That's more or less what most of the Christians at the time of
Darwin thought. But as always, the literally-minded (possibly
influenced by early scientific logical thought) hijacked the high
ground and propagated the simplistic idea that evolution and faith
are alternative solutions to one problem.
Then influential, wealthy and enthusiastic Americans got hold of
the idea, and now half the world seems to have turned its back on
any engagement with reality.
Not sure which side of the fence you are on, John; particularly
that last sentence. It could be said equally by pro- or
anti-evolutionists. We get the impression, certainly from the
media, that a lot moe than half have turned their backs on reality,
believing unquestioningly the unproven theories that have evolved
from Darwinism.
Which fence, Tony?
I have faith, and I have confidence that faith and science are not
mutually exclusive. What I find frightening is the way a particular
brand of American conservative Christians have been using the media
they control to propagate ideas which are unproven scientifically
in order to fit science into their particular world-view.
If the big 'G' didn't want us to learn about our universe and
things there in and around us, why give us brains, a mind and
abilities to work out theories and problems along with the rest of
it.
Some may argue that curiosity's what got us into trouble in the
first place, but there we are, we are a curious race and that's how
we learn.
Nibs
"unproven theories that have evolved from Darwinism"???????
Examples Tony. I'm not going to get into an argument about religion
but whatpart of god creating the world in seven days has been
proven? What part of the Adam & Eve story has been proven? etc
etc etc. Faith is what we all carry in our hearts, not religion.
Some people are just not willing to accept science as it clashes
with the words of the bible. Moderate Christians acknowledge that
most of it is stories. The world has been proven to be more that
7000 yrs old. Have you studied the sciences? :)
Kiki, believe me he has, from what I've seen of his other
conversations. The fact of the matter is, nothing is proven, on
either evolutions side, or Creation's side. I'm not going to turn a
picture into a debate, but you point out that 'it is proven the
world is over 7000 years old'. No it's not. It's not 'proven'. We
have our dating methods, quite a few actually, along with many
other methods of scientific study, but we find things and change
things over and over. I agree that faith is what we carry, but if
that is the case, would our science be our faith as well? We
believe we came from one cells, or we believe we were created. We
have no concrete evidence, we can only interpret what's there
(sometimes faultily, which has been proven through numerous
historical events).
Anyways, back to the subject, interesting picture, lol.
I defo. see your point. Carbon dating is somewhat problematic, as
are other theories and yes, they are being updated all of the time.
Science is proud of its new discoveries. Without science where
would we be? This is the great evolution of science and discovery.
However, I find the bible to be closed, stagnant, misinterpreted,
abused and with no room for movement or alternative. BUT, there is
some amazing text in there. I'm reading the King James Bible at
present.
Have another read of the first few chapters of the book of Genesis,
Kiki, not with a closed mind, but listening for the wisdom of the
shared story of a people's walk with their God. Many of the stories
occur elsewhere, and are shared between peoples. If this is closed
and stagnated, then all of present English literature is rubbish.
Also, be aware that one story can be told many ways. Read about the
tower of Babel, and think about the second law of thermodynamics.
Genesis includes two different creation stories, one from a desert
people and one from a people who lived in fertile land. We get
both, not either/or. Both hold wisdom, and maybe a few facts. But
if you apply the tools of the laboratory to a flower, you will
never experience what a flower can mean.
Kiki/Mythwriter: Carbon dating gets good support when calibrated
with tree ring dating and Greenland Ice core data. That sort of
support makes it very robust.
Thanks for your challenging remarks, Kiki, and for the responses
from Mythwriter and JohnO. Although science should be completely
open to all possible ideas - and the best scientist are - it is
very easy to be 'convinced' about a particular line of reasoning
and become somewhat closed to any alternatives - in the world of
science, just as in the world of faith.
John, thanks for clarifying what you were saying. As I pointed out,
it can just as legitinately be applied the other way round. Which
brings me back to Kiki's astoinished, " "unproven theories that
have evolved from Darwinism"??????? Examples Tony." Well, I agree,
let's not open up that whole debate again; I would just ask where
are the *proven* theories? We've been spoon-fed Evolution as fact
for so long now that most people believe it is. It's taught in
schools, perpetuated by governments, promulgated in the media as
fact, Fact, FACT. It's not; it's a theory and any true and decent
scientist readily admits that. I've quoted Prof Brian Cox on
another thread, who said recently that 'science doesn't prove
anything. It merely comes up with a series of theories that can be
demonstrated to work - until they are proved wrong.
Tony, I absolutely agree 100%! They are merely theories and as such
have flaws. As do the bible stories. I come from a mixed background
of religion, science and intellect (I am neither of these things,
lol) but what it has taught me is that I should never close my mind
to anything. I teach my son the same. Having studied social science
as part of my psych. I understand full well the influence (and
propaganda) of the media. What I will say, is that I fall on the
side of science because of the misdirection and misuse of religion
by humanity. I hate to see pain and suffering. Also, my good friend
Louise is a Vicar! lol. We have very interesting theological
debates :)
John - You always put everything so beautifully. I always read with
an open mind (or try). I'm reading bit by bit; it's a lot to take
in! I haven't read the bible for a number of yrs. Ooh, nearly
forgot Tony; just as the theory of evolution is taught in our
schools, so is religion, and at secondary school age. There is room
for it all. Peace.
Peace received, with thanks. I just think it's a sad reflection of
our times that 'religion' is, as you say, taught in our schools -
all faiths, in Humanities, and teachers have to be very careful
that they are are not influencing the children towards one rather
than another. Whereas evolution is taught in Science as fact and it
is a very enlightened school indeed, and a rare one, that also
includes just as valid creationist teaching in their
curriculum.
As to defending the Bible, a famous theologian, Charles Spurgeon,
once said, "The Word of God is like a lion.You don’t have to defend
a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will
defend itself."
The King James version is certainly marvelous literature. I hope
you're enjoying it. Being 17th centuary, though, can make it more
difficult to follow in places. You ought to have a look at a modern
translation, too.
Please login or sign up to post on this network. Click here to sign up now.
20 Comments
Then influential, wealthy and enthusiastic Americans got hold of the idea, and now half the world seems to have turned its back on any engagement with reality.
I have faith, and I have confidence that faith and science are not mutually exclusive. What I find frightening is the way a particular brand of American conservative Christians have been using the media they control to propagate ideas which are unproven scientifically in order to fit science into their particular world-view.
If the big 'G' didn't want us to learn about our universe and things there in and around us, why give us brains, a mind and abilities to work out theories and problems along with the rest of it.
Some may argue that curiosity's what got us into trouble in the first place, but there we are, we are a curious race and that's how we learn.
Nibs
Anyways, back to the subject, interesting picture, lol.
John, thanks for clarifying what you were saying. As I pointed out, it can just as legitinately be applied the other way round. Which brings me back to Kiki's astoinished, " "unproven theories that have evolved from Darwinism"??????? Examples Tony." Well, I agree, let's not open up that whole debate again; I would just ask where are the *proven* theories? We've been spoon-fed Evolution as fact for so long now that most people believe it is. It's taught in schools, perpetuated by governments, promulgated in the media as fact, Fact, FACT. It's not; it's a theory and any true and decent scientist readily admits that. I've quoted Prof Brian Cox on another thread, who said recently that 'science doesn't prove anything. It merely comes up with a series of theories that can be demonstrated to work - until they are proved wrong.
John - You always put everything so beautifully. I always read with an open mind (or try). I'm reading bit by bit; it's a lot to take in! I haven't read the bible for a number of yrs. Ooh, nearly forgot Tony; just as the theory of evolution is taught in our schools, so is religion, and at secondary school age. There is room for it all. Peace.
As to defending the Bible, a famous theologian, Charles Spurgeon, once said, "The Word of God is like a lion.You don’t have to defend a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will defend itself."
The King James version is certainly marvelous literature. I hope you're enjoying it. Being 17th centuary, though, can make it more difficult to follow in places. You ought to have a look at a modern translation, too.
Click here to sign up now.