DID DARWIN KILL GOD?

[MontyB]

This is scurrilous nonsense! Why won't you try to substantiate your accusations against such a highly respected Darwinist and Philosopher, as you have already been asked! You have completely failed to refute any specific point or provide examples when challenged.



Be specific. Show us precisely where this is done. You have failed to substantiate your unfounded claims. Examples please.

I have given you an example, if you choose not to accept it that is your problem don't expect me to change my answer to one you approve of for the sake of expediency.

Rubbish. Show us where. You are completely out of your depth with this uninformed wild accusation. Show us how you substantiate this.

Stop spouting pompous, ridiculous and irrelevant slander and try to address the content of this fine piece of philosophical, religious and Darwinist work. Otherwise, your opinion is worthless on this subject.

Everyone should try to watch this video. It is an important contribution to Darwinism.

Now you are playing with straw men as nothing I have said falls into the category of ridiculous, slanderous or irrelevant.

I have no issues what so ever with people watching the video but I would urge them to study what he says further and take it for what it is, a documentary from a liberal creationist about Darwin's theories it is not horribly inaccurate but it is biased towards his views (as most documentaries are).

 

[senojekips]

Oh MontyB,... you are a pompous, scurrilous, irrelevant slanderous rubbish spouter.

Watch out or he will take to you with his buggy whip next, and remember, facts don't count against pompous language.:mrgreen:.

Bl0ody Hell,....

P.S. Sorry,... I forgot, nonsensical.

 

[MontyB]

Oh MontyB,... you are a pompous, scurrilous, irrelevant slanderous rubbish spouter.

P.S. Sorry,... I forgot, nonsensical.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

 

[senojekips]

(Shakes head) When I read that language I get little attacks of the giggles. Talking like that and accusing you of pomposity,...??? I'd say he's run out of even vaguely legitimate answers.

 

[MontyB]

(Shakes head) When I read that language I get little attacks of the giggles. Talking like that and accusing you of pomposity,...??? I'd say he's run out of even vaguely legitimate answers.

Hehe that would be quite a sight.

 

[Del Boy]

CALM DOWN, DEARS - it's just a forum!:roll:

I have given you an example, if you choose not to accept it that is your problem don't expect me to change my answer to one you approve of for the sake of expediency.

Where is the specific example?

Now you are playing with straw men as nothing I have said falls into the category of ridiculous, slanderous or irrelevant.

Ah, the elusive Wizard of Oz defence again. Your accusations tick all those boxes because you have altogether failed to substantiate them even when challenged. I see that as abject surrender to boot.

I have no issues what so ever with people watching the video but I would urge them to study what he says further and take it for what it is...

That much I agree with that for sure, a most important Darwinist work, in celebration of Darwin. A step forward in removing the artificial conflict between Evolution and Christianity; a conflict not intended by Darwin, but brought about by the hijacking of his work.

a documentary from a liberal creationist about Darwin's theories it is not horribly inaccurate but it is biased towards his views (as most documentaries are).

You are certainly not qualified to label this important and respected Darwinist and expert on the subject, about which you are nothing but an empty vessel as your pathetic attempts on this thread have shown. I invited you, challenged you even, to show us what you have - result, nothing at all but ridiculous and unwarranted graffiti.

How would you know what is accurate or otherwise, you have not been able to show us the inaccuracy of any point, when asked to do so.

Of course his views are the views he establishes, but they are result of informed and careful study by an expert, carefully explained point by point, whereas you are just flailing about in the dark, throwing mud which you can't make stick on any aspect.

You simply attempt to demean this expert and his important work.



Conor Cunninham - I rest my case - watch the video. MontyB can't touch this!

.......despite holding the Chair in Political Theory, decided to also read for a Law degree. Following graduation, Conor moved to the University of Dundee to study for an M. Phil., in Philosophy under the supervision of the Jean-François Lyotard and Giles Deleuze scholar, James Williams. On completing his M. Phil. with distinction, Conor went to the University of Cambridge to read for the Diploma in Theology. Upon completion of this, he was awarded a British Academy Studentship to study for a Ph.D. Initially doing so under the supervision of John Milbank, but when he took up a Chair at the University of Virginia, Professor Graham Ward took over the mantle. After writing a book on nihilism (Genealogy of Nihilism), which is being translated into Spanish, Conor is now finishing a book entitled Evolution, to be published in a new series, by Eerdmans, called Interventions. This book offers a critique of Ultra-Darwinism, and ontological naturalism, whilst at the same providing a positive reading of Darwin’s theory of evolution. After the project on evolution, he is developing some previous work into a book on the philosopher Alain Badiou, which bears the polemical title: Badiou: A Very Critical Introduction. In addition to being series editor of Interventions, along with Peter Candler, he is also the editor of the series Veritas, published by SCM. Conor’s research interests include metaphysics, philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, and phenomenology. As well as lecturing in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, he is also assistant-director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham (www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk)."

__________________

 

[MontyB]

You are certainly not qualified to label this important and respected Darwinist and expert on the subject, about which you are nothing but an empty vessel as your pathetic attempts on this thread have shown. I invited you, challenged you even, to show us what you have - result, nothing at all but ridiculous and unwarranted graffiti.

How would you know what is accurate or otherwise, you have not been able to show us the inaccuracy of any point, when asked to do so.

Do you have an Alzheimer's problem or something because I am sure that I qualified my statements over about 3 posts regarding his misrepresentation of Dawkin's views (this was just one example there were other contradictions as well but I haven't really delved into them enough to discuss it with confidence) and as I have said previously if you do not like my answer that is fine but do not expect it to change because you choose to ignore it.

Now I admit I have only watched the video through once because I do not have time to waste on it right now as we are heading to Turkey in a couple of weeks and I have a lot of work to clear before then I do not intend to spend what little time I do have online in a "you are", "no you are" 30 page time waster with you.

The fact is that on the surface it is not a bad documentary but it is clearly and deliberately biased towards his original views on creationism, he sets out with a defined set of opinions, compares the other theories he finds to his original views and dismisses the ones that do not support his original ideas, that isn't good science and I feel that as someone with 17 years experience in both Engineering and Chemical research am qualified to comment on his methods.

 

[Del Boy]

Do you have an Alzheimer's problem or something because I am sure that I qualified my statements over about 3 posts regarding his misrepresentation of Dawkin's views

Not all all - Although you have been asked to do so, you have failed to provide any specific example of misrepresention. You have produced not one fact.

Again, my last post asked you specifically to produce your example.

(this was just one example there were other contradictions as well but I haven't really delved into them enough to discuss it with confidence)

Do not present such wild accusations if you cannot give examples or specifics. That is very,very bad science.

and as I have said previously if you do not like my answer that is fine but do not expect it to change because you choose to ignore it.

Both you and Tweedledum have posted your dislike of my polite and careful use of words on this thread, so let me put this in a way you will both understand:I do not like your answers because they are full of bull-***. You have dodged and wriggled and I can see that you are are a waste of space so far on this thread.

The fact is that on the surface it is not a bad documentary but it is clearly and deliberately biased towards his original views on creationism

You have shown that you are not qualified to judge the documentary. He is not, was not, a creationist, he is an orthodox Christian, and he makes his views on creationism very clear, and you are talking rubbish to claim that the documentary is clearly and deliberately biased as you suggest. Show one specific example.

he sets out with a defined set of opinions, compares the other theories he finds to his original views and dismisses the ones that do not support his original ideas, that isn't good science and I feel that as someone with 17 years experience in both Engineering and Chemical research am qualified to comment on his methods.

Tosh again, he carefully explains and puts together all sides of the controversy, and establishes each point before acceptance or otherwise.

If this is an example of your work , you have wasted 17 years ( not a long time in a field, I would point, try 48 years for size).

At the moment you are out of your depth on this one. I cannot believe that you have watched the video through properly, even once.

DidDarwinKillGod

 

[MontyB]

Hehe you crack me up, you post something, tell people how great it is and ask what people thought of it only to dismiss outright any criticism of it, mate if you had anything to do with a research field I bet that company is breathing a sigh of relief now you have retired (assuming they still exist).

To those who are actually reading this with an open mind I would recommend that you do watch the video but do not take it at face value, use it as a starting point and investigate the claims yourself.

To those who like Del Boy who believe there is only one answer (his as all others are an insult) don't bother watching it as you already know your answer and it isn't going to change.

There ya go I am done with this thread until someone actually adds something constructive and worth debating.

 

[aprilangel]

In brief, I am no expert on the whole theory of Darwinism etc, so I guess whether I agree or disagree won't really matter to some.

I did watch the video posted, and while I found some aspects presented in some ways interesting, such as his and some others' personal emissions about the subjects involved, I have to say and no offence intended, I did become curious about the style of referencing thoughout it.

To be more specific, as with scholars (as far as I understand it) they normally will identify and clearly so (as is usually a very defined practice scholarly referencing), the texts/books they are discussing. He appears to have done this on most accounts. The one text/book he did not identify in this same manner though was the particular version of bible he was quoting.

So I am left unsure of why he did this to this particular text, as he has studied Theology I would think that as in terms of his practice of referencing as a scholar, he'd define, or at least have touched on this in his opening somewhere, and moreso after saying he'd gone to the trouble of searching out another text (ie library scene). This confused me to be honest and as a viewer, seemed to take something away, am not sure what you'd call it though, from he's research or delivery credibility as an expert, particularly I think as central themes in the video itself were about deriving literal (or non) interpretations of meaning from such texts.

So as far as I know to derive meaning/s from a text it is a practice of the scholars and experts to know as much about the text/book they are reading/discussing as possible and as there are many versions of this book the bible, and subsequentially differences in translations in the two chapters he referred to, I was left unsure of which version to consult (in terms of accuracy) to learn more of what he was speaking of basically.

I went on though and tried to read more on the topic as a whole as like he'd presented it as such, I guess by that stage to me anyway, and found this link that I thought may be of some interest here: http://www.discovery.org/a/9501

...that's just how i've seen it so far anyways...cheers!:smil:

 

[senojekips]

I think that the link you provided certainly seemed to be quite a balanced summation on Darwin, and seems to put to rest the idea that Darwin died a believer amongst other things.



Thankfully modern education and the availability of accurate data to the public is having an effect whereby people are realising how any belief in a "god" is completely unrealistic, and almost if not, a neurosis, somewhat similar to those dear little old ladies who believe that a particular Poker machine "Likes them".:shoothea:

To be quite candid, this debate is not worth wasting time on as there is ample evidence that the belief in Evolutionary theory is most widely accepted in the so called "christian" world. Here's a graph showing the degree of acceptance for Evolution (in blue) The one exception being Turkey which is a Muslim/Secular state.

 

[Del Boy]

Hehe you crack me up, you post something, tell people how great it is and ask what people thought of it only to dismiss outright any criticism of it,

Not so MontyB. I simply pointed out that your attack did not contain any specific examples of the generalisations you made. You know very well that such evidence is required. Not a difficult thing to do. But you said that you were short of time to go into it fully for a while, and i suggested that you withdraw the claims you could not substantiate until you where able to provide the substantiation. Seems fair enough to me. You refused to do this and I only sought to dismiss as irrelevant the claims you could not supply support for. In some cases I asked for specifics and examples but you simply ignored those requests.

To those who are actually reading this with an open mind I would recommend that you do watch the video but do not take it at face value, use it as a starting point and investigate the claims yourself.

Well, of course. That is what I would expect to happen. But before many have had that opportunity you have passed uninformed judgement on an important piece of work, without being able to back it up, and therefore it is your claims which have to be viewed with suspicion, not the work of great supporter of Darwin and Darwinism.

To those who like Del Boy who believe there is only one answer (his as all others are an insult) don't bother watching it as you already know your answer and it isn't going to change.

Complete rubbish - now I do not believe that you have bothered watching this video. If anything, it is contraversial in the best sense, and takes account of many views. As for me, indeed I do not believe there is only one answer, and I never dismiss the faiths of others. I do not attack their views, or those of agnostics and atheists; I am inclined to support those of religious persuasion when they come under fire.

I find it hard to understand why you, as an agnostic, seek to attack , without supplying evidence,this work that establishes the position that there is no true conflict between Darwin's theory of evolution and Christianity.

You would have had no complaint from me if you had presented to us quotes specifying where you could show incorrect content and why; but you have not been prepared to do so.

There ya go I am done with this thread until someone actually adds something constructive and worth debating.

There you go again. Absolutely Outrageous nonsense. You have before you this work of Conor Cunningham, a great Darwinist and Philosopher, and you are claiming the want of something constructive and worth debating. That says far more about you and your failure to contribute correctly. As I said before, I believe you are just out of your depth, but I did think you would make at least a better fist of it than that.

Now I see that you withdraw without ever having been obliged to produce support for your criticisms, which leaves them completely unfounded under those circumstances; how can a man of integrity do that and retain his pride?

 

[MontyB]

I think that the link you provided certainly seemed to be quite a balanced summation on Darwin, and seems to put to rest the idea that Darwin died a believer amongst other things.



Thankfully modern education and the availability of accurate data to the public is having an effect whereby people are realising how any belief in a "god" is completely unrealistic, and almost if not, a neurosis, somewhat similar to those dear little old ladies who believe that a particular Poker machine "Likes them".:shoothea:

To be quite candid, this debate is not worth wasting time on as there is ample evidence that the belief in Evolutionary theory is most widely accepted in the so called "christian" world. Here's a graph showing the degree of acceptance for Evolution (in blue) The one exception being Turkey which is a Muslim/Secular state.

I am going to disagree and say that the topic worth debating and the video itself is not about evolution as all parties concerned accept it as fact, what is being debated is whether acceptance of evolution means a rejection of there being a god and I stick by my original answer here and say that it doesnt.

Evolution did not kill God but it did kill 1900 years of religious literalism and put a severe dent in the validity of the Bible as a historical document however there is nothing in the theory of evolution that should threaten people faith in a higher being if indeed they choose to believe in one.

In brief, I am no expert on the whole theory of Darwinism etc, so I guess whether I agree or disagree won't really matter to some.

I have some good news for you, as far as I can tell no one on these boards is an expert in Darwinism therefore your opinion means as much as anyone else's.

It is more important that people look at things like this as incomplete data then go away and find answers for themselves than blindly accepting someones qualifications as making them infallible and mindlessly agreeing with everything they do.

As it goes I think your assessment of the video is pretty accurate and many of the things you noted were the reason I disagreed with his methodology there are just too many basic errors in there for it to be considered unbiased work although I am prepared to accept that some of these errors may have been caused by editing and time constraints in the making and airing of the program.

 

[senojekips]

You are possibly correct regarding mutual exclusivity of belief Monty. I don't actually know of anyone who says that Darwin's work implies that there is no god, except perhaps certain groups who for reasons only known to themselves see it as a possible threat to their belief, as it does raise questions with the biblical version of events. Like the muslims, christians do not like anyone looking too closely at their version(s)* of the facts.

*They have many versions upon which they cannot even agree among themselves.

 

[aprilangel]

...about evolution as all parties concerned accept it as fact..

Not to be overly difficult, (though I guess that may just be in my nature as a woman, haha! jk!! :lol but just wanted to note, that I didn't actually state I accepted or discluded anything on Evolution the Theory itself as 'fact', just to be clear. I'm don't know enough about it to have formed a precise opinion at the level others are discussing it at here, at this point in time anyway, and so I regard with equal respect the different viewpoints all here have offered while I am. Also, is nice to know my opinion is of same standing around here, brilliant actually thanks for that! Cheers .

 

[Del Boy]

I am going to disagree and say that the topic worth debating and the video itself is not about evolution as all parties concerned accept it as fact, what is being debated is whether acceptance of evolution means a rejection of there being a god and I stick by my original answer here and say that it doesnt.

Evolution did not kill God but it did kill 1900 years of religious literalism and put a severe dent in the validity of the Bible as a historical document however there is nothing in the theory of evolution that should threaten people faith in a higher being if indeed they choose to believe in one.

MontyB - I have to say that I consider this much of the post is spot on. I have not seen it summed up better, and I agree with you.
Conor Cunningham has been keen to reinforce this position, and makes the point that early church orthodox theology did not take the literal view, and misinterpretations have occurred along the way. (Chapter 1 - Did Darwin Kill God.)

....the reason I disagreed with his methodology there are just too many basic errors in there for it to be considered unbiased work although I am prepared to accept that some of these errors may have been caused by editing and time constraints in the making and airing of the program.

You really have to point out each of these errors if you wish to keep making this accusation .
I have to point out that so far you have been unable to pinpoint any error or precisely where you can show he is mistaken. As for bias, this is a red herring, because he is simply making his case, and presenting his evidence for doing so. Any bias is that demonstrated by your attack on this highly respected Darwinist.

Here is a summary of his case:-

Cunningham who has just completed a new book-Evolution: Darwin's Pious Idea, which will be published in the autumn, was approached by the BBC and asked to write and present a one hour documentary exploring Darwinism's apparent impact on Christianity. According to Conor, the cultural war between religion and evolution, most vocally represented by American creationists and scientists such as Richard Dawkins is completely unnecessary and more than that, it is damaging for both religion and science. In his documentary - Did Darwin Kill God? - Conor travels around England, America and Israel interviewing philosophers, Bible scholars and scientists in a bid to discover how this destructive conflict arose, and in the process concluding that it is based on bad science, inaccurate history, inadequate philosophy and even worse theology.
The main purpose of the documentary is to offer a critique of both Christian fundamentalists who reject evolution, doing so, Conor argues, because they display a complete lack of understanding about the Christian tradition, and Darwinian fundamentalists - those such as Dawkins who take Darwin's theory beyond the domain of science and apply it to all aspects of life, and is so doing undermine the very cogency of evolution as a science. Consequently, Darwinists such as Dawkins are as great a threat to evolution as are creationists. In addition Conor seeks to remind viewers of the orthodox understanding of Christianity's God, for it is this understanding that makes opposition between Darwin's theory of evolution and Christianity not only misplaced but impossible.


And these are some of the qualifications of the author himself- how can such be disrespected?

Chair in Political Theory, Law degree.

University of Dundee to study for an M. Phil., in Philosophy under the supervision of the Jean-François Lyotard and Giles Deleuze scholar, James Williams. On completing his M. Phil. with distinction, Conor went to the University of Cambridge to read for the Diploma in Theology.

Author of book on nihilism (Genealogy of Nihilism), which is being translated into Spanish,.

Now finishing a book entitled Evolution, to be published in a new series, by Eerdmans, called Interventions. This book offers a critique of Ultra-Darwinism, and ontological naturalism.

After the project on evolution, he is developing some previous work into a book on the philosopher Alain Badiou, which bears the polemical title: Badiou: A Very Critical Introduction. Series editor of Interventions. With Peter Candler, he is also the editor of the series Veritas, published by SCM.

Research interests include metaphysics, philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, and phenomenology.

As well as lecturing in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, he is also assistant-director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham (www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk)

Do you not feel that you have judged his work hurriedly and harshly? If I could highlight my difficulty with your approach to this video, it is encapsulated by the recent assurance you gave Aprilangel that 'there are no expert Darwinist on these boards'; this is demonstrably untrue at present, while we have an expert of the highest calibre, Conor Cunningham, talking to us through his documentary, and putting to rest many misunderstandings and prejudices. He clearly establishes that in fact there is no conflict between Christianity and the Theory of Evolution . He says where, when and why.( For example, Aprilangel thought that he did not make reference to 'which bible', but as I remember it, he broaches that early in Chapter 1.)

We are very fortunate to have the considerations of this expert Darwinist spread before us as never before. I look forward to the publication of his now finished book 'Evolution - Darwin's Pious Idea'.

PS. Happy Easter.