins, we get it. The points you are making in defense of that are pretty weak.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Who's Jade Goodey?

What is Jade Goody. Unless she has been DNA tested I see no reason to assume gender or species.

Tim Robbins

CDfm wrote: »

Hitler did the same in his book.

Sure you're not a troll?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no reference there to any human existing before Adam and Eve. Darwin's theory was about life and creation of species not the physical universe PDN.

Changing the subject will not hide the fact you were wrong.

It is irrelevant whether the references are to human existence or to the creation of the physical universe. The point of those quotes is to demonstrate that Genesis was already being interpreted allegorically and metaphorically by key Christian thinkers many centuries before Darwin.

CDfm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sure you're not a troll?

Just a god fearin country boy.

Could argue with ya on Dawkins, Nietzsche and theoligy but my attention span is too short.
The posters are right most Christan theoligy has followed a Plato-ist reading and not a literal reading of Genesis way back into the Ist and 2nd Centuries AD.

Sorry for having fun with ya on Hitler and Jade Goody but its what was on the History Channel last night and I was just using it to make a point as it was handy.

Lots of christians are very well up on the subject but Im more of a red top man than a Times reader. If the Ryder cup had started I would have used golfing metaphors -and I think ya just landed your last shot in a bunker.

I wouldnt argue theoligy with PDN he is almost Swiftian..........

CDfm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no reference there to any human existing before Adam and Eve. Darwin's theory was about life and creation of species not the physical universe PDN.

Not so sure here either Tim - if you are limiting this to Christian Theoligy maybe yes( its a matter of interpretation) but if you expand it to Rabbinic writings well......

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Changing the subject will not hide the fact you were wrong.

It is irrelevant whether the references are to human existence or to the creation of the physical universe. The point of those quotes is to demonstrate that Genesis was already being interpreted allegorically and metaphorically by key Christian thinkers many centuries before Darwin.

If Darwin didn't seriously challenge the prevailing Christian orthodoxy, then that sure as hell was alot of commotion over nothing.

Nonsense PDN.