All Christians are Homophobes

Sean:

Well...not exactly...

Have you ever actually read "The Origin of Species?"  (This is not a "backhanded accusation," but simply a question.)  I have.  And recently.  Let me review some facts about Darwin and natural selection.

Darwin was a theist, and remained a theist his entire life.  His only earned degree was in theology, and he studied for the ministry.  He never earned a science degree, nor even took more than rudimentary science courses in college.  He was, by his own admission, a self-taught naturalist (though he did have a couple of "mentors").  Darwin was a devout Christian until he left on his journey.  And although his Christianity "waxed and waned," he never renounced it.  He spent the last two decades of his life as a deacon of the church, and was buried at Westminster Abbey.

He began his journey on The Beagle at age 24; hardly old enough to be qualified as a "scientist" of any type.  His journey lasted approximately 5 years.  Thus, he was nearing 30 when it was over: arguably still not old enough to qualify as a truly "serious" scientist, especially not having had any advanced courses, or showed anything but an admittedly exceptional "enthusiasm" for his subject.

But let's assume for the moment that he was a "prodigy" of some sort, and that he was, in fact, a "true" scientist, and that his observations were scientifically accurate and evidentiary.

Darwin was not an atheist who set out to disprove the existence of God.  Rather, he set out to disprove only "special creation."  That is, he set out to prove that not every species of animal, flower, insect, etc. was "specially created" by God as a new entity, but that they were "naturally selected" (by nature) via adaptive mutation and other natural processes.

It is instructive to consider Darwin's own words in "The Origin of Species," in which he refers to the "Creator" a number of times.  In the "Recapitulation and Summary" of the book, he has this to say:

"To my mind it accords better of what we know of the laws impressed upon matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes...There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms, or into one..."  (Emphases mine)

Thus, Darwin believed that God (the "Creator") created the universe and set the laws of the universe in motion, but that, once He did, He did not "interfere" with the processes.  However, he makes it clear that he believes that life was originally "breathed" into matter.

Thus, although it may be "chicken or egg" to discuss whether God created man or woman first, the main point here is that Darwin believed that humankind was, in fact, created by God - whether "uniquely" or through laws (including evolution) that God set in motion.

Peace.

Tony R  Once life is found on other planets the idea of the God of Scripture will be seen as the ridiculous fairytale that it really is. [/QUOTE wrote:   Except when on those other planets intelligent life is found, with similar religious back ground. That couldn't be coincidence i

Except when on those other planets intelligent life is found, with similar religious back ground.

That couldn't be coincidence if it were the case.

The creation theorie doesn't exclude other life in the Universe (well, maybe it does, but than that's just one of the many flaws in it).

If there is a God, than maybe he has created several inhabited worlds?

Maybe we are the Gods, one day introducing life on previously lifeless planets, creating a manageble, and predictable evolution process, and has the same been done on this planet by some alien predesessor?

tuxon:

No, you are actually correct: the creation theory does not preclude the possibility of other life in the universe.

Tony:

No, actually you are not entirely correct: in "Origin," Darwin freely admitted that the fossil record - one of the main things on which his theory depends - was hopelessly flawed, and did not always support his theory.  And this remains true today, despite the subsequent finding of thousands of additional fossils since Darwin wrote the book.  Indeed, one can ask: given that thousands of fossils have been found globally since the publication of "Origins," why is the fossil record still so weak vis-a-vis natural selection?

Peace.

maani wrote: Indeed, one can ask: given that thousands of fossils have been found globally since the publication of "Origins," why is the fossil record still so weak vis-a-vis natural selection?

Is it weak? I didn't know that!! I though it was rather consistent. Of course, to become a fossil you have to fulfill a number of conditions, that are not easy at all... So only a very small percentage of dead bodies can become a fossil. But still, where is the weakness?

JrKASperov wrote:   science will never be able to prove God does not exist.

Of course not. It won't prove the contrary either. However, science can prove that the earth is not the centre of the universe, and that the sun is not spinning around us... We can also scientifically calculate the size of an ark to accomodate a couple of every animal species known today (I guess vegetals were created again after the flood).

And what's up with your attack to Galileo? He had enough then!!!

JrKASperov wrote: Are you a fool or are you a fool? I suggest you go chatting up to some science philosophers mate. They will tell you exactly why science cannot disprove God in the current state. In fact, the idea of science disproves God has LONG been outdone in the world of science philosophy. If you are happy talking about science in a way like you are a scientist, then clearly you are ignoring the world of science philosophers, fully learned scientists themselves mind you, who state that at the current state, science will never be able to prove God does not exist. I will add to this statement that Galileo is commonly believed to have done experiments he in fact could not have done, and in the science history department this idea is quickly dismissed. Galileo is more of a fraud than he ever was a scientist, making up theories more than performing emperical experiments.

The only fool I know is the one that writes me back for not talking to scientists, citing me in a post where I say I work in a research institute (albeit researching Energy) with some 150 scientists. And believe religion does pop up in our conversation and less than 10% of the scientist are believers....

As far as anything is concerned religion has to prove that god exists not the opposite , you fool!!! Can you not understand this simple fact????? It it better prove it by other things than scriptures written some 400 years after the date some prophet died and so many conclave to discuss on how they should be re-written to fit their needs and interpretations!

As for your attack on Galileo, and your assertions on his research , you just disqualitied yourself for any scientific credentials if you never had any!

Sorry for the abrupt response , but the only the fools believe.... and you started with that word.

nacho:

Actually, although it is true that science can prove that the sun is not spinning around us, it cannot prove that the earth is not the center of the universe, since it cannot plot where the center of the universe might be (assuming there is a center).  I am not suggesting that it is, just that your statement is both scientifically and logically incorrect.

Sean:

Pardon my being blunt here, but your mini-diatribe on why you think Darwin "claimed" to believe in God even after he published his two major works is truly grasping at straws.  I have heard those arguments before, and not only have I rejected them, but a great many scientists - major names in various fields - have rejected them as well.  Indeed, there is legitimate reason to believe that Darwin actually "pulled back" from his theories toward the end of his life - not out of some misplaced "fear" of retribution, but because, as time went on, the fossil record and other supporting data did not materialize, as he assumed it would.

As an aside, having read "Origin" very recently, I can tell you that it is one of the most badly written and supported "scientific" books ever written.  Indeed, Darwin admits throughout it that it is little more than a "rough dissertation," and not a fully fleshed-out scientific work.  And it shows.  There are many places - many - where he provides almost no support for pretty major statements.  And he "begs off" numerous times re providing supporting evidence.  For example, at one point he says, "It is hopeless to attempt to convince anyone of the truth of this proposition without giving the long array of facts which I have collected, and which cannot possibly be here introduced."  One could understand Darwin taking this position once or twice in order not to "bog down" the reader in "facts" (assuming they are such).  However, in using this tactic repeatedly - I counted at least a dozen times or more - he simply leaves the reader suspicious that either no such supporting evidence exists, or that it does not support as strongly as Darwin is proposing.

In addition, the book is filled - and I mean filled - with non-scientific phrases like, "Almost certainly" "It could be that," "...from unknown causes," "I am convinced that" (without saying why he is convinced), "I am inclined to believe that" (without saying why), "I cannot doubt that" (without saying why), "I presume," "I suppose that," "I suspect that," "I think it inevitably follows that" (without saying why), "It is possible that," "It seems to me probable that," "It may have been that," "Natural selection may have come into play" (emphasis mine), "It may perhaps have been that," "No doubt" (without saying why there is no doubt), "It seems to be," "The case may have been that," "The most probable hypothesis is," "We have reason to believe" (without providing such reason), "We may, at least, safely conclude that" (without saying why we can so conclude), "We may feel sure that there must be some cause," and "We may imagine that."

These are hardly substantive "scientific" phrases, and give little reason for the reader to accept much of what Darwin puts forth.

True, there are some areas where Darwin was a true expert, and his scientific research and studies provide powerful support for some aspects of the theory of natural selection.  He was almost certainly the world's foremost expert on pigeons and crustaceans, and his work with some plants and flowers was extensive.  However, this is simply not enough to justify Darwin's certainty in the theory, much less provide truly strong supporting evidence.

Indeed, what Darwin tries to do with "Origin" is to "pass off" what amounts to a doctoral thesis as a true, fully researched, evidentiarily supported scientific theory.  And, unfortunately, re both supporting evidence and presentation, he fails to do so.

I am not suggesting here that I disbelieve the theory of natural selection.  As noted, Darwin was an expert in a few areas, and those are the areas in which support for certain aspects of the theory of natural selection shine through, and are almost irrefutable.  However, although Darwin valiantly tries to broaden his theory in scope beyond his own real expertise, he leaves as many holes and suspicions of insupportability as he does solidly researched and supported facts.

Peace.

Maani, Kasperov,

I had written a fairly long post that got lost as the accessibility of the site got cut-off (not the first time this happens, actually, but lately this has become a bit more frequent) and I have no envy or time to rewrite it today!

I was explaining the pressures done on scientist covering entirely new theories , which they are at the time of their introductions (Galileo , Darwin and even Einstein and his relativity theory) but time has proven them right - and they were blackalled by the religious authorities mainly because they rocked the very boat they were sitting in. Galileo's point meant that Earth was not the center of the Universe anymore and therefore this God - almighty thing would take a beating . He barely escaped the pyre and being called a heretic for his findings. And died a lonely man! And some 500 years later , religious authorities have absolved him of his sins! How grand of them!!!! And he should've understood the context! Scandalous , is my word for their forgiveness!!!!! If that is being a christian , then I am happy not being one content to be atheist and would rather act like a pagan than a christian.

As for Darwin , Maani , if you heard those arguments I give you today , it is because the majority thinks so , not a few well known figures from here and there justifying the religious investing fortunes (and not only in peanuts for the gallery) telling Darwin was wrong!! The very fact that humans can be descendant of the monkey infuriated them and went against their principle of the Sixth Day creation thing (I can only call it a thing at best because this part of the bible insults my intelligence!) . Again Darwin was rocking the religious boat dangerously and he was to be discredited at all costs.

If at first Galileo had a theory , now it is so much more than that as it is the foundation of modern astronomy, Darwin's theory at first was just that , as science did not possess ADN and modern science to prove , but only religious zealots can say that he is wrong. I suppose dinosaurs are a figment of our imagination!!!

Maybe I will consider rewriting some of the arguments I developped in the lost post , but I doubt I shall convince you of it especially that you and Kasperov are obviously not wanting to be convinced and therefore I may find it useless to repeat this even tomorrow! This is precisely why those theology thread are a bit useless, the believers wanting to remain believers!!!

I must run , now because I am late!

I am going to a pagan feast where a cassoulet prepared Sunday is waiting for us , and I must stop by home to pick-up the wine and flowers first.

Sean Trane wrote: If at first Galileo had a theory , now it is so much more than that as it is the foundation of modern astronomy, Darwin's theory at first was just that , as science did not possess ADN and modern science to prove , but only religious zealots can say that he is wrong. I suppose dinosaurs are a figment of our imagination!!!

i just wanted to say that our astronomical ideas currently are not based on Galileo's findings but on Kepler's findings and Newtons completion of his ideas. Kepler was there before Galileo, and guess what, he was a believer!