Sorry, Charlie: Church Apologizes to Darwin

Proving it’s never too late to evolve, the Church of England has apologized to Charles Darwin for vilifying him for … Continued

Proving it’s never too late to evolve, the Church of England has apologized to Charles Darwin for vilifying him for having the audacity to question, wonder, and doubt.

Darwin has been dead for 126 years, so it probably doesn’t matter much to him, but the apology comes with a fascinating essay that could start a more intelligent conversation between religion and science, especially when it comes to the origin — or genesis — of the species.

“Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,” Rev. Malcolm Brown, director of missions and public affairs for the Church of England, wrote in an essay entitled “Good Religion Needs Good Science.”

“We try to practice the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope that makes some amends.”

Brown’s amends include a much needed corrective that Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson and other Christian creationists might consider.

“Subsequent generations have built on Darwin’s work but have not significantly undermined his fundamental theory of natural selection. There is nothing here that contradicts Christian teaching. Jesus himself invited people to observe the world around them and to reason from what they saw to an understanding of the nature of God (Matthew 6: 25-33),” Brown wrote.

“The anti-evolutionary fervour in some corners of the churches may be a kind of proxy issue for other discontents; and, perhaps most of all, an indictment of the churches’ failure to tell their own story – Jesus’s story – with conviction in a way which works with the grain of the world as God has revealed it to be, both through the Bible and in the work of scientists of Darwin’s calibre.”

Though Darwin is a hero to atheists, he was raised in the Anglican church, thought about becoming a clergyman, later attended a Unitarian church and described himself as an agnostic. “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God,” he wrote in 1879. “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.”

Darwin’s doubts about God weren’t just scientific; they were human. As Princeton historian William Howarth told Newsweek, those doubts date to his enounters with slave-owning Christians and the death of his 10-year-old daughter in 1851, eight years before he published “On the Origin of the Species.”

The Church of England isn’t the first to reconsider its previous views. Earlier this year, the Vatican erected a statue of Galileo, who the Church put on trial for heresy 400 years ago. Pope John Paul II issued a number of apologies for the church’s sins against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies, native peoples and Orthodox Christians. In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention renounced its racist roots and apologized for its past defense of slavery.

As Brown explained, “The trouble with homo sapiens is that we’re only human. People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and churches are no exception.”

Even the Church evolves.

Written by

  • oberle

    Maybe it’s time for eveyone to just stop caring about what the various religions have to say. Look at the history of these religions and sects, and then decide if that is relevant to your life. Most times, it’s not.

  • Kelly

    I think this is sort of funny yet highly interesting. So, what does this mean for “intelligent design”? Will other churches follow suit? Should it matter?

  • jerry rubin

    The church never apologized to Galileo Galilei or Sir Isaac Newton to my knowledge.

  • Circum

    To OBERLE:

  • OBERLE

    Newton was a believer in God… It is silly to have, “The church” apologize… The church is eklesia (the called out…the people) Those people are dead… Even if the views are not my own, I encourage you to study religion and see if Christianity is right… I mean, I could be wrong. I don’t profess to be one who knows everything (though sometimes I think I do)

  • Ozzie

    “Brown’s amends include a much needed corrective that Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson and other Christian creationists might consider.”I seriously doubt that, Robertson will probably report that the Anglican Church has been overrun by Satan himself…

  • David

    The apology already occurred, in a sense, as Darwin has a tombstone in Westminster Abbey (next to Handel’s, I believe).It’s ironic, though. Darwin was an agnostic.

  • eomcmars

    I’m waiting for Sarah Palin’s church to apologize to Darwin.

  • Wes Comer

    I had the privilege to visit Westminster a couple of years ago and viewing Darwin’s tomb.Over my life I have fluctated with being a firm believer in Christianity to being more, or less, agnostic, which is where I am now. Basically, I have lost faith in organized religion, do not believe that the Bible, as we know it, is the firm word of God. Actually, have little use for any organized religion at this point give the past and current harm it does to society. Still, thought, I can’t seem to still have lingering belief, or is it hope?, in God.

  • jhbyer

    Darwin’s work was titled “…Origin of Species” not “…Origin of the Species”. This very common mistaken insertion of “the” by even so learned a thinker as Mr. Waters is owed precisely to that misunderstanding of Darwin’s work for which Anglicans now see fit to apologize. An obsession with Darwin’s work, as it applies only to their own species, apparently misled creationists into promoting the false title throughout our culture.

  • Neila

    Interesting…it’s funny that the church finds it necessary to apologize to Darwin.I wonder if the scientific community will issue an apology to those of us that have been vilified for asking for answers to the holes in the evolution theory…For questioning, wondering and doubting.

  • Mariano Patalinjug

    Yonkers, New YorkThe Roman Catholic Church’s apologies to Galileo Galillee came rather too late to have had any significant impact on millions of true believers of the Catholic faith.Over the centuies, thousands if not millions must have been judged “heretics” by the Inquisition and then summarily burned at the stake for refusing to believe that planet Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around planet Earth, that God “created” the world in six days.And now comes this belated apology to Charles Darwin, expressed through Rev. Malcolm Brown, director of public affairs of the Church of England, who “acknowledges that people and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches [capital ‘C’ theirs) are no exception.”Why it has taken the Church of England over a hundred years to realize its monumental mistake regarding Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, is beyond me.That is the way I understand it because, in the final analysis, science, which relies absolutely and rigorously on empirical evidence, and religion, which relies stubbornly on intuition, on fear. on faith, or on hope, are irrevocably incompatible.Mariano Patalinjug

  • L.Kurt Engelhart

    It’s not just one church involved here. Churches in general are learning that it is futile to oppose people who are openly and constantly seeking the best explanations for our existence. Churches are political entities and those churches that cannot keep up with evolving human knowledge will lose their constituencies. Admitting that churches must evolve is intimately associated with the admission that organic beings themselves must evolve, or die.

  • Darwinist

    Should us Darwinist apologize to those who have challenged Evolution? No. Because your challenges have never been empirical. Your challenges are theological, lacking concrete evidence. Anyone that can challenge Evolution and show evidence that the Theory does not hold, will immediately get published in a prestigious journal like Nature or Science. So, publish your challenge and then we apologize.

  • L.Kurt Engelhart

    Postscript: Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” is actually religious in tone in implying a higher power that is doing the choosing of who survives. This fact points out that even the theory of evolution must evolve. It is pretty clear that what is happening right here on the ground is what determines who survives. It is called opportunity, and it is certainly God given, at first. Some humans try to round up all the opportunity and use it to insure that their friends and family survive. We might call this “unnatural selection.”

  • moe

    how about the other people who thought like Darwin How about doing penance by promoting Darwin’s reason and exposing the other ignorant religious fanatics in our world? It’s the least they can do, isn’t it?

  • candide

    The Church of England is a peculiar institution. It wants at the same time to be traditional and modern. That won’t work. The Anglican church, like all Christian churches, has a saviour, Jesus, about whom they know little. The whole New Testament is based on St. Paul’s delusions, not on Jesus who was just a man and a Jew at that. He wanted to purify Judaism, not to create a religion for gentiles.

  • moe

    To Mariano Patalinjug:This was a good one Mariano, keep it up….

  • Gene

    The real enlightned (most intelligent) view is both Christian and Science. Example if you study astrophysics (especially the Big Bang)with a “compare and contrast” approach to the Bible, you will find an exact match in both science and the Bible. In fact, an in depth science study of the macro world and the micro world compared to the Bible will match. The real truth!!

  • Apostle53

    The Anglican Church for the most part no longer believes the Holy Bible as God’s authoritative word.

  • Joseph

    If Christians simply studied the evolution of their religion, they would have little problem of Evolution of Species.

  • 4FRMan

    IMO, Rev. Brown’s interpretation of Matthew 6:25-33 is a wee bit loose.Our understanding of Truth may evolve, but Truth itself will not. The “evolution” we see in many churches is convenient moral relativism that allows its adherents to justify their own behavior. If there are no absolutes, then evil is defined by those in power.

  • Jerry Garcia

    Sorry, I don’t think any religion can evolve. They are all doomed to fail and to disapear!!! Thank God for that!!

  • Joseph

    We are all going to disappear. But every religion does evolve. If you study religion, it become obvious that God loves diversity because he has spoken to many people ….but he doesn’t tell them the same truth….. or at least the people do not interpret what he tells them the same way.

  • L.Kurt Engelhart

    Joseph: “people do not interpret what He tells them the same way”Now we’re getting somewhere!

  • Paganplace

    “”Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,” Hey. Now *that’s* a proper apology, the Catholic Church could take a lesson or two in their ‘apologies’ to persecuted peoples and individuals. Making amends doesn’t stop there, of course, there’s a bit of a fire to put out over here.

  • Anonymous

    JHBYER, you’re right. The Devil is in the details! “the” matters, and not just because people misread/misunderstand the title. They mostly misunderstand the whole concept. Darwin just tried to explain the wide variety of plants and animals. Why is it so upsetting to think that variety is the result of natural causes, or the rule of nature, instead of the finger of God. Can’t they be the same? Isn’t God the creator of nature?If God has the power to directly intervene and make one baby’s eyes hazel and another brown, then why doesn’t he have the power to establish a process that continues to work throughout millenia? Darwin never addressed the question of whether the process of natural selection included God or not–just that he thought the process explained the results he saw. There is plenty of room to believe that the process of evolution that Darwin described–which populated Earth with diverse and ever changing species–is the handiwork of God. But it’s a lot harder, if one believes man is “the” only species that counts.

  • Gaby

    Apostle53: The bible is not holy, it is holey. Joseph got it right when he said: “…….but he (God) doesn’t tell them the same truth….. or at least the people do not interpret what he tells them the same way.I added the word God for completeness of the sentence since I didn’t want to paste his whole post.

  • Nasser Velshi

    In my universe Darwinian natural selection is very compatible with a continuous as opposed to a static creation. Sir Issac Newton was a man of science and religion but he beleived that creation was static and not continuous. In the Shia Ismaili Muslim interpretation creation is perpetual, constant and continuous(which 20th century scientific discoveries have shown to be the case) and that through scientific endeavours we get to uncover signs of God’s magnificence:”Indeed, one strength of Islam has always lain in its belief that creation is not static but continuous, that through scientific and other endeavours, God has opened and continues to open new windows for us to see the marvels of His creation”(Aga Khan IV, Aga Khan University, 16 March 1983, Karachi, Pakistan)”The creation according to Islam is not a unique act in a given time but a perpetual and constant event; and God supports and sustains all existence at every moment by His will and His thought. Outside His will, outside His thought, all is nothing, even the things which seem to us absolutely self-evident such as space and time. Allah alone wishes: the Universe exists; and all manifestations are as a witness of the Divine Will”(Memoirs of Aga Khan III, 1954)

  • Enemy Of The State

    I’ve never understood the objection to natural selection as an explanation for evolution. It is the only theory overwhelmingly supported by the physical evidence, and this store of knowledge increases almost daily with new discoveries.While we’re on the subject, Creatonists, let’s please dump the ‘Evolution is just a theory’ red herring argument. The term ‘theory’ in the scientific sense is not just a hunch or whimsical notion – “A theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.” Wikopedia Atomic theory led to the creation of nuclear energy. Just a theory? Tell that to the survivors of Hiroshima.

  • L.Kurt Engelhart

    Nasser Velshi : “creation is not static but continuous”Thank God you do not have to belong to a particular church to believe this. It may be a tribute to Islam’s more contemporary views that this “truth” is recognized.

  • Dina

    In a country where the two issues that will settle an election are : abortion and gay marriage. Where creationism is every day more entrenched and evolution is villified in word andd print at all times. The 21st century is the century of the life sciences, we will not be in it.Perhaps we are on our way of becoming an also ran scientific power like Germany was after the war.

  • Gaby

    Why do churches have to apologize to lond dead people anyway? If anything, they should apologize to their constituency (speak believers) that they had it wrong. Not only once, but several times. So, if the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church (Catholics in disguise) have it wrong several times I conclude that those people who wrote and those people who later translated, and those people who now interpret the bible got it wrong as well.How any modern person can take the bible literally is beyond me. That book was written on an extremely limited world outlook 2000 years ago. One would think that we have evolved since then.

  • Joe Smith

    Dear Anglican Church,Apology accepted.Best wishes,Charlie Darwin

  • paul c

    candide: This is a very uninformed statement on the origins of Christianity. St. Paul is one of several new testament authors so to say that the whole New Testament is based on his delustions has no basis in fact. How do you know that Jesus’s goal was to purify Judaism? What is your basis for that statement? In fact, all of the New testament books testify to the fact that Jesus Christ was the son of God, that he suffered and died for all mankind and that after his ressurrection, he told his disciples to go out and spread the word of salvation to all the world. in addition to the written scriptures, this is also the message of Catholic tradition.

  • L.Kurt Engelhart

    Dina: “The 21st century is the century of the life sciences, we will not be in it.”Dina, you are not alone in feeling this, but those of us who share your feeling have a responsibility to find arguments that get real traction with our opponents, and make sure those arguments are heard. When we have done this, it is all we can do. In a democracy it’s all about numbers, and at the moment, it’s about NOT lying.

  • George

    I think Candide said it best,see her writing above. What’s all the fuss about, some local prophets wandering about the middle east spouting their philosophy, making laws for their tribes, begatting this begatting that, sacrificing their children, killing people who didn’t agree with them, supposedly performing magical (miracles) feats that violate every known law of physics, the nonsense could go on and on and on…

  • Douglas L. Barber

    Our understanding of the natural world has certainly grown by leaps and bounds since the Renaissance. I’m not at all sure, though, that our understanding of morality has advanced a whit since the many expressions of the ethic of reciprocity in diverse traditions including the Christian “golden rule”. In light of this rapid progress in “how-to” knowledge coupled with, I would argue, zero progress in “what should we do” knowledge, a key insight for people who take a religious stance in this generation ought to be “Science can answer questions of the form, ‘If what you want is X, the act most likely to bring it about is Y’. Science, however, can never answer the question, ‘What should you want?'”That last question becomes important when dealing with, say, a suicidal person who would like to take a classroom full of students, or a busload of Jews, or a high rise office tower full of civilians down with him or her.It is, to repeat, a question science can never answer, and it is a question religion can address clearly. Then comes the meta-question, “How shall I choose between religions which offer different answers to that question? How may I even begin to evaluate their competing answers?”I suppose Wittgenstein offered the best solution to that conundrum when he characterized religion as a stance toward life rather than adherence to a set of propositions.

  • abe polin

    where’s the cake?

  • PhD

    Too many individuals get adapting and evolution confused. Adaptation is real and observable. Evolution cannot be proven, and at the heart is not very scientific, except to those who need to replace God as the creator. People need to stop using another person’s mind, and start thinking things out for themselves. If you want to replace God, come up with a better theory. Colleges promote free thinking, as long as you think their way. PS: What about trees? Where did they come from? Did they make the wrong turn on the evolutionary ladder that got them stuck for billions of years? An oak tree today is the same as the oak tree billions of years ago.

  • J

    I truly appreciated this article and the accompanying essay. I would like to say that those who defend evolutionary theory do themselves and other proponents a disservice when resorting to attacking the bible and its credibility. These are the same sort of attacks we denounce when “creationists” assert that “evolution is just a theory.” One can never change another’s belief by viciously attacking the core of it. Mocking religious foundation has no place in the discourse on the truth of creation. This serves only to cheapen an otherwise intelligent discussion in which neither side possesses all of the answers.

  • George

    To: Douglas Barber,With all due respect to Paul C, Candide was more right than you, early Christianity was taught by Jews to Jews.

  • KM

    God created this universe in 6 days.

  • KM

    God created this universe in 6 days.

  • Steve

    Only in this country there is such an idiotic debate between supporters of creation vs evolution. The Catholic Church recognized a long time ago that evolution “is not just a theory” and is not incompatible with a first act of creation. Only Fundamentalists have a problem with that and believe that every single thing on Earth has to be the result of a specific act of creation. I think everybody should read the book “The Language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief” by Francis Collins, the evangelical scientist who led the Human Genome Project.

  • Gaby

    Mr. Barber,”That last question becomes important when dealing with, say, a suicidal person who would like to take a classroom full of students, or a busload of Jews, or a high rise office tower full of civilians down with him or her.It is, to repeat, a question science can never answer, and it is a question religion can address clearly.”First, I think that suicidal people are sick individuals. Whether they have a clinical disorder, or whether they have been indoctrinated from birth is immaterial.To claim that morality is a religious standard is ludicrus. Morality is a societal standard accepted by the vast majority of people not nearly all of whom are Christian.

  • Douglas L. Barber

    George, you’ll never arrive at a balanced critique of religion until you stop confusing religion with your father.

  • Douglas L. Barber

    Gaby, I did not say that religion is the only way to resolve moral questions. I said that religion is capable of resolving moral questions, and that science is not.

  • Gaby

    Mr. Barber, glad we have that clarified.

  • Mark

    To PHD:You make the isolated, unsupported contention that evolution, at its heart, is unscientific. It must be alarming to you then that the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that it is the best explanation for the evidence we have to date. These scientists – indeed nearly every micro and macrobiologist and medical researcher in existence, is being unscientific, according to your facile assertion! Clearly they need to stop making all these advances in medicine that they are making with evolution as a centerpiece of their thought process, because you find it somehow “unscientific”. I trust you’ll immediately flush any and all medications you have down the drain. Most or all of them have been developed by these decidedly unscientific scientists.And your red herring about the oak tree is a sad attempt. Some species have lingered for millions of years without evolving much or at all, and many others have been on the move. It all depends on how well they were adapted to their environments, and whether (if they weren’t well adapted), any chance genetic alterations could occur that turned out to be advantageous. Environments, and the fitness of different species to their current one, vary greatly. Try again.

  • Kevin Olson

    PHD asks… “PS: What about trees? Where did they come from? Did they make the wrong turn on the evolutionary ladder that got them stuck for billions of years? An oak tree today is the same as the oak tree billions of years ago.”Trees are just as prevalent in the fossil record as dinosaurs or other animals. In fact, it has been pretty clearly established that plants first appeared on land about 460 million years ago, and trees followed about 360 million years ago.Early trees were not at all like Oaks. They were mostly ferns. It wasn’t until about 65-100 million years ago that trees with broad leaves and flowers, including early members of the Oak family, started to dominate the landscape.Trees are hardly a “wrong turn” in evolution. They have survived far longer than the primates who evolved in their branches. In fact, in 1995, a species of tree though to have gone extinct in the time of the dinosaurs was discovered in a remote section of Austrailia.I didn’t mean to go on so long about trees. It’s just that when someone makes an argument against the science of evolution using grossly erroneous statements, I feel it is necessary to make the correction.

  • Nicky Newark

    The past is the past. These apologies are a good thing, but the most important thing they indicate is that churches are not infallible. It’s much more essential to take a critical look at the positions churches are taking on a wide range of issues today. And to challenge them, when necessary.For example, the Roman Catholic Church opposes birth control, at a point in time when overpopulation is one of the major forces contributing to the destruction of the earth’s environment and resources. (Plus, birth control is a GREAT way to prevent abortion.) You would think accepting birth control would be a no-brainer, but if tradition holds, it will take another 300 years for the church to reverse its position on that issue. Let’s just hope that someone is still around to hear it if the church ever gets around to apologizing for that one.

  • PHD

    Okay, a billion years is exaggerated. I personally have problems with scientist’s claims on how old the earth is; seems needed to justify the statistical improbability of evolution. Instead of giving the same old arguments, give me facts. Give me hard evidence of your claim. Just because a bunch of scientist agree on something does not back it true, it just means they agree.

  • TRUTH

    >>Even the Church evolvesThe authors point is well taken. The church has evolved into what man has made it. The ‘church’ today (Catholic, Protestant, otherwise) has no resemblance to the early church of a century or two after the crucifixion. The Nicene council made sure of that. And here we are today under the umbrella of Rev. 12:9. The world as a whole as been, and is, deceived.

  • anonymous 2

    a lot of people in this forum are jumping to conclusions.the fact that creationists are somewhat fanatical does not mean evolution is more than theory or that ‘natural selection’ is natural, inevitable or extendible to humans.nor has the catholic church offically proclaimned that natural selection is incontrovertible fact; nor have some atheist scientists (e.g stephen jay gould).

  • spiderman2

    Here’s a post I found from another blog. “I have had the theory of evolution rammed down my throat throughout my education (private Catholic School). I was taught that creationism was an out-dated idea which was widely dismissed. (Stefan, London) “Catholicism is the DEVIL’S RELIGION. NO DOUBT ABOUT THATThe same can be said of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

  • spiderman2

    Creation is a very slow process. It is true that the universe could have “evolved” or has been created in a very slow process. But it’s a different story if somebody claims that man came from monkeys. Only people with monkey brains can believe that. Obviously, the Church of Englandhas a monkey brain. Birds are created to fly and monkeys are created to climb trees. Man was created to think and to be able to do almost anything. I haven’t seen yet an engineer who created a tree house but ended up with a boat.Cows will continue to eat grass and lions will continue to eat meat. That is what they are made for.You idiots think like idiots. You build things you don’t intend to build. That’s is why DOOMSDAY becomes your ultimate creation. Monkeys will always be monkeys and no possiblity to be humans. IDIOTS.

  • Arminius

    As an Episcopalian, this seems to me to be a non-starter. I think Mr Waters is somewhat at a loss for a good issue. I have never met an Anglican (Episcopal) creationist. I have never even heard of one. And I am by no means young. This ‘apology’ about Darwin is totally overblown, it is no great ‘shift’ in belief, any thinking Anglican bought into evolution some decades past. The great shift, at least here in America, came in the 70’s, when our Book of Common Prayer was rewritten and the Church was dragged kicking and screaming into the present. Where before, the Episcopal Church was synonymous with boredom, now the Episcopal Church has a dynamic, inclusive ceremony, women priests (I love ’em!), and a real outreach. Mr Waters needs to do some investigation.By the way, the Roman Catholics teach evolution, have accepted the Big Bang, and have a statue of Darwin in the Vatican.

  • spiderman2

    Many of these speculators are evolutionists. The idiots are now flocking to oil stocks again to save their money. Unless this evolution theory is scrap, people will stay stupid and make all kinds of stupid decsions. Survival of the fittest is well at work in the stock market. In a true suvival of the fittest world, NOBODY LIVES. Idiots in action.Arminius and his kind think that their grandparents were monkeys. HOW TRUE. Their appearance evolved but obviously, their brains did NOT.

  • Arminius

    “Catholicism is the DEVIL’S RELIGION. NO DOUBT ABOUT THATI wonder how this spewing of hatred can possibly be reconciled with the Beatitudes and the Two Great Commandments? Does not Spidey know that God is Love, and His son, our Risen Lord, preached Love?Oops, shame on me… I forgot that Spidey has not yet heard of Jesus and the Gospels. I really wonder what his ‘religion’ is – it bears no resemblance to Christianity, that’s for sure.

  • LJB

    Religion was primitive man’s attempt at explaining the universe and world around him. For us in the 20th century to continue to believe in an all knowing all seeing being is extremely ludicrous. All 3 major religions sound the same. Watching the NFL Hall of Fame induction, you could have substituted the word “Mohamed” for “Jesus” during all of those speeches, and the message would have been said. Let us move to more important issues of the day.

  • Curious

    1) Why, again, is evolution incompatible with Christianity? This isn’t just the classic “God of the gaps” argument, but more of a question (like someone raised elsewhere) of why God can’t initiate a biological process and tinker with it along the way.2) Thank you, whoever said this, for the “it’s just a theory” reminder. I wish that particular argument against evolution would die already; theory does not equal “curious speculation.”3) Churches are indeed fallible, just as human beings are. The fact that the Bible isn’t a science textbook, however, doesn’t diminish its relevance with regards to the spiritual questions it raises and tries to grapple with. Claims like the meaning of Jesus’ life and death are very interesting questions, and contrary to one poster the claim of Jesus’ divinity is made in the Gospels along with Paul’s letters.Bottom line: the church, in being the church, should welcome questioning and doubting, as part of the human experience and part of what our reasoning capabilities exist for. I forget who said this, but I could certainly see a loving God preferring carefully thought-out doubt to blind belief, and certainly not excluding someone from that love simply because they doubt. I strongly doubt that any one religion will have anything approaching a “monopoly on heaven.”

  • Arminius

    Curious,Evolution is in no way incompatible with Christianity. In my youth I knew a wonderful man, a nuclear physicist, who was also an Episcopal priest. He had no problem with evolution at all – he saw it as a grand unfolding of God’s will. And this was not so-called ‘intelligent design’ either.Not all of us Christians are idiots.

  • Douglas L. Barber

    The argument that evolution is “just a theory” is weak. At one time, even atheists among the logical positivists and their fellow travellers (Karl Popper, for one) questioned whether “survival of the fittest” wasn’t just a meaningless tautology, but those questions have been resolved to the satisfaction of almost everyone not residing in a fundamentalist ghetto of the mind.Evolution is “just a theory” in the sense that Newton’s Laws of Motion are just theories. If what you mean by “just theory” is that any true scientist stands ready to revise any belief in the face of contrary evidence, yes, evolution and Newton’s Laws are just theories. And when you get on an airplane, the idea that the wings will create more lift than drag is just a theory. It’s a theory you bet your life on.

  • Katman

    You have to like England.

  • Massasoit’s Cousin

    Who cares? Non-Christians and free thinkers ought to wish the Anglicans well. But they have not apologized for the debasement of the New Testament in a union with the British Monarchy, one of the most anti-democratic ideals in the world. When the Anglicans separate the Church from the British Monarchy, then one may believe their sincerity in apologies for slavery, racism, genocide and now for mistreating Charles Darwin and his supporters. Perhaps Anglicans and their kin in the USA might well consider converting to the local variety of paganism, which at least has the virtue of no organic establishment that commits systematic evils beyond a local community. Aztecs apologize to the Mayans. West Africans apologize to African Americas. Chinese and Malaysians and Indonesians apologize to one another. Japanese apologize to everyone else. Hindus to Pakistanis and vice-versa. And all allies of WWII apologize to the Japanese….

  • spiderman2

    Now you wnoder why the stocks tank? It’s not over folks, DOOMSDAY WILL wreck this world because of the stupidity of the people. It’s so unbelievable Im reading so idiotic replies defending the theory that THEY WERE MONKEYS BEFORE.How stupid. Nothing can cure this people but fire. Believe me, you guys will all burn. The wrath of God is at hand. It’s BOILING and I can now understand why this world will burn. I didn’t understand it before but NOW I KNOW WHY.VERY SOON, VERY SOON. If you count the years, you can count it with your fingers.

  • George

    Douglas, you said: ‘I said that religion is capable of resolving moral questions, and that science is not’.You should really try to get a life…

  • the hulk

    spiderman2, you haven’t evolved from the monkeys, not yet anyway. So it’s no wonder you can’t see evolution.

  • PHD

    When you provide the hard evidence for evolution, just place HARD EVIDENCE in bold letters at the top of the reply so I don’t miss it.As far as Theory of Motion and Relativity, these are God’s laws that men were given credit for recognizing. And yes, recognizing these ‘God laws’ led to a lot of scientific discoveries. God’s laws (understanding that there is an order and pattern to the universe that God created) is the foundation of science.

  • Virus

    VIRUSEvery year it’s a new flu vaccine. Every year, the influenza virus mutates, evolves.VIRUS, you putz.

  • Douglas L. Barber

    Katman wrote, “You have to like England.”Unless you’re Irish.Which I’m not, and I’m happy to praise the English virtues. A world without England would be a world in which post-classical democracy was exclusively associated with the French Revolution. I’ll take Edmund Burke over Robespierre, Elizabeth I over Calvin any day.A world without England would be a world in which Gandhi’s theory, and Martin Luther King’s derivative theory of nonviolent resistance to injustice wouldn’t work, because the bad guys wouldn’t have the conscience of the English.And that genius lives in the heart of the Episcopal church.

  • spiderman2

    How can you idiots say man evolved when nobody among you can explain the mysteries behind DNA? The DNA is the BLUEPRINT OR THE BUILDING PLAN. If nobody claims to understand the blueprint, how come these evolutionist know how it was built?IDIOTS!!!

  • LJB

    Spiderman,So you are saying an invisible man created DNA and everything here on earth?

  • Douglas L. Barber

    George wrote:”Douglas, you said: ‘I said that religion is capable of resolving moral questions, and that science is not’.”No dis-agreement here, I just wish religious people would stop trying to be scientists. You don’t see scientists teaching religion in physics or math or chemistry or engineering.”You should really try to get a life…”George, I agree with you. Comment boxes aren’t conducive to essays, or I’d have balanced my statement that science cannot resolve moral questions with a statement that religion has no business interfering in the search for answers to empirical questions.I’m not sure what your final sentence means, as I am not typing from the grave 🙂

  • spiderman2

    You have to like England coz it’s expiration is nigh. It’s a doomed place. Believe me, England will be a thing of the past just as the Bible has prophesied.

  • spiderman2

    “So you are saying an invisible man created DNA and everything here on earth? “Invisibility has been with us for eons of years. The air, radio waves, etc. What’s so amazing about invisibility?

  • LJB

    Spiderman2Invisablity is cool. Very exciting stuff. I’m just trying to verify that you claim a being that you cannot see, touch, or feel has created all you see before you? Because some old dead guys wrote something down a long time ago?Sounds like a fairy tale to me. Like the comic Spiderman!

  • Enemy Of The State

    To Spiderman2:Your posts, bar none, are the most illogical and irrational I’ve seen.Keep up the good work! Your double digit IQ really reinforces the secular point of view.One World.

  • Douglas L. Barber

    LJB asked Spiderman2, “Invisablity is cool. Very exciting stuff. I’m just trying to verify that you claim a being that you cannot see, touch, or feel has created all you see before you? Because some old dead guys wrote something down a long time ago?”Sounds like a fairy tale to me. Like the comic Spiderman!”Perhaps Spiderman is adopting a stance toward life which elects to see it as a well-put-together gift, rather than an accident. Parents of healthy newborns have been known, for instance, to have subjective experiences powerfully driving toward such a stance. This stance is neither more nor less rational than a stance which elects to see human existence as a cruel accident which resulted in the creation of a being which craves immortality and must bury its beloved before they rot, and knows that this fate awaits it too.

  • Bob S.

    Douglas L. Barber:—You refer here, of course, to God, yes?

  • Katman

    You have to like the Irish. Which I do.

  • PHD

    VIRUS’Every year it’s a new flu vaccine. Every year, the influenza virus mutates, evolves.’Mutates yes, Adapts yes. Evolves, no. It’s still just a virus.

  • Douglas L. Barber

    Bob S, clever question, I see your point. The short answer is no, that’s my characterization of the atheist stance, which I regard as no more or less rational than the religious stance.The long answer would involve my frankly confessing to Christian faith. As I understand it, that faith sees the creator of beings with free will electing to suffer the worst consequences of those creatures’ freedom – to go to the darkest places those creatures must go, and share in the most frightening things they must ever face, without for a moment taking away their moral freedom.So what is this story I’m telling? I’d say it’s a narrative that’s been handed down among people who adopt the stance that life is a well-put-together gift.

  • Enemy Of The State

    Another random thought – isn’t the internet great?:I have seen the ignorant postes (ignorant in the sense of not being exposed to knowledge – not the perjorative term indicating “stupid”) of people asserting the ‘man cannot have descended from monkeys.’Rubbish. This is not what natural selection claims: Current evolutionary theory states that man and “monkeys” (other primates) share a COMMON ANCESTOR — a species that existed millions of years ago. That’s a far cry from saying that we ‘descended from monkeys.’ Monkeys are still around, so the common ancestor theory is the most logical explanation.If we did not descend from a common ancestor, why is it we share more than 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees?? Read this again: We share more than 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees.This doesn’t deny the concept of god, despite what Creationists say; but rather reinforces the complexity of creation.And if you needed any further evidence of a common ancestor, consider this: Chimps are among the most aggressive of primates, forming into gangs that attack other chimps for no apparent reason.Sound familiar? One World.

  • katman

    I’ve been hearing a lot about the rot in England lately. Was thinking of their common law. But you are right. The ying and yang to everything. balance is required.

  • dish

    ” Neila:Interesting…it’s funny that the church finds it necessary to apologize to Darwin.I wonder if the scientific community will issue an apology to those of us that have been vilified for asking for answers to the holes in the evolution theory…For questioning, wondering and doubting.You don’t ask for answers, you ask the questions and then help to search for the answers.

  • craig

    The Church could save itself a lot of time by issuing one blanket apology to all thinking people, instead of a series of stale apologies to great individual thinkers. It could go something like this:”The (insert any denomination here) Church owes you an apology. We discredited you for having the audacity to base your beliefs on modern inquiry and observable facts rather than on an ancient book and an invisible deity. That was wrong. Some day we’ll snap out of it, but until then, we apologize.”

  • Douglas L. Barber

    Craig wrote:”The Church could save itself a lot of time by issuing one blanket apology to all thinking people, instead of a series of stale apologies to great individual thinkers. It could go something like this:”‘The (insert any denomination here) Church owes you an apology. We discredited you for having the audacity to base your beliefs on modern inquiry and observable facts rather than on an ancient book and an invisible deity. That was wrong. Some day we’ll snap out of it, but until then, we apologize.'””I love a great post, and that’s one. It’s brief. It brings a lot of different threads into a single point. It’s funny, yet serious. Great stuff not easily written.I would only raise one contrary point. If we say, as I’ve suggested, “Science can’t answer moral questions and religion can’t answer scientific questions”, there’s still one area where a reasonable person might allow religion to intrude on science. That involves questions that could be compared to the question, “Should we farm human embryos for the purpose of curing Parkinson’s disease?”I don’t have the answer to that question, but it’s the sort of question where I can see moral values legitemately interfering with scientific research.Should we perform lobotomies on death row inmates in an effort to better understand left versus right brain functioning? If the answer is “no”, that’s a case of moral values impeding scientific inquiry.

  • Anonymous

    Has the Pope apologized for the Church — in particualr, and Christians, in general — having almost wiping off Native Americans and Australian Aborigines?

  • Douglas L. Barber

    You might be surprised at the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the extermination of Native Americans. It’s not a better practice in the study of History than it is in the study of Physics or Chemistry to assume that you know the answer before asking the question and checking the evidence.

  • Anonymous

    PHDJust what is your definition of evolution, anyway? The evolutionary theory is rather more elaborate than in Darwin’s day, but the basics are that within species there is variation caused by mutations and sexual recombination of genes. For survival of the species, variation is good, because it enables the species as a whole to survive the various “stessors” to be found in the real world. Stressors such as predators, climate change, illnesses ect. The most successful genes that enable the individual to survive these “stressors”, are passed on to subsequent generations, and the less successful gene variations are eventually phased out. In essence, these stressors are good because they lead to change (evolution) in a species. Darwin found that birds of the same species were different on different islands due to the nature of the conditions found on the individual islands. And that these differences benefited the birds to “adapt” to the varying conditions, that is be more successful given the condition.If that doesn’t make it clear, than please take some biology and genetic courses and educate yourself before you judge the theory of evolution.

  • Lance

    I am a believer in evolution. Yet, I still believe in God. I don’t buy the theory of Adam & Eva. But we have yet create life. But if you ask me: What is God anyway? He is not the figure you see in Church. He created life, or the first one at least. In that sense, he may be the universe itself.Also, I do think the Vatican needs to apology to Darwin as well. That is the only way to open the gate for people to learn more about religious and science.

  • Dr. Who

    I am with you Lance. I believe in evolution, I wrote the post below yours and have a MS in biology, but I also believe in an a God (Creator), or an intellegence behind the Creation. I don’t believe in “God” as described in the Bible, and certainly not the literal interpretation of the Bible, but I do believe in the Supernatural. There is a lot about the spiritual world that science has yet to discover and understand, and I doubt that it ever will discover it all, nor should it be expected to.

  • bachelor of arts in life science

    I got told I am Lamarkian believer in Steady-State Universe. Self-acceptance begins when you accept your self as others see you, so…

  • craig

    “I would only raise one contrary point. If we say, as I’ve suggested, “Science can’t answer moral questions and religion can’t answer scientific questions”, there’s still one area where a reasonable person might allow religion to intrude on science. That involves questions that could be compared to the question, “Should we farm human embryos for the purpose of curing Parkinson’s disease?”I don’t have the answer to that question, but it’s the sort of question where I can see moral values legitemately interfering with scientific research.Should we perform lobotomies on death row inmates in an effort to better understand left versus right brain functioning? If the answer is “no”, that’s a case of moral values impeding scientific inquiry.”Excellent points, Douglas. I agree wholeheartedly with you that morals and ethics should trump the advancement of hard knowledge in some cases. Your examples are reasonable ones, and Dr. Mengele’s horrible experiments are obvious examples. BUT, I don’t think Christianity or any other religion has a monopoly on morals and ethics.

  • Joseph

    This article really seems to describe a good turn of events. Too long have Christian churches opposed evolutionary and other scientific theories despite ignorance of what exactly they say or how correlations could exist between religion and science. As the article states, Jesus encourages us in the Bible to explore our surroundings because, after all, He gave us the ability to do so. Their are places man should not inquire, but evolution is merely an observation not an interference with life. Perhaps it is time for various churches to use reason as well as emotion and faith, as they go hand in hand. This would allow these faiths to re-enter society in a sense, and stop blocking the real world off from themselves. Perhaps in the future differences between the various Christian churches could be settled or at least eased, so that they can more easily coexist without needless hostility and animosity.

  • paul C

    Douglas L Barber:Lance, why would the Catholic Church owe Darwin an apology. Evolution itself is not inconsistent with church teaching, nor has it been stigmatized by the Catholic Church. In fact the Catholic Church accepts both the big bang theory and evolution as tools of God to create the universe as we know it.

  • Dr. Who

    Its nice that they decided to apologize to Darwin, I just wish they and all other churches would apologize to all the “witches” they burned at the stake for their “Pagan” beliefs. Kind of reminds me of what the Nazi’s did.

  • Gaby

    Lance and Dr. Who,I am with you as well. I do not believe in religion, but I do believe in something. Lance, you said something like “for all we know god is the universe”. As a matter of fact, that is very close to what I believe. Thomas Paul Moses Baum says: “God is pure love”, well I say “god is pure energy”. It (not he) is in everything. As such we are part of him. He didn’t create us, he is part of us.

  • Secular

    Mr. G:

  • Arminius

    Hi, Gaby,Always good to read your posts.Well, Thomas Baum says: “God is pure love”, well I say “god is pure energy”. Me: He could be both.Now I, as a believer, am convinced that the universe is part of God. Don’t ask for proof, please, it will not be forthcoming! Nobody can prove a belief. Except internally. Can’t be communicated, it lies too deep.

  • Anonymous

    Dr. Who:I am with you Lance. I believe in evolution, I wrote the post below yours and have a MS in biology, but I also believe in an a God (Creator), or an intellegence behind the Creation. I don’t believe in “God” as described in the Bible, and certainly not the literal interpretation of the Bible, but I do believe in the Supernatural. There is a lot about the spiritual world that science has yet to discover and understand, and I doubt that it ever will discover it all, nor should it be expected to.September 17, 2008 10:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments +++++++++++++++++++There is no possible “synthesis” between a BELIEF (which evolved into a “system” with elaborate apparatuses and personalities in charge) and SCIENCE.A belief DEMANDS that assertions are made: — E.g.”God exists.” “He created everything in the universe.” “He created the world in six days.””He is our Father and Savior.””He sent his son, Jesus, which is himself, to earth, borne out of a VIRGIN woman, raised to challenge the mighty Romans, killed, only to be raised to ascend to Heaven again, and He will return…””He exists BEFORE there was time; and he will continue to exist AFTER time has stopped.” “Time doesn’t make sense without God, the Creator of time itself.” “It is MY belief and who are you to question it? Who are you to question me and my beliefs, when I have a PhD in computer science and you are a high drop-out?”SCIENCE, on the other hand, deals with processes, space and time, matter and energy, speed and velocity, topology and virtual particles…..If you say HE (God) exist, science will ask you HOW you know it and HOW did he come into existence…Saying “He has always existed and will always exist” is a FAIRY TALE told to small children; it’s not a thoughtful, meaningful observation of rational things, of matter and energy, or processes, of the unknown….Saying “It’s MY BELIEF He exists, as MY BELIEF, myu religion, says” is going nowhere fast in neither meaning nor explanation…Things can be unknown, even UNKNOWABLE; but to assert “He created the universe and HE TOLD US THAT” is irrationalism. That has as much meaning as the utterance, “Well, it is MY PERSONAL belief, and if you don’t belief it or don’t like it, you can —- off.” There is NO thinking or meaning in such gibberish nonsense…SCIENCE and BELIEFS can NEVER be synthesized.One is a quest for knowledge about matter energy, processes, distances, places, and times…. The other is a willful, HUMAN irrationalism based on unknowable divinity that miraculously or not so miraculously manifests through people’s BELIEFS on divinity….It just don’t work that way…

  • spiderman2

    More about invisibility :Many people don’t believe in God coz they can’t see him. If you’re not a metal or have no metal with you, you won’t be able to detect if another metal is magnetic or not. If you stay away too far from earth, you won’t feel it’s gravitation no matter what instrument you make or have. People who don’t know that E=mc^2 won’t be able to know that a gram of matter contains invisible energy that is able to destroy a whole city. All these things can’t be seen and CAN only be observed at CERTAIN CONDITIONS. The same is with God. You folks have to meet or obtain a certain gift of discernment. True believers of Christ are a different set of people. We have something which you guys don’t have. We have a “METAL” in us to be able to detect things which you guys can’t.That’s the difference. While you guys think you are a product of some “common idiot ancestor”, we can only squinch to the display the utmost stupidity.The church of England and Catholicism supporting evolution? What else do you expect? These are the two main religions why there are lots of atheists who have seen their stupidity before. Doomsday is coming coz this world is overpopulated with lots of idiots.How can you idiots say man evolved when nobody among you can explain the mysteries behind DNA? The DNA is the BLUEPRINT OR THE BUILDING PLAN. If nobody claims to understand the blueprint, how come these evolutionist know how it was built?IDIOTS!!!It’s like saying ” I don’t know what kind of seed is that but I know it will become an apple fruit”…Whaaatttt?

  • spiderman2

    More about invisibility :Many people don’t believe in God coz they can’t see him. If you’re not a metal or have no metal with you, you won’t be able to detect if another metal is magnetic or not. If you stay away too far from earth, you won’t feel it’s gravitation no matter what instrument you make or have. People who don’t know that E=mc^2 won’t be able to know that a gram of matter contains invisible energy that is able to destroy a whole city. All these things can’t be seen and CAN only be observed at CERTAIN CONDITIONS. The same is with God. You folks have to meet or obtain a certain gift of discernment. True believers of Christ are a different set of people. We have something which you guys don’t have. We have a “METAL” in us to be able to detect things which you guys can’t.That’s the difference. While you guys think you are a product of some “common idiot ancestor”, we can only squinch to the display of utmost stupidity.The church of England and Catholicism supporting evolution? What else do you expect? These are the two main religions why there are lots of atheists who have seen their stupidity before. Doomsday is coming coz this world is overpopulated with lots of idiots.How can you idiots say man evolved when nobody among you can explain the mysteries behind DNA? The DNA is the BLUEPRINT OR THE BUILDING PLAN. If nobody claims to understand the blueprint, how come these evolutionist know how it was built?IDIOTS!!!It’s like saying ” I don’t know what kind of seed is that but I know it will become an apple fruit”…Whaaatttt?

  • Joel

    A person who says that Darwinism or any variation thereof is fully compatible with Christianity must have some other basis for his / her faith than the Bible. Here is one of many texts that preclude such a synthesis: Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: {his…: Gr. the Son of his love} 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

  • Gaby

    Hi Arminius,Don’t worry, I won’t ask for proof. I have my beliefs and you have yours. The only difference is that yours are based on biblical teachings, whereas mine are just an inherent “gut” feeling that came to me while “comunicating” with nature.And you knows, maybe Thomas and I are both right, which of course would make you right as well.

    Oh, one quick disclaimer, although I believe in a higher being, I do not believe in the trinity.

  • Lila Taylor

    Hi, there is nothing wrong with teaching evolve, but create is a better choice of words, as materials available are elements which are a key to creation.

  • the huls

    spiderman2, you’re just great :-)You let me know that all of my anti-christian and anti-religon bigotries have a foundation in reality.It’s not just that I hate your kind, I have good reason!

  • cultorous

    Ah yes, examine the religious brain for disease, for decrepitude, for paranoia and other mental disease – only some of them show up.It shows what a wonder our evolution is, that we could stop evolving physically and just evolve culturally. Why do we let these people live?Because we feel sorry for them.

  • Dr. Who

    Since we are discussing Evolution, what about the concept of SPIRITUAL EVOlUTION. As in re-incarnation. Perhaps we evolve spiritually with each re-incarnation. Our bodies may come into being through reproduction of evolving matter, but our spirit may join the body at some point and leave the body at death of the body to continue its journey. So humans may be a product of two evolutionary processess, physical and spiritual. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

  • Dan

    I remember back in the late forties early fifties where scientists believed that the universe was eternal or later expounded to steady-state universe until the controversial The Big Bang theory came to the forefront. It’s too bad the scientists didn’t read Genesis 1. Now if scientist can only explain how something can come from nothing for it is logical that a cause must be greater then its effect so this First Cause must be independent of it’s effect. Cosmologists admit cause-effect change cannot be extended back before Planck time when all the laws of nature break down near the point of singularity. Before this Planck time moment the particles we know now today could not have existed, this point occurred 10 to minus 43 seconds after the big bang. when the universe was an unbelievable hot point smaller than an atom.Concerning evolution, it is just a theory until one can explain the Cambrian Explosion. Where are the transitional species? LARGE GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD”Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)”All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.””Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion …it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. …Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species.” (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)”The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.””What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.””Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism…and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.””Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.” So Evolution is just a theory or pseudo science at best and is still not verifiable as a scientific fact.

  • L.Kurt Engelhart

    PHD: HARD EVIDENCEThink about your own life. Without the necessary means of supporting it, even you would not survive. No human would. But other forms of life would, and they might even flourish with humans gone. Every form of life is here only because it has opportunities based on its physical needs. When opportunities change, as they have over the multimillenia that life has existed, certain forms die and others flourish. This is the source of evolution, as you can understand from even your own short existence.

  • Mike D.

    I cannot believe this tired, tiresome discussion STILL has legs in this day and age and in this country. I can’t believe it’s still held in terms of this phony, false, cartoonish, either-or dichotomy consisting of Darwin on one side and Christianity on the other. Oh, how, how shall we ever reconcile the two? Who gives a rat’s…Natural selection moves too slow for my taste. Seems like the Pharisees and white-washed tombs who dominate the public voice of so-called “Christian” so-called “values” are as numerous as ever.

  • Mike D.

    DAN WROTE: “So Evolution is just a theory or pseudo science at best and is still not verifiable as a scientific fact.”And therefore “scientific fact” is your standard of proof. The scientific method is the method of getting at the truth.What happened to the revealed Word of God as your standard? What happened to faith?I just love these logic-based arguments on articles of faith, these tortured excercises in proof. If you feel compelled to argue your point in these terms, it ain’t faith. Exactly where you set out to “prove,” that’s where you depart from faith.Newsflash: It’s ALL ultimately based on faith, science and religion. You have to make a lonely, terrifying decision, all by yourself, and choose what you believe in. There is nothing to prove or argue or defend. Choose. And that’s that. End of discussion.Jean-Paul Sartre is the Christian’s best friend. They just don’t know it.

  • Anonymous

    Dan:I remember back in the late forties early fifties where scientists believed that the universe was eternal or later expounded to steady-state universe until the controversial The Big Bang theory came to the forefront. *** That’s why we call this particular ALGORITHM of trying to find an ever more accurate, ever better understanding of things, processes, events, SCIENCE, Mr. Genius! Newton was not, for example, wrong, in his general gravitational laws; Einstein simply formed more accurate ones.*** (Outside of mathematics and optics, Newton was a complete iidiot, like most superstitious practitioners…with the belie that the earth [and the rest] was created no more than 6,000 years ago. We forgive him because during Newton’s time, there’s NO WAY to date materials. Isotope and other “nukular” decays were not discovered until the late 1800’s and confirmed and formulated into coherent chemical-mathematical formulas in the early 1900’s…)It’s too bad the scientists didn’t read Genesis 1. *** The god lord made sure they don’t read such gibberish nonsense; or if they do, don’t believe in it! (talkin’ about how the lord works in mysterious ways! lol)Now if scientist can only explain how something can come from nothing for it is logical that a cause must be greater then its effect so this First Cause must be independent of it’s effect. *** Why don’t you talk about Fairies or other subjects you know more intimately about, eh?Cosmologists admit cause-effect change cannot be extended back before Planck time when all the laws of nature break down near the point of singularity. Before this Planck time moment the particles we know now today could not have existed, this point occurred 10 to minus 43 seconds after the big bang. when the universe was an unbelievable hot point smaller than an atom.*** Like I said above….Concerning evolution, it is just a theory until one can explain the Cambrian Explosion. Where are the transitional species? LARGE GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD*** Those “gaps” are not in natural history; they are just vast empty regions in YOUR cranium, Mr. Planck…..

  • asoders 22

    Well, they took their bloody time.

  • Katman

    Dish:

  • Randall

    The energy for the big bang comes from the relationship between matter and anti-matter (very potent stuff). There is now a theory that there have been many big bangs but we can only see the last one because that is where the light begins. Once the universe is done expanding it is going to contract most likely collapsing in on itself until it is so small and compact it explodes again.The universe could be god, or maybe it is more like a toy or experiment that god plays with.God could also be what brought order and balance to our little spot in the universe, so that life could live here. Whether god did it or not it is a miracle.I see life as a gift and I find it hard to comprehend how one person can have so much luck

  • ama

    What this church, and all Christian churches, should apologize for is their claim that Christianity is the only true path. This false claim has inspired Christians to do many immoral or unethical things to non-believers over a long period of time. It is overdue for Christians to admit their error and apologize for the damage it caused.

  • katman

    Science takes you where it leads you and Religion leads where it takes you.

  • Anonymous

    a/o’s:^^^

  • asoders22

    eomcmars:I’m waiting for Sarah Palin’s church to apologize to Darwin.And to women.

  • Mike

    When are they going to apologize for making up all this mythology to take people’s money?

  • Arminius

    Since the moderator is dain bramaged, I have a request to whomever with a brain and a soul who might be here:JJ has destroyed this blog. The moderator will do nothing. Does anyone have Mafia connections in the New York city area? Can we borrow one of their enforcers to go and beat JJ to a bloody stump so he does not do this again? The moderators won’t do squat. We must. JJ is, by web search, somewhere in Coney Island. We know his full name.

  • Craig

    dcp:Um, no. Imagine there’s a population of creatures, all the same species. One day, something happens to separate them into two groups, maybe a river floods and changes its course, whatever. One group migrates up into the mountains, one group stays by the river. Each group continues to adapt to environmental pressures. Wait a few hundred generations and you will probably have two separate species, even though at no point in either group was there a generation that couldn’t breed with the previous generation.”Yet in the course of human history, we have been so unfortunate as to have witnessed such an event zero times.”Nope, wrong. We have seen speciation occur.You can read about some examples here:

  • spiderman2

    More about invisibility :Many people don’t believe in God coz they can’t see him. If you’re not a metal or have no metal with you, you won’t be able to detect if another metal is magnetic or not. If you stay away too far from earth, you won’t feel it’s gravitation no matter what instrument you make or have. People who don’t know that E=mc^2 won’t be able to know that a gram of matter contains invisible energy that is able to destroy a whole city. All these things can’t be seen and CAN only be observed at CERTAIN CONDITIONS. The same is with God. You folks have to meet or obtain a certain gift of discernment. True believers of Christ are a different set of people. We have something which you guys don’t have. We have a “METAL” in us to be able to detect things which you guys can’t.That’s the difference. While you guys think you are a product of some “common idiot ancestor”, we can only squinch at the display of utmost stupidity.IDIOTS!!!Adaptation is NOT evolution. How many times do we have to say it for idiots to understand. The skin darkens to protect itself from ultraviolet or whitens because it doesn’t need that much protection in places with lesser sun.. The virus makes little changes to protect itself from elements it encounters. It’s called ADAPTATION, IDIOTS. If it’s possible that you idiots can still exist after a billion years, you guys will sill be humans and not change into some form of animal. IDIOTS!!!

  • Craig

    Stephen:Because as far as I know, Obama never said he supported teaching creationism in schools while Palin did.

  • Craig

    spiderman2:Except that we do (almost) understand the blueprint. Probably in my lifetime we’ll know what every single piece of our DNA does and will likely be starting to tinker with it.”Adaptation is NOT evolution.”Yes it is. Evolution is the change in the genetic makeup of a population of organisms over time. Adaptation is evolution *by definition*.”IDIOTS.”You sure do use this word a lot.

  • Craig

    spiderman2:Yeah, just today I looked overhead and just had to stop to admire the flock of ostriches heading south for the winter.

  • spiderman2

    Craig, Im an engineer and you are not. You have no idea how things are made. You are just showing your idiocy in your reasonings.Don’t sleep too much or you’d miss out the process as you slowly turn into a monkey slowly.Are you saying that ostrichs were doves before? What is an idiot’s take on this? Did ants became lizard. Show me how all animals evolved in a chart. All of them please. Please state every process involved as they evolved. IDIOT!

  • PHD

    Dear ANONYMOUS: My understanding of evolution is that from a single cell nothing, up the chain through apes we got you. So if evolution continues, your ancestors will not be human. So when your non-human ancestors evolve, will you still have human and ape ancestors?Dear L.KURT ENGELHARTQuestion, is it possible for human like life on other planets? But yet there cannot be angels or heaven?

  • Arminius

    A note to all thinking people here:Spidy (aka spiderman2) claims to be an engineer.He is a liar.Has he ever said what kind of engineer he is? No.Has he ever said where he got his degree in engineering? No.He is a liar.He claims to be a Christian. Last time I checked, there was something in Christianity about lying being a sin.

  • spiderman2

    Arminius, you are the ultimate idiot. Most engineers do not know that the word “moment” has another meaning. Im saying that because it’s a term that is always used by engineers and they are not refering about time.You are not a Christian, idiot. How can you call yourself a Christian if your belief is closer to Buddhism than Christainity. You don’t even believe the Bible. I’ve not found a more stupid person than you.I love everybody and that love would let me whip my loved one if it means it’s going to save him/her from burning his hand or jumping from a tall building. I would do the same if it would same him/her from hell. You are an idiot, can’t you see that?

  • spiderman2

    Arminius, you are the ultimate idiot. Most engineers do not know that the word “moment” has another meaning. Im saying that because it’s a term that is always used by engineers and they are not refering about time.You are not a Christian, idiot. How can you call yourself a Christian if your belief is closer to Buddhism than Christainity. You don’t even believe the Bible. I’ve not found a more stupid person than you.I love everybody and that love would let me whip my loved one if it means it’s going to save him/her from burning his hand or jumping from a tall building. I would do the same if it would save him/her from hell. You are an idiot, can’t you see that?

  • spiderman2

    Arminius, you are the ultimate idiot. Most NON-engineers do not know that the word “moment” has another meaning. Im saying that because it’s a term that is always used by engineers and they are not refering about time.You are not a Christian, idiot. How can you call yourself a Christian if your belief is closer to Buddhism than Christainity. You don’t even believe the Bible. I’ve not found a more stupid person than you.I love everybody and that love would let me whip my loved one if it means it’s going to save him/her from burning his hand or jumping from a tall building. I would do the same if it would save him/her from hell. You are an idiot, can’t you see that?

  • Arminius

    Hi, Spidey the Liar,As usual, you answered no questions, because you can’t answer them with truth. In short, you are a liar. In other words, you have a real problem with Christianity.You answer nothing because you have no truth. You only puke hatred. You walk in darkness – but you do not need to do this -Can you not open your heart to the Light? God is there, he is with you even if you cannot find him yet. Open your heart to the Light. He is there, and He is Love. Give up your hatred!

  • spiderman2

    Arminius, you are the ultimate idiot. I don’t expect an idiot to understand me. Im just replying to your accusations coz somebody out there who is clueless might believe your idiocy.You won’t get any information from me which I think is personal. I am an Engineer and if you don’t believe that, it’s your problem.

  • Dr. Who

    Good job Arminius for not taking the spider’s bait.They can not see the forest for the trees.

  • Arminius

    Hello Spidey the IdiotYou are so damn stupid you can’t even realize that you are a liar.You said, “I am an Engineer and if you don’t believe that, it’s your problem.”No, Oh Stupid One, it is your problem. Because you cannot answer a simple question, no one here will ever believe you, no matter what you say. You are incredibly stupid.Are you familiar with one definition of insanity: Insanity is repeating an action over and over, while expecting a different result.That is what you do. You repeat your madness, which no one ever has accepted, and keep repeating it. Face it, dude. You need professional help.]I will continue to pray that the Light can somehow reach you.Meanwhile, you are an endless source of entertainment here. Does that set you off?

  • Neila

    What I find hilarious is that the view that God created the world and all beings in it is perceived to be totally ridiculous.Rather, a spot of mud/ground/sand one day a long time ago, out of the blue, decided to live! One moment nothing, then there it was. POW! Life! All by itself it just started, out of the blue, for no specific reason. Now THAT is funny.The argument that science relies on empirical evidence is ridiculous, science relies on the evidence at its disposal when a theory is formulated. A few hundred years ago all science was based on Christian beliefs, the same Christian beliefs that are now being ridiculed.Science is like the wind, the only constant being the “latest big thing”. I’ll tell you what, we Christians already have the answers science is looking for. It’s just going to take science a little longer.

  • James Moylan

    Gene said:The real enlightned (most intelligent) view is both Christian and Science. Example if you study astrophysics (especially the Big Bang)with a “compare and contrast” approach to the Bible, you will find an exact match in both science and the Bible. In fact, an in depth science study of the macro world and the micro world compared to the Bible will match. The real truth!!The real enlightened (most intelligent) view is both Golf and Science. Example if you study astrophysics (especially the Big Bang)with a “compare and contrast” approach to Golf, you will find an exact match in both science and Golf. In fact, an in depth science study of the macro world and the micro world compared to Golf will actually be enjoyable. The real truth!!

  • ANONYMOUS:_too

    to PHD and all:’adaption’ is not an evolutionary process. There is considerable evidence that the Neanderthals ‘adapted’ to a harsh, winter climate over 40,000 years because of the ice age rather than evolved into their form. Their total Genome DNA code is only a couple of percentage points or so off that of us Cro-Magnons. The same is true for all Homo Sapiens now occupying the Earth; Australien bushmen, African pygmys, and Nordic six and a half footers all come within two percentage points of each other DNA wise. Skin tone that everyone is so obsessed with might involve a thousandth of one percent of the total DNA code. but you can also have adaptive extremes; there are stories of Chinese villages separated by mountain ranges that ‘adapted’ different languages, customs, and physical features (inbreeding) over several hundred years without changing their basic Chinese primary code.

  • Arminius

    Dr Who,Spidey and I have been at war here for some time. He is the most bigoted, foul-mouthed, ignorant person I have ever had the misfortune to meet. I thank God that he does not live next door to me. (I am a liberal Christian, by the way.)This benighted person will not even answer a simple question. He only replies with poisonous hatred, clothed in nonsense.He can be hysterically funny – his theory about Noah’s flood involves a huge fall of leaves, which somehow reached five miles in hight, and thus the waters receded… you get the idea.

  • Russia Wants ALASKA Back for Violating the Gornachev & Czarist Doctrine AMERiCA, USA

    a/o’s:^a/o’s:^

  • Mark W.

    The Church of England must still be evolving, imagine that. Now in other quarters, pharmecutical and homeopathic medications are clashing and at the same time people claim their meds make them crazy. Something to be said about that last one, if certain medications actually cause symptoms associated with diseases such as OCD then let’s study OCD through these medications. Otherwise it’s on mankind to change behaviors even things like deficit spending.

  • PHD

    ANONYMOUS:_too:

  • Arminius

    TO ANYONE HERE WHO CARES AND WHO THINKS:The long, offensive post here was inflicted by someone known as JJ. Those are his initials, because his name triggers an automatic block. But he has learned to get by this. If you want to know how sick he is, go to his web site. Note that I have spelled his name BACKWARDS between the two dots. Reverse the spelling to get it to work.The moderator will do nothing without complaints. Please send a message.

  • James Moylan

    My God but the conversation in this thread is pathetic. Obviously an awareness of the various factors driving the evolutionary process has not penetrated the American school system. (All this **** about ostriches!)1) Fossil evidence is scanty and difficult to obtain and by its very nature provides a very incomplete picture but recent discoveries (in China mainly)trace the avian families back to a feathered therapod right at the commencement of the tertiary. I’m not talking about speculation – I’m talking about several thousand individual fossils that fairly demonstrate the initial flurry of feather design. Imprints which clearly demonstrate barbule and tack feathers of a very modern form on bipedal dinosauria.

  • hartman_john

    Why does anyone care what the Church of England does or does not apologize for. Like all religious institutions, the CofE exists only to keep its leaders in power. To that end, they tell their “followers” all manner of myth in order to keep the cash flow coming. The wise thing to do would be to eliminate the CofE completely, along with the catholics, the mormons, the islamist faith and all the silliness we are forced to watch. The globe is screwed up enough without injecting god mythology into the mix.

  • James Moylan

    ta Arminiuswas wondering who the idiot wasI have studied evolutionary biology all my life (I have training in cultural anthropology and physical anth is my private luv affair) so mindless ideologically driven anti-science **** perplexes me – especially given that the same society (America – I’m an Aussie) can produce some of the subtlest minds I’ve ever encountered

  • Dr. Who

    JMWe are a very diverse nation. We have some highly educated people here, and then again quite the opposite. You’ve studied evolutionary biology all of your life, so you can’t expect the average joe to be as well informed as yourself, but it is disturbing that many people have not learned the rudimentry principles of evolution or even the scientific methods. They would rather go moose hunting, drink beer, and go to church where they don’t have to think for themselves, much less come up with orignial ideas. I don’t know how many scholars you have in the wild outback, but that’s the situation here in good old USA.

  • Arminius

    James Moylan:Thanks for complaining. I can’t – for some reason, the Powers-That-Be insist on info about my ‘server’, which I don’t have.We in the States deal with the anti-science 24/7. Note that I am a believer, but in complete acceptance of science.Hey, mate, yer from Oz? Fantastic! I communicate with Aussie folk lots on another site. Wonderful place, wonderful people!

  • Vince Porter

    We can semanticize all we will about the tooth fairy. We can even pretend that science and the tooth fairy can peacefully co-exist. But, it does not change the nature of either superstition or empiricism. Let’s stop pretending that religion and science can have an intelligent dialogue just because science couldn’t be bothered with calling religion stupid anymore.

  • norman ravitch

    The Christian churches cannot stop with apolgies to Darwin. Why not apologize for 2000 years of preaching a non-existent Jesus instead of the real Jesus. Christianity as we know it is based on the delusions of Paul of Tarsus. If you want to know the real Jesus thee are two books which have the truth:Barrie Wilson’s How Jesus Became Christian.James Tabor: The Jesus Dynasty.

  • georgeblast
  • Stephen

    I love how this article is an excuse to bash Sarah Palin. Is Obama a Christian, or isn’t he? How you bash Palin and cling to your new Messiah, Obama? Isn’t he out there proclaiming he believes the same thing? Or is he masquerading and you agnostics/atheists who love him just happen to know that?

  • Mando

    I was 12 years old and attending catechism taught by Nuns when I began to question religious teachings because of the way the Nuns dismissed the ability of a young person to understand the nuances of love. When asked if I should love God more than my mother and father, they replied without hesitation, yes. As a 12 year old loving someone you can’t see or hear more than those you can see and hear, was more than I could accept. Now 63 years later, I am as close to being an atheist as I will ever be. Whether I am completely convinced there are no gods, I can’t really admit to. But I am more than agnostic. Even so let me provide those who really want to believe in the Christian religion, my thoughts on accepting both religion and science. The book of Genesis has for the most part been seen as symbolic and not to be taken literally. In fact when reading the Creation, it is totally illogical and almost nonsensical. So if one can accept the symbolic book of Genesis as a way saying God created all things, then it is possible to accept evolution and the Big Bang theory as God’s way of creating everything. A layperson of the Catholic church said that all one has to do is to say at some point in evolution, God endow that animal with a soul and thus became human. Well and good, but I still don’t believe in God.

  • tanaS

    the problem is that christianity is believed and not practiced. It’s just another manufactured practice of human’s exclusive claim on what is true. As Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner’s 2,000 year old man said ‘… and to Hell with everyone except those in cave 378.”

  • agapian

    Biotonic laws involve an evolution from the laws of physics (a law is a phenomena that repeats its self without variation, a theory is a phenomena that approaches law but has anomalies, and faith is an observation of phenomena without material theory) in which the organization of matter increases in complexity and inherent purpose. For Humans, biotonic laws have brought about an evolution in which the complexity of Human systems all combine to enhance each INDIVIDUAL awareness of a creational order that does not necessarily involve a mere four dimensions, but the full eleven dimensions suggested by string theory. Existing in four dimensions of space and time might be a primitive form of human existence (chimpanzees?) but a Human would have to renounce his ‘spiritual’ awareness of the other dimensions in order to live only in the four. The one that does that usually winds up with a club in his hand swinging it at other people. If biotonic evolution works, humans should progress to a level of consciousness much stronger than it is, the same as they evolved from hunter-gatherers to specialized labor to the current universal communication. Would natural selection mean that those who have evolved to a system of universal knowledge begin removing the ‘fourdi’ among them?Question: Is the Biblical term ‘the meek shall inherit the Earth’ true because they have no place to go?

  • @Turzovka

    “The holes in evolution are larger than the space between the stars.”Anyway the gap between the nowadays accepted morality, and the morality proclaimed in the bible is larger then universe itself. And one doesn’t need to be scientist to see that. A few examples:”Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.” (Judges 19:24-25)And one doesn’t have to be a scientist to notice these. It is strange though, that a Book given by God to his created humanity, seems to become more and more outdated. Time for Him to come with release Bible3.5

  • bc

    Several very smart people have pointed out over the years that faith and science are good for people onto themselves, but that it may be fallacy to try to resolve them. Faith and spirituality seems to me to be based on belief, which may not require a set of supporting data or facts. Science is empirical, fact- and proof-based, and as conclusive as we humans can possibly make it. One of the amazing – and occasionally wonderful – things about the human mind is the ability to hold seemingly contradictory ideas and believe in both of them at the same time. Unfortunately, the human mind isn’t well equipped to think of other people in the same way as we regard ourselves. We like to pigeonhole others, classify them in a binary way as friend or threat, Us or Them, etc. to make it easy for our little reptile brains to make quick decsions about how we react to what they do or say. Works great for self-preservation and preservation of the Tribe. For larger considerations, maybe not so much.bc

  • seng

    Arminius, I think the WAPO must have used Monica Goodling to hire their programming staff.I could block this guy’s latest post with a simple regular expression. use a line count to test candidate entries, and so on.The IT staff at the wapo must be republicans.Hah!

  • stantheman

    Turzovka – can you elaborate on some of the “holes in evolution” that you perceive? I’d be interested to hear more. I see what you mean about the irony of atheists caring what the church thinks about Darwin now. But I think the point – of the apology to Darwin and the statue of Galileo – is to show that even doctrinaire insitutions can learn and change their minds, which raises the possibility that they can also be wrong about things now – which logically should free believers to reconsider what they had accepted as dogma. If the church is able to question and doubt and learn from mistakes, surely its followers are too?

  • Ager50

    One has only to examine the precise mathematics of the universe not to believe a great intelligence greated it. It couldn’t possibly have happened by accident. With respect to evolution I was taught in high school (many years ago) that the atom was the smallest particle to exist.

  • stantheman

    At last! An explanation from Spidey. To believe as he does you need a metal plate in your head. Makes sense.

  • johnson

    Ironically, in a weird way, Spidey and his brethren, by their existence, actually provide some evidence AGAINST evolution! 🙂 You would think that the wolves and sabre tooth tigers would have strained their genes out of the pool.

  • dcp

    I personally never saw the usefulness of creation science, which is not the same as negating it. However, I do think that there is a danger in promulgating the belief that evolution is irrefutable science. I am prepared to be called an idiot for saying this, but all scientists know this to be true. There is a problem linking the species. If anyone knows if the kinks have been ironed, I would gladly listen. However, and I will use myself as an example, generations form a line. Myself, I have a mother, a grandmother, a great-grandmother, so on and so forth. Somewhere along that line, there is a point at which I do not have the ability to reproduce the species of one of my great-grandmothers. Two separate species cannot reproduce, and in order for evolution to occur, there has to be a break with the preceding generation. This has to occur at a point, otherwise we have left the principles of mathematics and entered the realm of fantasy. There are two ways to explain this. (1) At one point in time, a child is born which does not have the ability to reproduce with the species of his mother, himself being another species entirely. or (2) At one point in time, a child is born which does have the ability to reproduce with his mother’s species but not with his grandmother’s species. That would mean that the mother has the ability to procreate with 2 species. Even if we were to say that this process was extremely slow, say 10 generations, there would still need to be a point where the more advanced species comes into existence. Can Generation 10 reproduce with Generation 9?8?7?6?5?4? No. Then the point occurs between Generations 4 and 5. One hundred thousand generations? Then the question becomes can Generation 100000 procreate with Generation 79842? So on and so forth. Currently, the modest estimate of how many species exist is somewhere around 2 million, not counting extinct species. That would mean that in the course of the history of planet Earth, these break points have occurred at 2 million times. Yet in the course of human history, we have been so unfortunate as to have witnessed such an event zero times. So the evidence evolutionists have to collect must be pretty darn convincing in order to teach this theory as fact. Otherwise, it remains wisdom to continue to label evolution as a theory.

  • Thomas Baum

    AGAPIANYou asked, “Question: Is the Biblical term ‘the meek shall inherit the Earth’ true because they have no place to go?”I have thought about this “Biblical term” and if this statement is taken out of context, it could even seem like a curse.A look at reality is to see that we, humans, have done a pretty good job of poluting ourselves and our environment in the name of progress.We have also done it in the name of lots of other things too.It also says in the bible, “the new heavens and the new earth”, it doesn’t matter if anyone believes this or not, but both of those statements are in the bible.The first “Biblical term” takes on a whole different meaning when other things mentioned in the bible are also included.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Anonymous

    i see nothing wrong with teaching that something came from nothing and some people call that the work of God. it sure is not the work of darwin.

  • Scienceguy

    Everything in biology is either consistent with or directly supports Darwinian evolution (e.g. the fossil record). Modern biology and biomedicine could not be done without recognizing the centratity of the evolutionary process. There is no evidence that supports creationism over evolution. The “problems” with evolution that creationists refer to arise not from any problem with the theory or the facts that support it, but with the ignorance and or lack of curiosity of those creatoionist critics. Faith was a useful tool for reconciling the poorly understood predarwinian world, but as science and our understanding of the world has progressed its value has lessened among those who are in tune with the modern world. In our society there are many who are too uncurious to seriously understand science and still find comfort in midevil traditions.

  • Thomas Baum

    JOHN HARTMANYou wrote, “The wise thing to do would be to eliminate the CofE completely, along with the catholics, the mormons, the islamist faith and all the silliness we are forced to watch.”Interesting, as far as I know, there were some that tried to do that to the Jews awhile back, is this the way you wish to implement “The wise thing”?You also wrote, ” The globe is screwed up enough without injecting god mythology into the mix.”I have met God and God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love, I have also met satan and even tho he can try to come across as ‘mister nice guy’, he isn’t.So as you can read, it is not mythology to me but Revealed Truth.I have said many times and I repeat: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.I find it completely understandable that some people could find the statement that “GOD IS LOVE” hard to believe considering some of the absolutely vile and disgusting things that some of the people that, KNOW GOD’S NAME but don’t seem to know anything else about Him, spew out, supposedly, in His Name.As I have said previously, God is not the egomaniac that some seem to think and and that if you know His Name, then you are, ‘in like Flynt’, so to speak.Jesus is God-Incarnate and He extended the invitation to, “Come follow Me” and we have heard, whether or not we believe what we have heard, what happened to Him.Quite an invitation, don’t you think?Jesus also asked us to: “Proclaim the Good News”, not the ‘good enough news’.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Mr. G

    @ Turzovka:

  • Dr. Who

    There is no possible “synthesis” between a BELIEF (which evolved into a “system” with elaborate apparatuses and personalities in charge) and SCIENCE.A belief DEMANDS that assertions are made: — E.g.”God exists.” “He created everything in the universe.” “He created the world in six days.””He is our Father and Savior.””He sent his son, Jesus, which is himself, to earth, borne out of a VIRGIN woman, raised to challenge the mighty Romans, killed, only to be raised to ascend to Heaven again, and He will return…””He exists BEFORE there was time; and he will continue to exist AFTER time has stopped.” “Time doesn’t make sense without God, the Creator of time itself.” “It is MY belief and who are you to question it? Who are you to question me and my beliefs, when I have a PhD in computer science and you are a high drop-out?”SCIENCE, on the other hand, deals with processes, space and time, matter and energy, speed and velocity, topology and virtual particles…..If you say HE (God) exist, science will ask you HOW you know it and HOW did he come into existence…Saying “He has always existed and will always exist” is a FAIRY TALE told to small children; it’s not a thoughtful, meaningful observation of rational things, of matter and energy, or processes, of the unknown….Saying “It’s MY BELIEF He exists, as MY BELIEF, myu religion, says” is going nowhere fast in neither meaning nor explanation…Things can be unknown, even UNKNOWABLE; but to assert “He created the universe and HE TOLD US THAT” is irrationalism. That has as much meaning as the utterance, “Well, it is MY PERSONAL belief, and if you don’t belief it or don’t like it, you can —- off.” There is NO thinking or meaning in such gibberish nonsense…SCIENCE and BELIEFS can NEVER be synthesized.One is a quest for knowledge about matter energy, processes, distances, places, and times…. The other is a willful, HUMAN irrationalism based on unknowable divinity that miraculously or not so miraculously manifests through people’s BELIEFS on divinity….It just don’t work that way…———————————————–Well, Anonymous, you raise an interesting agrument. My response is I will not present my synthesis of science and spiritual concepts AS SCIENCE, nor do I considered it infallible or ordained, nor was it derived out of a Holy Book. It is merely my model of the universe. Futhermore, you choose other people’s belief systems, and not mine to use as an examples. My spirtitual beliefs are not dogmatic, nor forced onto anyone, ever.When scientists create models, of very complex systems, they may not know all the facts or have proof of all the facts used in that model. Many scientific theories were just beliefs or models of reality until they were later proven or disproven, such as the theory of the atom, string theory, and much of theoretical physics. And yet people have “belief” in these models and use these models, even when they know that they may be missing some of the pieces of the puzzel, in a manner of speaking.I do believe in a higher intelligence behind the Creation of the universe, but I have not found a way to prove or disprove its existenance scientifically, nor has anyone else, so I will continue to let these belief into my model of the universe until someone disproves me wrong, whether thats okay with you or not.

  • Enemy Of The State

    If you want to see evolution in action, just look at how quickly a virus mutates. You better hope your doctor believes in evolution.

  • problematic

    The problem religion has today is that the modern (the main 3 abrahamic anyway) religions were invented over a thousand years ago, by people who had no clue how the world worked.All was magic, all was caused by the gods or the devils, all of it.So the myths arose, were written down, and belief was enforced. That’s really what it’s all about anyway isn’t it?In any case, these primitives maintained such absurdities as the gods carrying the sun across the sky, or the earth being flat or at the center of the universe.Later editions of your favorite religion maintained these primitive points of view, not knowing any better.Then along comes observation, Galileo, Darwin … etc, and those primitive myths are shown to be false. The religion’s power brokers (priests, bishops, rabbis, imans …) … well, they can’t have this. If any of the faith is shown to be false, why not all of it being false?It is The fault of the religion that it maintains absolute faith in ridiculous assertions about the real world.There is no flexibility in absolute truth and even less in blind faith.Your religions have no one to blame but themselves.

  • agapian

    The Church of England (to which some ancestors adhered until Cromwell’s Puritans decided there was only one true religion in England around 1643)may have been trying to put a final end to the 500 years of European religious genocide that included evolution as an enemy of the Church. Many in those days were carving gargoyles on their churches because they could see these ‘monsters’ buried in the ground. It wouldn’t have occurred to them that they were looking at dinosaur bones.Note that dinosaur bones came into existence during the Mesozoic period, a mere 250 million years ago. What might be of considerable interest is a little anomaly that occurred about 200 million years before that. It is called the Pre-Cambrian Period in which oxygen breathing entities ‘suddenly’ in a ten million year era appeared. These entities had complex molecular structures with as many as 50 specialized, intelligent combinations working together. The question is: how were these Eukaryotes functionally intelligent if there was no previous intelligence? They converted solar energy and oxygen into food and developed from then on into increasingly more intelligent entities. Starting with what?

  • Spencer

    The Anglican Church is proving why it is a spiritual and moral failure. It should apologize to its myriads of adherents, admit that it dishonors God, and step aside forever. Any other religions that follow suit should be similarly dismissed.Darwin gets too much credit. His observations are valid, but the conclusions drawn from those observations are faulty and require a ridiculous leap of faith. What did Darwin actually observe? He saw the emergence of varieties within species — finches with beaks of different sizes, for example. All of the textbook cases of “microevolution” are simply the isolation and resulting proliferation of varieties within a species: dark-colored peppered moths, antibiotic-resistant staphylococcus, and so on. Variety among humans also seems suited to particular environments, such as dark-skinned peoples in sun-baked equatorial areas, and fairer-skinned peoples in colder climes nearer the poles. What Darwin did NOT see was one species becoming something completely different. Darwin’s finches continue to be finches, and will continue to be so ad infinitum.The observance of similar anatomical structures and even similar DNA is interesting, but proves nothing. There is nothing that has been observed that contradicts what we see from day to day and what is described in the Bible, namely that living things reproduce “according to their kinds.” The 10% of DNA that humans do not share with chimpanzees doubtless includes that which imbues us with language, reason, artistic expression, aesthetic appreciation, musical ability, intellectual curiosity and unselfish love, constituting an unfathomable chasm between human and chimp. The theory of common ancestry can be inferred, but it can not be tested. It can’t be proven by anything being observed at present, therefore to believe in it requires a leap of faith . . . or credulity, perhaps.Even if some faithless institutions bow at the altar of Darwin with the rest of his disciples, the simple logic of Hebrews 3:4 still seems irrefutable to me: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”

  • Gaby

    Arminius,Hang in there, I am fighting with you!

  • Arminius

    Seng sez,”I could block this guy’s latest post with a simple regular expression. use a line count to test candidate entries, and so on.The IT staff at the wapo must be republicans.”So could I, or any other reasonably programmer, and we would take great glee in doing so. But the line count is the best one, because JJ could find a programmer who could generate long, totally random posts. Also, a rigid registration policy would help.

  • Arminius

    Hi, Gaby,The depth of the ignorance here, the hate-filled posts, the twisted logic of Spidey, the insanity of JJ – what can we do to stem this Tsunami aimed at the destruction of all that is good and beautiful? I am tired of being called an idiot because I know that evolution and science are right, I am tired of being told I am deluded for believing in something beyond what we see, I am tired of being damned because I defend people I meet here who, despite our differences, I view as friends, I am tired…..There are a few gems here, of course, wonderful people. And the most wonderful thing to me here are the Pagans! Each and every one I have met here seems hugely good, decent, tolerant, and giving. I can only say that about a very few of my own religion that I have met here. And that is to me a very sad thing.I’ll try, friend, to hang in there. But my participation may be limited. Look for me mostly on Susan Jacoby’s blog. Yes, she is an avowed atheist, but she is surprisingly tolerant, and she is very smart and a good writer. Plus, she monitors her blog and even inserts her own comments. It is even less filled with vitriol than other blogs. Amazing.

  • Gaby

    Arminius,Yes, I agree Susan’s site is better, but it is also the most commented on and sometimes it’s hard to get a word in edgewise.People like Spidey are the real IDIOTS because they have no clue. Besides, resorting to that kind of language shows that he is an uneducated hillbilly who cannot express himself without resorting to the lowest common denominator.JJ is a different story. I liked him at one time, but then he started his hateful ranting and raving about homosexuals, our Pagan friends, etc. And now this spamming with the a’s and o’s have driven me over the edge.My Friend, I understand where you are coming from but let me give you a little advise. I have learned not to read comments from people for whom I have no respect, I simply ignore them. Try to do the same, it helps your psyche.

  • peter vdh

    “He exists BEFORE there was time; and he will continue to exist AFTER time has stopped.” That is the most nonsensical sentence I’ve ever read. It is very difficult to exist “BEFORE” there was time, because one needs time to measure “BEFORE” or “AFTER”. It’s like saying that Lindbegh flew to NY by airplane to start inventing the airplane.

  • Arminius

    Hi, Gaby,I have learned to ignore certain posters. JJ and CCNL get skipped at once. I will read Spidey’s pathetic offerings because, shame on me, I’m looking for targets, and also I am simply curious to see if he is setting forth another of his outrageously stupid theories. I also routinely skip any post by one of the many anonymous posters. It helps.

  • Craig

    dcp:Some of them, but not all of them. Or didn’t you get that far?”No new species created, just an observation of the variations in different generational strains.”If the new variation doesn’t breed or cannot breed with other variations, it is a new species. You’re dismissing the evidence with a handwave because it doesn’t meet your definition of a new species.”When stallions start giving birth to unicorns, send me that link, will ya?”Actually, you’d have to send me the link, because that wouldn’t be evolution, that would be creation.

  • Craig

    dcp:Sigh. You don’t get it and I’m not sure how to explain it to you.Let’s say that you had an example of every generation of a particular animal in a line from Year 1 to Year 100,000, and you look at them one at a time. There’s no obvious place you an pick out and say “there, that is a different species.” I suppose if you froze a copy of an animal from Year 1 in carbonite and kept trying to breed it with each successive generation you would eventually find a point where it wouldn’t work, but even then the fade out might be gradual, ie maybe you’d get fewer and fewer viable offspring until it became impossible.However, it’s very likely if you compared the creature from Year 1 to the one from Year 100,000 it would be obvious they were different species.If I keep showing you shades of red, how much yellow do I have to add in before you call it orange?”My grandmother and I are still the same species. Hence, no evolution.”Unless your DNA is exactly the same as your grandmother’s (ie, unless you are her clone), then evolution occurred.

  • Craig

    James Ruskin:And atomic theory combined with the theory of special relativity caused a couple hundred thousand people to be vaporized in Japan. That doesn’t mean either one is wrong.

  • Craig

    Saqib Khan:It doesn’t have to because *that’s not what it’s about*. Or is the germ theory of disease wrong because it can’t explain what I had for breakfast this morning?”Natural selection eliminates unfit but does not create the fit!”If you eliminate the unfit, then the ones left must be the fit, by definition.”Natural selection does not improve or increase genetic information in the DNA.”Actually, it can.”It can not decide whether a particular feature is beneficial, useless or harmful for a creature.”But it does, you just said so yourself: it eliminates the unfit.”and their miraculous intricate and complex functions could not have emerged as a result of coincidence or at random, but still, and regrettably, the evolutionists believe it is a coincidence.”No they don’t. Selection is not coincidence — it eliminates the unfit.”This immaculate structure could not have evolved after billions of years of mutations, trillions of random chemical reactions”Show your work please. Actually, just submit it to the Nobel Prize people, because I guarantee you would win.”because mutation only destroys and damages information in the DNA and harms a living being. No beneficial mutation has been observed in nature or in laboratories. Since mutations do not and can not add new genetic information”And this is completely untrue.

  • Thomas Baum

    ARMINIUSYou wrote something to the effect, ‘Now I, as a believer am convinced that the universe is part of God’.I, as someone who has met God, believe that God created the universe and became part of it in the Incarnation, that is when the Second Person of the Trinity became One of Us, Jesus of Nazareth.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Craig

    spiderman2:Actually, I have an engineering degree. Now how foolish do you feel?”Show me how all animals evolved in a chart. All of them please. Please state every process involved as they evolved.”Sure thing, but first, fair’s, fair: Show me a chart of how God created all animals. All of them please. Please state every process involved as He did His work.”IDIOT!”And a good day to you.

  • Arminius

    Hi, Thomas Baum,You wrote,My reply, and only asking for a clarification:

  • Saqib Khan

    Darwin Theory of Evolution will always remain a man’s imagination and nothing more: ignorant and arrogant theory that propounded a myth that our universe came into existence by coincidence or at random. Evolution can not explain the design in the physical universe itself because the elements of design are already there right from the very inception of the universe. Scientists now assume that the universe began with a Big bang some 13-15 billions years ago. At the moment of the big bang, four physical constants are already known to be in existence as far as scientists can study it backwards: electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity. According to scientists, these forces had to be precisely the measure that they are, and if these varied by ones hair breadth from what they are, the physical universe was precisely designed. Everything seems to have been minutely fine-tuned by Allah (God) to guarantee that conditions would be right for human existence. Let us elaborate on few examples which is perfectly balanced: if it were slightly stronger, stars would burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life supporting conditions on surrounding planets. If it were slightly weaker, no heavy element essential for building earth-like planets or life would exit. Evolution can not produce consciousness but the misguided atheists, agnostics and secularists have not the audacity to say so.The Quran has specified those aspects of the Universal system which prove the need for the divine guidance on this earth. We have before us a grand and impeccable universe; not only that it visibly exist but it is also in perpetual motion; it functions with clockwork regularity not a second hither thither and is free of all imperfections. All meaningful activities are taking place within it and all its components parts are coordinated with total precision of the most immaculate engineering skills and faculty. In spite of the incredible vastness it occupies beneath and above us, it shows absolute perfection in system of functioning. Allah’s splendid creativity is at work all the time and what we see is only the rainbow. The crucial point made by the Prophet of Islam is that this colossal universe has One God ( Allah) who with His extraordinary strength and wisdom, controls and sustains it: He is Rabil Almeen, “He begets none nor was begotten.” And another certainty that Prophet brings to us that this universe has a definite end which will manifest to us after the death and those who remained faithful to God will receive blessings to the fullest in the life hereafter. This, ours universe is obeying His command and functioning in perfect harmony according to His plan but the ungrateful ‘man’ became rebellious and became belligerent. The universe is following this path of peace known as the law of nature as it imposed upon it by God, whereas man has to adopt this path of peace of his own free will. The creation of life on earth is much more complex physical, chemical, anatomical, biological, physiological and physiological process that is amazingly wonderful to contemplate. Natural selection only eliminates weak, sick and disabled and ensures a permanence and health of particular species. It has no evolutionary power; it does not make a cow a horse or horse a camel. Natural selection eliminates unfit but does not create the fit! Natural selection has no consciousness or will, rather it is a process of elimination of weak, sick and disabled.Natural selection does not improve or increase genetic information in the DNA. It can not decide whether a particular feature is beneficial, useless or harmful for a creature. It can not create consciousness to do right or wrong. Every living thing is made up of cells about a hundredth of a millimetre in size and from a single cell, yet even these single-celled organisms are remarkably complex in composition and use complicated functions to survive. Darwin was a crude scientist with medieval equipments and did not have modern-day powerful microscopes to look into the genetic make-up of living organisms and could not have known that a living cell composed of thousands of microscopic parts that work in perfect harmony, and their miraculous intricate and complex functions could not have emerged as a result of coincidence or at random, but still, and regrettably, the evolutionists believe it is a coincidence.It is calculated that a DNA chain small enough to fill a teaspoon has the capacity to store all the information contained in all the books ever written. If we were to write down the information in the DNA, it would take up approximately a million pages and still we would not be sure if it was correct: such is the infinite mystery. This is equal to an encyclopaedia forty times bigger than Encyclopaedia Britannica but this incredible information is contained in the tiny nucleus of billions of our cells.This immaculate structure could not have evolved after billions of years of mutations, trillions of random chemical reactions because mutation only destroys and damages information in the DNA and harms a living being. No beneficial mutation has been observed in nature or in laboratories. Since mutations do not and can not add new genetic information, it is impossible that a horse would produce a lion and cow an elephant. The structure of life is much more complex to be benefited by random breaks and distortions as many evolutionist theorize. So, there is one sane and intelligent conclusion that such a miraculous structure cannot be a product of blind coincidence but it tells us that there a Designer, Maker, Allah, Rabul-Almeen or God who is behind all this beautiful and wonderful Universe. Man will never be able to discover entire functioning of one single cell in billions of years and it will remain as far remote as infinity to his intelligence.I watched on TV a programmes by Professor Dawkins of Cambridge University, UK, showing a withering tree and trying to explain evolution at work but missed the essential point. A tiny seed that grows into a huge tree contains in its microscopic DNA its’ entire genetic information: how tall it will grow; how long it will live; how many leaves it will have in its entire life; when it will bloom and wither according to seasonal changes and finally when it will die. The majority of Western and non-European governments in the world today operate on a secular basis and believe that religions have no say in legislation or running of their countries, and the idea behind this system is that either God does not exist or, if He does, He is not concerned with the state and His commands not being followed. The majority of Westerners and many other people believe that religion is a thing of the past and obsolete. And there are people who do not know if Allah, God exists and the myth behind this is that it is without logic and evidence. Let us examine this argument and follow that believing in Allah does not require faith in the Unseen but is backed up by what we see around us, for example, the cosmological or the First Cause. There are many verses in the Koran that celebrate the brilliant creation of Allah, who describe Himself in Surah 59 as the Creator, the Maker and the Fashioner of everything in the universe, from the tiniest particle to the vastest galaxy, and they work according to carefully designed system or plan and rather than in chaos and arising by chance. In fact, as we see, we have a carefully ordered cosmos with all creation working in perfect harmony under beautifully magnificent system of natural laws. We observe unity among the forces of gravity behind the orbit of the planets and our staying fixed to Earth. We need not go any further than our bodies and look at the wondrous anatomical, biological, and physiological functions of our brain, eyes, ears, nose, heart and every organ, and for the people of knowledge, there are signs of His plan at work. Then there is this mystery of life after death and what happens to us; could any man-made theory find an answer?As we know that science is concerned with disproving unseen things rather than proving them, there is no scientific reason not to believe in these things that science cannot disprove. In order that we come to some agreement, we should divert our attention to tangible matters; Universe as a whole is finely balanced including the mass of the universe, its uniformity and distance between stars. As well as these aspects pertaining the whole universe, there are also many extraordinary coincidences when it comes to the earth itself. Aspects such as the distance of the sun from the centre of the Milky way, the distance of the earth from the Sun, the mass and colour of the Sun, the gravity of the earth, the thickness of the crust, the rotational period, the axial tilt and the magnetic field and the ratio of various gases are just too perfect to have come about by chance or random. We must conclude that there is designer, planner and this Designer is Allah, the Lord of the universe as glorified in the Quran. The Quran on the other hand revealed to Prophet Mohammed 1400 years ago is not a textbook of science, it is however a highly scientific book and makes numerous references to natural phenomena including movements of heavenly bodies and behavior of different creatures. The Holy Quran divides evolutionary process before the life began on the earth into two eras (yumeen)), and period after appearance of life in four eras (ayam): entire period into six eras since the beginning of Universe. According to the Quran, there is a period of Divine Planning before a creation appears in its manifest form and the planning is a part of Creation itself. It is beyond human imagination or conception to measure our history from time zero because we do not understand the physics of matter and energy at such conditions. “Verily your Rab is Allah Who created heavenly bodies and the earth in six eras. And He established Himself on the throne of Authority, planning his schemes”. In Surah AL-Anbiya 21:30, Allah says “ Do the unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were once joined and then |we clove them asunder? And He made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”In Surah Al-alaq verse 2 : Created man out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood.”. It describes embryo formation at the earliest stage resembling a clot of blood. These descriptions are also backed up un in Surah AL_Mu’ minin verse 23, 13, 14 state:The Quran has repeatedly urged Muslims (at least 756 times) to meditate and ponder over the creation of the universe and to study how the heavens and earth and all that is below the earth has been made subservient to man. Therefore, there has never been a conflict between faith and reason, invention and discovery in Islam. We Muslims firmly believe that Islam is a complete way of life and science is regarded as a subset of the larger set of Islam; the two are inseparable. As a matter of fact the Quran invites us again and again to reflect on his creation and investigate the world Allah has created in order to benefit from the bounties and more fully appreciate His glory and mercy. Everything seems to have been minutely fine-tuned to guarantee that conditions would be right for human existence on the earth. As far as Charles Darwin’s theory is concerned , it will always remain a ‘theory’ and never a ‘fact’. Darwin’ has serious fatal flaws and is discredited by modern science and falls down flat on all levels. Sir Fred Hoyle, a famous British astronomer has dismissed this claim by saying,” The chance of that a higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable to a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the shattered materials and fly. It is as an idiotic a theory as to say, if you find a watch in a desert and claim that it was not made by a watchmaker but all its components by some hook or crook got together in million years and became a watch. It would be the biggest insult to the watchmaker. It would be an insult to me if some one said that this letter written by me came into existence by coincidence.The question often asked is who is responsible for the calamitous situation facing the West. The attitude was a result of the divorce between science and ethics which has characterized modern science from the moment of its inception down to the application of science, which has become so great and this does not include only war time applications but even so-called peace time uses in such areas as nuclear energy, genetic engineering, sex and cosmetic industry and the modern science is a resource to greed and degradation of morality.

  • azzbyte

    spiderman2 I won the miss america crown last year, and I have two engineering degrees and 3 ft dick.I can lie even better than you, and my lies are more believable because I don’t come here every day and prove what an idiot I am.Let’s go with what that other guy said. You certainly did not evolve from the monkeys, that would require “evolution”, you are in fact still a monkey.

  • James Moylan

    Hey Craig – it’s good to see you fighting the good fight (agree with earlier comments about the spamming – complain often and loudly)I can see the argument happening across purposes here. The same breakdown in communication that you see forever occurring in this debate. The chasm is not one that can be breached by any rational consideration of data – it is a gap of understanding. Steinbeck addressed this very issue in a subtle, brilliant, and little known book ‘Log from the Sea of Cortez’ Cause and effect are embodied within understanding. We think teleologically. How orange is orange? The answer, of course, is to find the right metaphor to describe the hard data that is there for everyone to consider. The whole science of Cladistics was born and flourished for a hundred and fifty years prior to the modern digital age to define various shades of orange – but the answer that the anti-science brigade want us to provide is an impossible one to give.Their questions are forever coached in a manner that makes any answer impossible. The teleology inherent in the worldview substantiating the various hypothesis submitted dictates that a valid answer is impossible!Q: Define Orange?Response: How many angels can dance on ….

  • Reasonable not hateful

    Arminius:” Not all of us Christians are idiots” ?It is nice to know that you JUDGE others that may or may not believe in the theory of evolution(macro) and think they are idiots.Nice.

  • John Steinbeck (bless his cotton socks)

    Our own interest lay in relationships of animals to animal. If one observes in this relational sense, it seems apparent that species are only commas in a sentence, that each species is at once the point and the base of a pyramid, that all life is relational to the point where an Einsteinian relativity seems to emerge. And then not only the meaning but the feeling about species grows misty. One merges into another, groups melt into ecological groups until the time when what we know as life meets and enters what we think of as non-life: barnacle and rock, rock and earth, earth and tree, tree and rain and air. And the units nestle into the whole and are inseparable from it. Then one can come back to the microscope and the tide pool and the aquarium. But the little animals are found to be changed, no longer set apart and alone. And it is a strange thing that most of the feeling we call religious, most of the mystical outcrying which is one of the most prized and used and desired reactions of our species, is really the understanding and attempt to say that man is related to the whole thing, related inextricably to all reality, known as unknowable. This is a simple thing to say, but the profound feeling of it made a Jesus, a St. Augustine, a St. Francis, a Roger Bacon, a Charles Darwin, and an Einstein. Each of them in his own tempo and with his own voice discovered and reaffirmed with astonishment the knowledge that all things are one thing and that one thing is all things — plankton, a shimmering phosphorescence on the sea and the spinning planets and an expanding universe, all bound together by the elastic string of time. It is advisable to look from the tidepool to the stars and then back to the tide pool again.from John Steinbeck The Log from the Sea of Cortez

  • Anthony

    There is nothing inconsistent with God and science. Science explains the how. God is the who. The problem is in taking the Bible, Torah, Qu’ran literally. They are not. I have no problem believing in God and also believing in science as an explanation of how our physical universe works. And yes, God is outside of physical time. Given science’s believe in multiple dimensions this doesn’t contradict anything. Everything beyond the 4th dimension is outside of time.

  • James Ruskin

    I have never read as an excellent essay as written by Saqib Khan on ‘Evolution’.Darwin had many French contemporaries more advance in their research but failed to achieve any fame. Since Great Britain was a colonial power and needed to invade foreign lands to loot; it needed some religious diversion so that the masses accepted that colonialism did not contradict religion boundaries and Darwin’s theory gave birth to secularism. Darwin’s therory facilitated expansion of British colonialism and imperialism and robbing, looting Africa, Asia , Middle East and North America of their wealth.

  • So little, so late…

    How nice… the xtians are pouring themselves a soothing cup of “human nature” to explain away this relatively benign example of religion-sponsored persecution of Charles Darwin (and by extension, no doubt, hoping to extend that syrup to cleanse their collective conscience of the most-horrendous atrocities committed by their most-fervent brethren)…`As Brown explained, “The trouble with homo sapiens is that we’re only human. People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and churches are no exception.”The difference is, of course, that for most of the last 1,200 years, the professional followers of the dud Messiah have been behaved as unrepentant bullies – taking vicious, cold-blooded delight in wielding majority power backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the Almighty as they tried to torture their “true faith” into unbelievers in every corner of the globe…or to kill them trying (…oopsie…).So go ahead and grant yourselves absolution for the fathomless evils committed in the name of “godly goodliness” (but remember Lady MacBeth – she couldn’t wash away the blood of just one victim). If there is a god (and I see less- and less reason to even bother considering the motion), (s)he would have to be an amoral fool to want to even be seen with you in the after-life.

  • Anonymous

    Another ruined thread – do you blog monitors have no consideration for readers and posters?You’re letting this spamming idiot run wild on nearly every thread and yet you fail to respond.You’re losing readers fast….

  • dcp

    Craig writes: Um, no. Imagine there’s a population of creatures, all the same species. One day, something happens to separate them into two groups, maybe a river floods and changes its course, whatever. One group migrates up into the mountains, one group stays by the river. Each group continues to adapt to environmental pressures. Wait a few hundred generations and you will probably have two separate species, even though at no point in either group was there a generation that couldn’t breed with the previous generation.But this is exactly the problem I described. Evolutionists are trying to draw a line with no points. That is not possible. You said a few hundred generations, right? Let’s just use the number 500. 500 generations means 500 births in a generational line. Each birth represents a point in that line. If evolution happens at all, it has to happen at a point. Generation 1 represents Species X. Generation 500 represents Species Y. When does Species X end along that line? If you are saying Generation 500 can reproduce with Generation 499 and cannot reproduce with Generation 1, then answer the question, which Generations can Generation 500 reproduce with? That will explain when evolution actually occurred. My grandmother is an extremely short woman, but I did not evolve into a tall person. My grandmother and I are still the same species. Hence, no evolution. Until evolutionists address the weaknesses in their theory, Saqib Khan and Palin and the rest of the religious right can beleive what they wish and will be emboldened to express those beliefs.

  • dcp

    Craig, I opened the first link you included in your post suggesting that evolution, or speciation, has been observed. The examples given were plants, worms, fruit flies, and beetles. For the plants, the examples given were in cases where a species was “discovered” or where a scientist manipulated the breeding. Now, I am really convinced that species were “accidentally” created from “chaos”, heh. Those scientists put everyone’s doubts to rest. A little manipulation here and a little manipulation there, and now we have a bonafide accident. And the reports on beetles and flies and worms were inconclusive. No new species created, just an observation of the variations in different generational strains. Nothing more. When stallions start giving birth to unicorns, send me that link, will ya?

  • Thomas Baum

    ARMINIUSYou wrote, “My reply, and only asking for a clarification:God became a part of creation, in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, don’t forget God is a Trinity.Not only is God a part of creation but God is also uncreated as in outside of creation.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.