Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If I ever came across someone trying to use atheism to forward hatred, bigotry and lies then I would not hesitate to inform of the error of their ways.


With beliefs like
"It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework." (Henry Morris)
they exclude themselves as scientists. Not to the mention the complete lack of scientific research on creationism. All of their assertions are based on irrational literal interpretations of the book of your religious basis.


Can you actually show any source for Dawkins saying this? Can you show how its any worse than you implying that they are mutually exclusive?
Its funny that someone so adamant that athiests are wrong for (supposedly) taring all christians with the same brush as creationists, you tar all athiests with your same interpretation of Dawkins (supposed0 wrong doings, very hypocritical.

Wow somethings got you rilled up. You quote Henry Morris to prove your point(and disprove mine) and was he not a Professor of Civil Engineering of something way out in the USA. Dont like these squabbles betwween academics.

For those not in the knowthe Macbeth quote relates to the Doctrine of Equivocation - closely associated with the Jesuits and completes "that could swear in both the scales against either side" normally meaning not to take things at face value and watch out for the small print or he went on to say blah blah.

Impressive eh. But its apt I have no beef with the Creationists- I think they are mistaken thats all- but you clearly seem to.

Dawkins & Co are masters at equivocation and amphiboligy where things are taken out of context (especially in theological matters) to prove a point or rather create a ball of smoke. What Im saying is the content of the Dawkins arguments would make a Jesuit or fundamentalist preacher proud.

But you seem to have put great importance with quoting Henry Morris someone that has nothing to do with my religion and seem to think its a persuasive position when it is not.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

You know sometimes you (perhaps accidently) stumble across a genius idea. I would love to see Dawkins on Celebrity Big Brother! :cool:

Well we could always contact the Producers of the shows and find out if he was ever asked. But who knows he might really want to be on it - show me where he has denied wanting to be on Celebrity Big Brother-

No Im sounding like a scientist:eek:

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

No Im sounding like a scientist:eek:

Another guy who posts on this forum who claims to be a scientist is also quite fond of emoticons. Must be a stress related thing.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If I ever came across someone trying to use atheism to forward hatred, bigotry and lies then I would not hesitate to inform of the error of their ways.

That was not my question. The question which you rather clumsily dodged was do you feel responsible for what others do with your beliefs?


You attacked CDfm for not feeling responsible for the actions of creationists, simply because they share his Christian beliefs. Therefore you should feel responsible for the actions of your co-atheists, should you not? Or is this yet another case of the sauce that is good for the goose not being good for the gander?

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Or is this yet another case of the sauce that is good for the goose not being good for the gander?

I think you could say, Mark's goose is cooked on this one!

*cue guitar solo*

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

I think you could say, Mark's goose is cooked on this one!

*cue guitar solo*

Really bad joke, but I'll excuse it on account of the dizziness induced by Arsenal being top of the league for at least a few hours.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

Another guy who posts on this forum who claims to be a scientist is also quite fond of emoticons. Must be a stress related thing.

Thats me cured -aversion therapy is a powerful tool - modern and scientific and christian technique that it is.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Really bad joke, but I'll excuse it on account of the dizziness induced by Arsenal being top of the league for at least a few hours.

Didn't even like the guitar solo bit?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Misinforming even more people with the myth that christianity and creationist are synonymous and interchangeable.

Well, there are a few christian posters in this forum who think that you can't be a christian without being a creationist. Perhaps you might take that discussion up with them?

But more intriguingly, where exactly does Dawkins say that "christianity and creationist are synonymous and interchangeable"?

I've certainly never heard him say that, but I'm nowhere close to reading all of his output, so perhaps I missed it. And since you didn't answer my question yesterday about whether or not you'd read any single Dawkins book yourself, I can't help but wonder if you are simply inventing something to irritate yourself with (quite successfully it seems).

Thomas_S_Hunterson

CDfm wrote: »

Of course it does its like comparing the Sunday Times to the Sunday Sport or Newsweek to the National Enquirer.

I am not saying Stephen Hawking either was accessible - even his Joe Public stuff is unintelligible to most people -and did use his wheelchair to sell a few copies but he did not compremise his academic reputation to do so.

I disagree. From what I've read of Hawkings publicly accessible stuff, I've found it quite accessible.

Maybe your problem is that you just don't understand Dawkins.

You simply don't become a professor at Oxford as an academic fraud, and I am confident in saying that you are only judging Dawkins on his mass-market literature so you have absolutely no idea as to his academic prowess.

CDfm

Sean_K wrote: »

I disagree. From what I've read of Hawkings publicly accessible stuff, I've found it quite accessible.

Maybe your problem is that you just don't understand Dawkins.

You simply don't become a professor at Oxford as an academic fraud, and I am confident in saying that you are only judging Dawkins on his mass-market literature so you have absolutely no idea as to his academic prowess.

I didnt say anything about his work as a scientist? And Hawkings work is a reasonible if boring read.

Ive read Joyce too - but dont take him seriously- but on the beech Im an Andy McNab fan and he sells more than Joyce - but literature it aint.

But on theological matters Dawkins sucks - he argues with Christians who are not creationists about creationism.

Thats a bit like going to a car mechanic and asking them about your garden shed- he might have an opinion but he is not a carpenter.

I also wouldnt go to Richard Dawkins for a haircut because he is not a hairdresser.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

CDfm wrote: »

I didnt say anything abou his work as a scientist?

CDfm wrote:

Do you seriously believe Dawkins is anything less than a charlatan and a demagogue parading his anti-christian message under the guise of free speech or science.

...

CDfm wrote: »

But on theological matters he sucks - he argues with Christians who are not creationists about creationism.

As I understand it, creationism is an absolutely necessary belief for members of the Catholic Church, i.e. that god created everything blah blah blah.

This implies that if you are not a creationist then you are not part of the Catholic club. They don't want you. You have a fundamental difference of beliefs.

I would hazard a guess that Dawkins was directing his argument at groups like the Catholic Church, subsets of Christianity, who have theological belief in creationism by decree.

PDN

Sean_K wrote: »

...

As I understand it, creationism is an absolutely necessary belief for members of the Catholic Church, i.e. that god created everything blah blah blah.

This implies that if you are not a creationist then you are not part of the Catholic club. They don't want you. You have a fundamental difference of beliefs.

I would hazard a guess that Dawkins was directing his argument at groups like the Catholic Church, subsets of Christianity, who have theological belief in creationism by decree.

Looks like another argument may descend into chaos because atheists tend to use 'creationist' as a weasel word.

Typically the word 'creationist' is used on these boards (primarily by non-Christians) to denote someone who believes that the human race was created already complete by God, not through any evolutionary process. They may believe this creative miracle took place about 6000 years ago (Young Earth Creationism) or millions of years ago. This is the sense in which CDfm used the word 'creationist'.

However, occasionally we find the word 'creationist' being used in a much looser sense, embracing anyone who believes that God had a hand in shaping the world - even if He did it by guiding a process of evolution that, from the perspective of a scientist, may be entirely indistinguishable from an evolutionary process that did not involve a deity. It would appear that Sean_K is using 'creationist' in this sense.

If you are to debate anything meaningfully between yourselves it would be wise to agree on investing the same meaning to words, otherwise communication will be impossible. I would suggest that you confine the word 'creationist' to its commonly understood stricter sense as otherwise it does tend to become a weasel word - imputing a commonly understood pejorative sense to those who do not deserve it.

CDfm

Sean_K wrote: »

I disagree. From what I've read of Hawkings publicly accessible stuff, I've found it quite accessible.

Maybe your problem is that you just don't understand Dawkins.

You simply don't become a professor at Oxford as an academic fraud, and I am confident in saying that you are only judging Dawkins on his mass-market literature so you have absolutely no idea as to his academic prowess.

I have been try to come up with a term for you guys and I think I have got one -CREATHEIST - it might catch on.

As I understand it even scientists say in the begining there was nothing. And then there was a big bang. And before the big bang there was ..... and what caused the big bang ........

Was it some sort of consciousness.... that is called what ...... and what happened to it ..... and has science explained where it went.....

What kind of Creatheist are you?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

PDN wrote: »

Looks like another argument may descend into chaos because atheists tend to use 'creationist' as a weasel word.

Typically the word 'creationist' is used on these boards (primarily by non-Christians) to denote someone who believes that the human race was created already complete by God, not through any evolutionary process. They may believe this creative miracle took place about 6000 years ago (Young Earth Creationism) or millions of years ago. This is the sense in which CDfm used the word 'creationist'.

However, occasionally we find the word 'creationist' being used in a much looser sense, embracing anyone who believes that God had a hand in shaping the world - even if He did it by guiding a process of evolution that, from the perspective of a scientist, may be entirely indistinguishable from an evolutionary process that did not involve a deity. It would appear that Sean_K is using 'creationist' in this sense.

If you are to debate anything meaningfully between yourselves it would be wise to agree on investing the same meaning to words, otherwise communication will be impossible. I would suggest that you confine the word 'creationist' to its commonly understood stricter sense as otherwise it does tend to become a weasel word - imputing a commonly understood pejorative sense to those who do not deserve it.

Point taken. I guess Intelligent Design would be a more apt term for what I was conveying by using the term Creationism.

PDN

Sean_K wrote: »

Point taken. I guess Intelligent Design would be a more apt term for what I was conveying by using the term Creationism.

Actually probably not.

ID refers to the idea that certain features in the natural world (particularly in things such as cell structure) can only be explained by positing a Creator. Although ID's main supporter (Michael Behe) is a Catholic, most Catholics would not in fact subscribe to ID. Indeed, some Catholics and other Christians are very scathing of ID.

The majority of Catholics, Anglicans etc. would believe that God guided evolution to the point where humankind developed, but would not necessarily believe that this can be discerned through any scientific study at all. Rather they would believe that the issue of God being the Creator is known by revelation (through Scripture or the Church).

BTW, although I am outlining the Catholic position, I myself am not Catholic.

Fanny Cradock

Sean_K wrote: »

Point taken. I guess Intelligent Design would be a more apt term for what I was conveying by using the term Creationism.

I think you need to familiarise yourself with a number of terms that PDN mentioned.

Old earth creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Theistic Evolution
Intelligent Design

A quick read of these should make the different positions a bit clearer. In regards to Catholicism, the most recent Pope and JPII both embraced evolution. Again, I'm not a Catholic.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

That was not my question. The question which you rather clumsily dodged was do you feel responsible for what others do with your beliefs?


You attacked CDfm for not feeling responsible for the actions of creationists, simply because they share his Christian beliefs. Therefore you should feel responsible for the actions of your co-atheists, should you not? Or is this yet another case of the sauce that is good for the goose not being good for the gander?

I suppose I did avoid the question, I was pushed for time and didn't ellaborate, my apologies. Yes I do feel responsibility when someone takes my beliefs and twists and turns them for selfish and immoral reasons. I do not feel guilty for what they do (and I didn't say that CDfm should feel guilty either) but I will feel responsible to point out where someone is taking my beliefs and doing something wrong with them and try to stop them.
(actually, upon reading CDfms post that I've quoted below, I guess I shouldn't be quite so hard on him as he doesn't actually seem to know what creationists believe:rolleyes:)

Wow somethings got you rilled up. You quote Henry Morris to prove your point(and disprove mine) and was he not a Professor of Civil Engineering of something way out in the USA. Dont like these squabbles betwween academics.

For those not in the knowthe Macbeth quote relates to the Doctrine of Equivocation - closely associated with the Jesuits and completes "that could swear in both the scales against either side" normally meaning not to take things at face value and watch out for the small print or he went on to say blah blah.

Impressive eh. But its apt I have no beef with the Creationists- I think they are mistaken thats all- but you clearly seem to.

Dawkins & Co are masters at equivocation and amphiboligy where things are taken out of context (especially in theological matters) to prove a point or rather create a ball of smoke. What Im saying is the content of the Dawkins arguments would make a Jesuit or fundamentalist preacher proud.

But you seem to have put great importance with quoting Henry Morris someone that has nothing to do with my religion and seem to think its a persuasive position when it is not.

In your desire to waffle on with largely irrelevant, unbased meanderings you seem to have completely missed my point. Henry Morris and other creation "scientists" are not real scientists because of how they aproach scientific findings, ie. that those findings in contradiction to their particular holy book are automatically wrong, this makes them theists, and those who hold to the Bible as their infallible holy book are Christians.
By the way, Henry Morris was a Christian.

CDfm wrote:

I have no beef with the Creationists- I think they are mistaken thats all- but you clearly seem to.

How can you actually have any opinion on scientists beef with creationism if you don't actually know what it is? The problem scientists have with creationists is that creationists want creationism taught in schools, in science classes as a scientific alternative to evolution. This is when there is absolutely no scientific basis for it at all. Its the equivilent of Holocaust deniers wanting their nonsense taught as an historical alternative to the Holocaust. Its not what they believe that annoys scientists, its what they want to beliefs.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you need to familiarise yourself with a number of terms that PDN mentioned.

Old earth creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Theistic Evolution
Intelligent Design

A quick read of these should make the different positions a bit clearer. In regards to Catholicism, the most recent Pope and JPII both embraced evolution. Again, I'm not a Catholic.

As a helpful insight to the differences between ID and Creationism see:
Young-earth creationists and ID theorists: similarities and differences
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2895

CDfm

Mark nice to see you post again.

I may not be as well up on my reading as you would like me to be - the reason that I am not up to date with creationism is that I am not a creationist.So if I am not a creationist why would I read creationist literature.THat you ask me to defend something that I dont believe in and is not part of my churchs teaching is just plain silly.

As for my skirting around the issues I didnt - those familiar with theological terms and doctrine in mainstream philosophy of religion both christian and atheist would think I was demonstrating that I have a mature grasp of what I post about.

I often point out that the argument is a spat between creationists and atheists (who take a dawkins view).I have no idea what Henry Morris was a Professor of but I believe it was Civil Engineering. I also have only a superficial knowledge of Professor Dawkins qualifictions but they are Science related and he has no academic qualifications in theology. Seeing that they are both professors in non -theological related fields my guess they had quite a lot in common when the late Professor was alive.

I believe it is common among people of your beliefs not to argue with creationists but to bring the argument to other christians who dont hold a creationist belief themselves. Is that true and if so can you explain the reasoning behind it.

It would help me if someone could tell me what an evolutionist is - I saw it mentioned in the Sunday Times letters page so would like to understand it.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

It would help me if someone could tell me what an evolutionist is.

"Evolutionist" is a term, mildly pejorative in tone, which is used by creationists to describe people who accept that the Modern evolutionary synthesis (aka the Theory of Evolution with knobs on) accurately describes the process by which humans and other current- and formerly-existing organisms descended from early life forms.

This latter group don't generally refer to themselves as "evolutionists", since they tend not to go in for the kind of blanket labelling that's usually part and parcel of creationist gameplay. That, and the fact that there are no corresponding terms for people who accept, say, the accuracy of current descriptions of gravity, the bending of beams, electricity or anything else that's got the words "theory of" up front.

CDfm

Thanks for that Robin

BTW I am still mystified as to what creationism has to do with mainstream christian religion.

I keep getting qualms that he will hold me responsible for Comical Ali next.

marco_polo

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks for that Robin

BTW I am still mystified as to what creationism has to do with mainstream christian religion.

I keep getting qualms that he will hold me responsible for Comical Ali next.

Not creationism but theistic evolution. The crux of the matter is as follows: most of the major churches teach 'theistic evolution' the specifics of which I think it is fair to say are not very well detailed (The very good reason for this being that the vast majority of believers don't really care, which is fair enough). A athiest would legitimately ask how exactly is it that evolution is 'guided' by God since our understanding of the process thus far indicates that it does not require any guidence at all.

Personally I only have no problem with people accepting theistic evolution. I have a major problem with Intelligent Design and creationism, in so far as they have an agenda to influence the teaching of science in classrooms, and also that some person who wants it taught in science classes may soon have access to a large arsenal of nuclear weapons from the White House. But since it is not a problem in this country at all I don't lose too much sleep over it.

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

A athiest would legitimately ask how exactly is it that evolution is 'guided' by God since our understanding of the process thus far indicates that it does not require any guidence at all.

The crux of the matter isn't whether evolution requires guidance per se. It's whether evolution required some manner of guidance - an inherently indistinguishable act - to get us to a specific point, the point where God wanted us.

That we just so happen to have two legs and not a great of body hair as opposed to flippers and scales is beside the point. I believe that most theistic evolutionists would subscribe to the notion that Genesis talks about spiritual likeness, not physical. And assuming one is of a mind to agree with theistic evolution, it would be impossible to know where or when God intervened. There could be many answers to your question.

marco_polo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The crux of the matter isn't whether evolution requires guidance per se. It's whether evolution required some manner of guidance - an inherently indistinguishable act - to get us to a specific point, the point where God wanted us.

That we just so happen to have two legs and not a great of body hair as opposed to flippers and scales is beside the point. I believe that most theistic evolutionists would subscribe to the notion that Genesis talks about spiritual likeness, not physical. And assuming one is of a mind to agree with theistic evolution, it would be impossible to know where or when God intervened. There could be many answers to your question.

Back to school for me . Thanks, I was not aware of the concept of spiritual likeness in TE, I was under the impression that it was as much physical as spiritual. That does distance it from Intelligent Design conceptually.

20goto10

Galvasean wrote: »

Twice in 2,000 years aint what I'd call regular.

I meant ghosts and supernatural and general hocus pocus.

20goto10

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The crux of the matter isn't whether evolution requires guidance per se. It's whether evolution required some manner of guidance - an inherently indistinguishable act - to get us to a specific point, the point where God wanted us.

That we just so happen to have two legs and not a great of body hair as opposed to flippers and scales is beside the point. I believe that most theistic evolutionists would subscribe to the notion that Genesis talks about spiritual likeness, not physical. And assuming one is of a mind to agree with theistic evolution, it would be impossible to know where or when God intervened. There could be many answers to your question.

Evolution does not require any devine intervention. It is a model for a Godless universe. Theists would be better off trying to find flaws and mistakes in the model rather than blindly accepting it and adding in your own made up hocus pocus to make it fit in with the bible. They might earn a bit of respect if they did.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

Mark nice to see you post again.

I may not be as well up on my reading as you would like me to be - the reason that I am not up to date with creationism is that I am not a creationist.So if I am not a creationist why would I read creationist literature.THat you ask me to defend something that I dont believe in and is not part of my churchs teaching is just plain silly.

So let me get this straight, you don't know what a creationist is and you don't know what an evolutionist is, and yet you still feel qualified enough to comment on the positions of those on both sides of the argument?

CDfm wrote: »

As for my skirting around the issues I didnt - those familiar with theological terms and doctrine in mainstream philosophy of religion both christian and atheist would think I was demonstrating that I have a mature grasp of what I post about.

I think most people see that your are a troll continuously throwing out the same baseless accusations about something you admit not knowing anything about. By the way, atheism is not a religion, don't try and bring it down to your level.

CDfm wrote: »

I often point out that the argument is a spat between creationists and atheists (who take a dawkins view).

Thats been your only sensible point sinse you've started trolling posting, this point is not the problem, its all the other stuff that you've made up that is causing problems.

CDfm wrote: »

I have no idea what Henry Morris was a Professor of but I believe it was Civil Engineering. I also have only a superficial knowledge of Professor Dawkins qualifictions but they are Science related and he has no academic qualifications in theology. Seeing that they are both professors in non -theological related fields my guess they had quite a lot in common when the late Professor was alive.

Do you need acedemic qualifications to have opinions on theology? Surely if, as you say, Dawkins is so unqualified at talking about theology he would get schooled at every single debate, expecially if, as you say, these debates are always with non-creationist christians who obviously have the better education in theology as they have the right view on Christianity? Would you mind backing up your claims with a bit of proof or just top trolling?, either one would make these arguments infinitely more productive.

CDfm wrote: »

I believe it is common among people of your beliefs not to argue with creationists but to bring the argument to other christians who dont hold a creationist belief themselves. Is that true and if so can you explain the reasoning behind it.

Wait, you've been claiming this as fact since you started on this forum, you've accused Dawkins of constantly doing on this, the A&A and the After Hours forums and now you are actually asking if its true? If you are actually looking for a serious answer to that then I suggest you look at the "The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy" thread in this very forum, then try looking at the videos I linked to for you here, and then try to actually read some of Dawkins books and view some of his debates.

Fanny Cradock

20goto10 wrote: »

Evolution does not require any devine intervention. It is a model for a Godless universe. Theists would be better off trying to find flaws and mistakes in the model rather than blindly accepting it and adding in your own made up hocus pocus to make it fit in with the bible. They might earn a bit of respect if they did.

Read my post. I did not state that evolution required divine intervention.

So, let me get this straight, you are making the preposterous demand that Christians who accept evolution abandon this perfectly sound belief because you say so. I note here that you rather arrogantly assume this belief is 'blindly' accepted, I assume, simply because they are Christians. Yours is an unbelievable statement, and I really believe that you have very little idea what you are talking about.

Evolution is not a model for a Godless universe. You are inferring this based on your own presuppositions, and because it fits in neatly with your beliefs. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

BTW I am still mystified as to what creationism has to do with mainstream christian religion.

Here in Europe, creationism isn't much of an issue for christians or anybody else, though that does show mild sings of changing as the creationist marketing companies expand their service base, hold conferences and do all the kind of stuff that any commercial operation has to do to keep afloat.

In the USA, Canada, South Africa and quite a few other countries, though, creationism and a concomitant air of anti-intellectualism are fundamental and distinctly unappealing characteristics of mainstream christianity. Which, it's sad to say after eight disastrous years in the White House, show no immediate sign of dying off, at least in the USA. Here's Sam Harris on Sarah Palin:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080