This is so freaking wrong!

[Virgil]

ok I like this post, indeed interesting.
I was raised in a christian home, attended medical school and now have a view on the two together.

I hate the science vs religion debate, it makes no sense to me. if science is the study of the natural world, how can it possible prove the existence of a god/s. also, if there is a God how can he/she/it/them be expected to be proven to exist be science? if you think about it, if god exists, science just shows god's logical nature.

now the theory of 'survival of the fittest' being one of Darwin's more brilliant postulations is not absurd, the religious fanatics who won't listen to reason cause they hear the word 'darwin' and automatically go into a fit of illogical ranting, astounds me. I was schooled in a christian school. OH NO!! don't listen to Loki, he's been tainted. the truth is, I had a teacher who taught me the value of free thinking. why couldn't the world have been created out of a big bang? why is natural selection wrong - considering we see it everywhere, the examples are undeniable? why does every thought man have considering the creation of the world, make religious fanatics go into a tail spin?

my mother having been on this free thinking train herself and a devout christian, not only made me read the bible over and over, but fed me Aristotle, plato, bosanquet, kant, and at med school, galen, hippocratese, harvey and the list goes on. I'm not just some stupid piece of trailer trash who decided a god existed because, 'well what the hell, my speech impediment must be supernatural, so there has to be a god right?' (i don't have a speech impediment by the way - just my australian look at the stereotypical trailer trash).

I think there are fanatics on each side, that won't take the time to listen, evaluate and act accordingly. they are so wrapped up in what they believe, they don't want to even consider there is something different. why do you think they destroy the preface of 'origins', why do you think they come out and publicly announce 'without a doubt' that religion is wrong, without having the proof to back it up - see my intro.

science has much to offer, and has much to learn (i have to believe this, i'm doctor after all). but I also believe religion has its place, it also has much to offer and whether you believe it has more or less to offer is a determinant of your ignorance.

Wonderful post!! I feel the same, and I'm an mechanical engineer after all. Four stars for that!

[JBI]

It makes no difference - all the evangelicals are just shooting themselves, and their children for that matter, in the feet.

All my friends who study the sciences, for instance, make it clear that no matter what personal background you have, in order to actually study biology, at least on some level, you need to know, and understand Evolution, which starts with Darwin.

It's the same thing with The Bible and studying English literature - if you do not know it, good luck understanding anything.

If one cannot entertain the other, that is, if one cannot read the other within a context beyond "This is utter trash", then one really cannot get anywhere.

As it is, I know far more about the Old Testament than most, being privy to the original, but even so, I do not believe it, and quite simply, Jewish scholarship doesn't literally interpret everything either (though I have long since ceased to be Jewish in any religious sense, as I do not believe in a God).

It would seem that only a certain few people, most of which being Evangelicals from the United States, have a real problem with Evolution - in Canada, it really doesn't seem to be that big of a problem, and in Europe I don't think it is much of a problem either, even in such traditionally conservative countries as Italy.

In truth, the Roman Catholic Church itself has accepted Darwinism, and most older European churches have as well (as well as many Muslim denominations and the majority of Jewish affiliations). There to me has never been much of a problem, and the problem seems isolated pretty much to the influence of American religion.


Alright, perhaps there are some resonances elsewhere, but in most places outside of the US, it seems to me to not even be a serious debate. There are morons everywhere, but, in general, most people are accepting.

I can't see why then, we even need to deal with whether it is "Christian" or not to believe in evolution. In truth, it makes no difference one's background. The question one should ask rather is whether it is scientifically proven or not, and, quite simply, from what I understand, it more or less is. I don't see the problem.

[Virgil]

I can't see why then, we even need to deal with whether it is "Christian" or not to believe in evolution. In truth, it makes no difference one's background. The question one should ask rather is whether it is scientifically proven or not, and, quite simply, from what I understand, it more or less is. I don't see the problem.

I completely agree. The whole controversey rests how one reads several verses in Genesis. Basically that's it.

By the way, how does orthodox judaism interpret Geneisis? Because that's not just a Christian issue.

[JBI]

I completely agree. The whole controversey rests how one reads several verses in Genesis. Basically that's it.

By the way, how does orthodox judaism interpret Geneisis? Because that's not just a Christian issue.

There hasn't been a Sanhadrin in nearly two thousand years - there is no "one" Orthodox Judaism. In that sense, some variants still believe that rain is directly caused by God, and have no real understanding of science, whereas others have fully embraced Evolution.

That being said, you wouldn't catch an Orthodox Jew, unless they were some sort of radical, going around preaching - conversion, and the spreading of the religion have never been part of the Jewish tradition, and, therefore, on a political level you are probably not likely to see Jews amongst Darwin burners, regardless of what sect they belong to. As it is, the vast majority of Jews, secular to Orthodox accept evolution, from what I can gather. Though, that being said, the Torah as a text itself has constantly been interpreted and reinterpreted to containing different, often conflicting meanings over the past 2000 years - in that sense, what is actually meant by the text is debatable, and therefore there is room, and has been argued to be room, for evolution even within the lines of Genesis without conflicting, as anyone with sense knows that the order of creation defies logic.

The text, I think, has never required a fundamental belief, in the sense that evangelicals see - it is merely a large metaphor, and metaphorical/allegorical readings have been extremely popular, even more so than in Medieval Christendom, which in itself, in scholastic thought, argues against literal readings as well.

[OrphanPip]

Still, is it because we as humans have still too much to research, that we hve to leave our children in the dark and attribue everything to God? I think that's highly dangerous.

The most important things is that children know that soe of this might not be totally right, as it isn't proven, yet some of it clear. Refuting all because somethings are not explained yet is just opportunistic.

I would say teach your children to believe what is best supported by the evidence, which would be evolution. I'm not refuting it because it is not all explained, I'm just saying that the scientific method holds that nothing is ever empirically provable.

I'm just confused by people who think evolution can't happen, even for Biblical literalist there is no mention in the Bible of multiple instances of creation, which just leaves the "fossils are fake" and "big scientific conspiracy" alternatives.

I'm also confused by the tactics they employ. How are ad hominem attacks against a 150 year dead naturalist relevant?

[Babbalanja]

I don't see the problem.

The problem, comme d'habitude, is faith.

The dynamic of belief coerces devout believers into cultish behavior like praying several times a day or professing belief in things that can't be rationally understood. Since no one can really know whether these people believe or not, the religious behavior becomes all-important in displaying one's faith to his religious community and the society at large.

Any heathen can affirm the validity of a robustly supported scientific construct like evolution. But it takes a strong faith, one would imagine, to deny such copious evidence in favor of the ancient myths in Genesis. Darwinism is a scientific construct that gains strength from being questioned and tested. And on the other hand there's religious faith, that resents being questioned and demands uncritical acceptance.

If you're a believer and have no problem with evolution by natural selection, well then, this doesn't apply to you. But let's be honest. The opposition to Darwin's theory is religiously motivated. People have done worse things in human history to demonstrate the strength of their faith. However, that doesn't mean that anti-evolution is just a harmless little quirk. Believers and nonbelievers alike have a responsibility to condemn this folly.

Regards,

Istvan

[JBI]

No, the problem isn't faith - people with faith believe in evolution - most religions see no problem with it, including most branches of Christianity, the biggest being Roman Catholicism. The problem is with American religion, notably evangelical sects on the Bible Belt, whose influence has spread. If you think about that though, that is merely a small fraction of the world population.



Anyone who knows anything about biology at least entertains the idea of evolution, and would need to regard it, if not as "truth", than as the closest thing to truth, in order that they could even begin to understand biology - the subject assumes that you aren't some idiot who denies evolution because of religion, as, to be honest, "god created the world" means you get an F. Nobody cares how you think the world is created, they only care that you understand evolution. One's faith doesn't matter in application, only one's understanding of what is provable. Thereby, anybody who denies evolution, automatically denies themselves a scientific education. That's where the problems start, because some sects of American religion can't handle the fact that they may need to read a little deeper into their bibles, so, in consequence, decide to dumb down everything, including their children.


There is no real incompatibility between the two, and the only ones who really seem to have a problem (that is, a problem that has even come close to making an influence) are American evangelicals, and their influence, which to an extent has spread.

[loki456]

I agree with JBI. The bible is NOT a scientific book, therefore how can it shed light on science. faith is only evident when there can be no evidence brought forward. for eg. god created the world vs it was a series of consequences.

In this age of evidence based medicine and well evidence based anything, the bible just doesn't hold its own against the provable. and in my opinion it's not meant to, it was never meant as a scientific journal. Athough I don't think that all charasmatic christians are to blame for the fanaticism of a few. my mother's pastor, I know for a fact listens to reason, but I understand that he could be in the minority.

i don't disagree that in order to understand biology, and I know a hell of a lot of biology, physiology and anatomy, that evolution plays a part in its understanding. but I also think that there is so much more that needs to be discovered. The more you learn about these fields, the more you realise just how much we don't know.

as i've said before, you can't blame the whole of religion for the fanatics rantings and ravings at science, claiming blasphemy. and you can't blame the whole of science for the fanatics who publicly deny all of relgious beliefs. as JBI has said, there is no real incompatibility between the two, the incompatibility is between the people of these fields.

[JBI]

And there we have it - Clarence Darrow being reused almost 80 years later coming to the same conclusion.

But, what do you expect anyway - you are dealing with a bunch of third-rate minds preaching mistranslations, and limited translations of a text that is at best difficult to translate, and in parts impossible to translate - even working within the original language there is an almost limitless debate on what certain passages mean - the very creation itself is written in quite ambiguous language, and loaded with much difficulty in interpretation - narrow that down to "and God said" and you get some morons thinking they know more than what is provable by science.

[baddad]

....... poor is an author deigning an attack hidden within pretext of legitimacy gained from another's fame......

This sentiment of mine applies to any author wallowing in such a sneak.

[The Atheist]

Because I'm unfamiliar with Christian evangelicals, I was unaware of the connotation of Ray Comfort's name on the front of the book. He's the author of the introduction, you know.

I'd missed this, but I feel your pain.

However, you should look at it as a good thing.

Comfort's a first-class idiot and this is just the type of action to turn people off his idiotic brand of creationism.

He's worth 10 of Dawkins to anti-creationism any day.

Enormous fail.

[Mathor]

I mean, I dunno. Allowing people to read the views of evolution for themselves and come to their own conclusion based on reading the Origin seems like a pretty open-minded thing to do. Most religious groups instruct you to avoid reading such things. The introduction simply states why Christianity disagrees with the book, and then allows the reader to read the book and see if they come to the same conclusion or a different one. I just simply do not see how this is offensive. I am a big fan of Darwin and evolution, but the religious group is not in the wrong by hoping to promote their own opinions and beliefs in a moreso non-partisan way that they are doing it.

Someone made a point about an atheist releasing the Bible, and how that would be such an abomination, and I again do not see how even that is offensive. If someone is an Atheist and wants to show others why they disagree with the Bible, the best thing to do is to GIVE these people the Bible and see for themselves why they should disagree with it.

Though evolution is backed up by science and is the more logical way of explaining creation, that does not make it wrong to promote other viewpoints.

[OrphanPip]

The only problem is that attacking Darwin is a disingenuous way of criticizing evolution. Origins is a groundbreaking text, but it is hardly even an accurate layman's description of evolutionary theory. It would be like criticizing quantum mechanics by pointing out that Newtonian mechanics was wrong on many levels.

[Babbalanja]

Though evolution is backed up by science and is the more logical way of explaining creation, that does not make it wrong to promote other viewpoints.

But it does make it unscientific.

This past summer, a church in Boston hosted a talk on creationism. I have no problem with religious people talking about their Bible. But this was advertised with signs bearing the slogan:

EVOLUTION: BANKRUPT SCIENCE
CREATION: SCIENCE YOU CAN BANK ON

A few of us went to Longwood to see the talk, delivered by a former Harvard cell biologist currently working in Texas for Answers In Genesis. It was a slipshod presentation even as these things go, designed to be accepted by its religious audience without question. However, the worst thing about it was its insistence that creationism constitutes science.

Oh, I know, I'm so dogmatic and closed-minded and all. But it really infuriates me that we have to abide religious people pushing religion and calling it science. They point to their scripture and call it fact. And if anyone stands up and calls them on this nonsense, even people who should know better stand up and defend the religious people.

Regards,

Istvan

[Mathor]

Oh, I know, I'm so dogmatic and closed-minded and all. But it really infuriates me that we have to abide religious people pushing religion and calling it science. They point to their scripture and call it fact. And if anyone stands up and calls them on this nonsense, even people who should know better stand up and defend the religious people.

I just think everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think creationism is a big load of crap on many levels, but it is not in any way immoral or wrong for someone to try to encourage people to support either evolution or to support creationism. It might seem to many so simple to discount creationism, and very obvious that evolution is much more scientifically accurate than creationism, but not everyone thinks the same way we do.