DID DARWIN KILL GOD?

[Del Boy]

This is from a week of celebration of Charles Darwin. This is a BBC documentary in 6 (10 minute ) parts.

DidDarwinKillGod

Conor Cunningham reveals that the orthodox understanding of Christianities God is the understanding that makes opposition between Darwin's theory of evolution and Christianity not only misplaced but IMPOSSIBLE.


Who is Conor Cunningham ? :-

.......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).

 

[major liability]

Belief in evolution and faith in God aren't mutually exclusive unless you actually believe everything it says in the religious texts down to the letter. But that's like believing in the tooth fairy, you can't take the whole thing literally... no offense.

Atheists are just as closed-minded as fundamentalists. I only believe that you should never let anyone try and tell you what happens after death, unless they've recently undergone a resurrection from the grave. No one on either side of the debate knows what they're talking about. It's all very dramatic for pure speculation.

 

[senojekips]

Belief in evolution and faith in God aren't mutually exclusive unless you actually believe everything it says in the religious texts down to the letter. But that's like believing in the tooth fairy, you can't take the whole thing literally... no offense.

Atheists are just as closed-minded as fundamentalists. I only believe that you should never let anyone try and tell you what happens after death, unless they've recently undergone a resurrection from the grave. No one on either side of the debate knows what they're talking about. It's all very dramatic for pure speculation.

Plenty of people have died and been revived, myself among them when I suffered an allergic reaction to a bee sting.

I can tell you that when you die you don't see any white lights nor do you find yourself looking down at yourself, it's no different to having been unconscious or asleep. But then again I guess Atheists don't have to worry about heaven or hell because we don't believe in either of them.

 

[major liability]

This kid I know who has led a less than virtuous life told me that when he was unconscious being operated on after crashing his bike he felt cold blackness and hands pulling him from all directions, like he was going to hell or something.

Then I told him it was the paramedics moving him and it all made sense.

Some folks find the idea of no afterlife troubling, I think it's better than going to heaven with the old testament God and it's a hell of a lot better than going to hell. Everlasting sleep without dreams, relaxing concept in my mind.

 

[senojekips]

This kid I know who has led a less than virtuous life told me that when he was unconscious being operated on after crashing his bike he felt cold blackness and hands pulling him from all directions, like he was going to hell or something.

I would say that you are very close to the mark. Possibly in shock and barely conscious, similar to your perceptions when waking after having been knocked out or had a general anaesthetic.

 

[Wallabies]

exclusive unless you actually believe everything it says in the religious texts down to the letter

They use the bible word for word when it suits them, then say it's not meant to be taken literally when it does not.

 

[MontyB]

I don't think Darwin killed god as it is hard to kill something that does not exist outside the bounds of faith I believe Darwin was just another nail in the coffin of religous domination a process that was started by the likes of Galileo.

 

[senojekips]

Darwin didn't kill god, but "god" (or the belief in a god), surely kills or severely limits man's ability to use his intelligence. Either through the stupidity of those who die in his name, believing that they are doing his will,... or the effects of turning a thinking man into a believer of thought processes that should have been relegated to the middle ages when men hid from evil spirits during eclipses of the sun, and drowned or burnt lonely old ladies as witches.

 

[Del Boy]

Guys -why do I get the impression that no-one has actually watched the video. It is an important piece of work that expresses things you have not heard before. Get into it, it changes everything, and certainly makes conflict between Darwin's theory of evolution and Christianity in its orthodox sense, simply impossible. No room for intellectual dinosaurs from now on. Enjoy - its all good!

 

[senojekips]

As ridiculous as their ideas are, I think that the religious believers should not be prevented from stating their case, although it will be hard, as no one as yet has ever found any evidence to support their case.

 

[Del Boy]

Belief in evolution and faith in God aren't mutually exclusive unless you actually believe everything it says in the religious texts down to the letter. But that's like believing in the tooth fairy, you can't take the whole thing literally... no offense.

Spot on Major, the video does make the point, particularly of Genesis, that it is not the orthodox theology to interpret it literally; after all the story has been passed down through generations by mouth. The video also explains the view of the identity of God, does it not, besides proving that conflict between Christianity and Darwin's theory is impossible. All good stuff IMHO.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

I believe that God invented evolution - on both the macro and micro scale.

Those here that laugh at my faith don't realize the tears shed for their refusal to think with BOTH head and heart, which is the true sign of an intelligent man.

Darwin didn't kill god, but "god" (or the belief in a god), surely kills or severely limits man's ability to use his intelligence. Either through the stupidity of those who die in his name, believing that they are doing his will,... or the effects of turning a thinking man into a believer of thought processes that should have been relegated to the middle ages when men hid from evil spirits during eclipses of the sun, and drowned or burnt lonely old ladies as witches.

I find it odd that you would lump me, a believer, into your naive need to denounce everything you don't understand.

I find it outright laughable that you would consider yourself educated while denouncing things you do not understand.

Some of us find theology and theism equally as enjoyable as science and physics. But we're labeled the stupid ones.

Meh.

 

[Del Boy]

AZ -did you watch the full video in the the opening post, a 1 hour BBC programme; you will find that it gives great weight to your take on this issue, and establishes why it is impossible that The Theory of Evolution is incompatable with Christianity.

In man-kind's search for his identity, it marks Evolution as The Way, and Religion as The Why.

You may have noticed that those who seek to dismiss Christianity have no comment to make whatsoever on the opening video programme; they seek to ignore what they cannot respond to. I at least expected a critique, but against this informed expertise, they can only repeat the same old, same old, simplifications. Can they discuss the video? Looks like the answer from those who always have the most to say at every opportunity as far as religion is concerned, is a deafening No.

I understand reservations and issues with religion, I have those myself, but their dismissal of a fantastic creation by an obviously almighty power as mad and craven acceptance of nonsense demonstrates sheer intellectual ignorance.

I am happy for Atheists to have faith in their personal beliefs, but I feel that they should not deride those who believe otherwise at every opportunity.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

AZ -did you watch the full video in the the opening post, a 1 hour BBC programme; you will find that it gives great weight to your take on this issue, and establishes why it is impossible that The Theory of Evolution is incompatable with Christianity.

In man-kind's search for his identity, it marks Evolution as The Way, and Religion as The Why.

You may have noticed that those who seek to dismiss Christianity have no comment to make whatsoever on the opening video programme; they seek to ignore what they cannot respond to. I at least expected a critique, but against this informed expertise, they can only repeat the same old, same old, simplifications. Can they discuss the video? Looks like the answer from those who always have the most to say at every opportunity as far as religion is concerned, is a deafening No.

I understand reservations and issues with religion, I have those myself, but their dismissal of a fantastic creation by an obviously almighty power as mad and craven acceptance of nonsense demonstrates sheer intellectual ignorance.

I am happy for Atheists to have faith in their personal beliefs, but I feel that they should not deride those who believe otherwise at every opportunity.

Unfortunately, sir, I got a message informing me that it isn't available in the United States. So no, I could not watch it.

However, if it is the BBC program I believe it to be, I did see it some years back. If I remember, the argument is the counter-intuitive methodology of an improvable versus an improvable where both need to exist - where the one variable needs to exist to complete the equation though both variables cancel themselves out.

In essence, as I originally said, and have always stated as my true contention on the subject, neither can exist without the other. That everything begins from somewhere, and that somewhere must exist from the creation of something. Am I close?

A Theist would substitute God for something, whereas an Atheist uses something to explain the beginning of the somewhere. Neither can possibly be correct. And yet, in their own way, both are correct.

For me, the only equitable solution is to derive that someone created something at some time and somewhere that defies our current levels of rational explanation. The unknown, in other words. Nothing can come to existence from an existence that never existed. So where is the ORIGINAL existence? I call Him God. Others call him other things.

I read too much Orson Scott Card, though. Unlike many, I don't want to know it all. I enjoy the mystery that is not and cannot be solved. I enjoy the discourse that surrounds the faith of both sides - it takes faith to believe in the scientific unprovable just as it takes faith to believe in the God unprovable. Yes? If it is not FACT, it is faith.

If the "Big Bang" -- an insult explanation to any thinking man -- occurred, how does it explain evolution? What created the molecules? The atoms? Is the universe eternal? Is gravity, the defining force behind the Big Bang theory, self-sufficient? If so, where did it originally find its identity as an entity with properties of its own? If the universe is so expansive and eternal as we credit it, then why do we dismiss the chance factor of random occurrence? Where is its beginning?

If it has a beginning, it must have an ending according to evolution, yes? So where is its end?

Or, more likely, is the first thread of the first molecule that created the first atom not so random after all? If it collided, where did the SECOND set of amino acids come from that just, by some miracle, happened to form the mating set of atoms with completely opposite magnetic properties?

Pretty absurd when one thinks about it and dismisses intelligent design outright.

 

[MontyB]

Pretty absurd when one thinks about it and dismisses intelligent design outright.

Not entirely true as Intelligent design provides NO alternative to evolution. The proponents of intelligent design do not provide a mechanism for biological change. Their method is to offer evidence that they argue counts against evolution to try to demonstrate that evolution is in doubt and that the existence of a creator is the alternative. But, there is no "how" offered, only a wink about "who."

Because Evolution has examples that run counter to its principles does not mean evolution is incorrect as science does not work this way after all we do not reject gravity because a helium balloon appears to defy it.

There was a time I was leaning toward supporting intelligent design as a possibility but the more I read about it the more I think it is a dangerous red herring.

It is also erroneous to link the Big Bang and Evolution as they are two completely separate entities, Darwin did not postulate that the universe evolved.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Not entirely true as Intelligent design provides NO alternative to evolution.

The proponents of intelligent design do not provide a mechanism for biological change. Their method is to offer evidence that they argue counts against evolution to try to demonstrate that evolution is in doubt and that the existence of a creator is the alternative. But, there is no "how" offered, only a wink about "who."

I disagree. I have no doubt that evolution and ID can and do co-exist. To attempt to dismiss one outright in lieu of the other is counter-intuitive. Evolution is proven as fact, but it has one, specific flaw: because evolution is about life, it fails to explain where life came from. Life must have a beginning, and evolutionists dismiss the missing beginning as irrelevant.

Because Evolution has examples that run counter to its principles does not mean evolution is incorrect as science does not work this way after all we do not reject gravity because a helium balloon appears to defy it.

I agree.

There was a time I was leaning toward supporting intelligent design as a possibility but the more I read about it the more I think it is a dangerous red herring.

It is also erroneous to link the Big Bang and Evolution as they are two completely separate entities, Darwin did not postulate that the universe evolved.

Well, then we're back to the origin of the very first, initial life and where it came from. Evolution works because of life - it could not exist without it. If the Big Bang did not create life, then what did?

 

[major liability]

This video isn't available in America, but I found it in segments on YouTube.

AZ_Infantry I believe 100% in evolution but I most definitely do not dismiss the origin of everything as irrelevant. I dismiss it as utterly inexplicable, but fun to wonder about in your daydreams. If anything I'd say we were born by chance from pure chaos, that seems to be what the universe is - balls of plasma and rocks flying about. People who scoff at this theory fail to realize just how big the universe is. With all that space and stuff going on even the most unlikely things can happen. I strongly doubt we will ever be able to know what spawned this chaotic universe in the first place, regardless of how advanced our technology may become.

senojekips, religion can be ugly and horrifying, too many times it has been used as a tool of manipulation or dominance. But true faith is glorious and beautiful. It can inspire people to acts of altruism that otherwise wouldn't happen, give them a moral backbone that might not be as strong without it. I'm not saying it's necessary, I'm agnostic myself, but it certainly helps most people more than it hurts. I even envy them sometimes, because monotheism just doesn't do anything for me, I don't feel it. I have been reading up on Buddhism and Taoism, they seem to make the most sense so far.

If you look at religious texts as historical accounts, you're doing it wrong. They are the wisdom and philosophy of thousands of years condensed into writings whose meaning depends on the reader.

 

[MontyB]

I disagree. I have no doubt that evolution and ID can and do co-exist. To attempt to dismiss one outright in lieu of the other is counter-intuitive. Evolution is proven as fact, but it has one, specific flaw: because evolution is about life, it fails to explain where life came from. Life must have a beginning, and evolutionists dismiss the missing beginning as irrelevant.

Unfortunately Intelligent Design and Evolution can not co-exist they are competing theories (which is a pity) because evolution is driven by diversity and ID is not its that simple.
In the end ID is little more than an attempt to put a scientific face on creationism.

Well, then we're back to the origin of the very first, initial life and where it came from. Evolution works because of life - it could not exist without it. If the Big Bang did not create life, then what did?

Umm they are two totally different systems, the big bang is a theory to explain the formation of the universe and evolution is the mechanism by which organisms/species adapt to there environment there is very little correlation between the two theories.

Here is a well written paper on the problems of ID from a scientific point of view...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520

 

[AZ_Infantry]

AZ_Infantry I believe 100% in evolution but I most definitely do not dismiss the origin of everything as irrelevant. I dismiss it as utterly inexplicable, but fun to wonder about in your daydreams. If anything I'd say we were born by chance from pure chaos, that seems to be what the universe is - balls of plasma and rocks flying about. People who scoff at this theory fail to realize just how big the universe is. With all that space and stuff going on even the most unlikely things can happen. I strongly doubt we will ever be able to know what spawned this chaotic universe in the first place, regardless of how advanced our technology may become.

I don't disagree - I simply do not believe in chance; that is my personal faith coming to the surface, as random chance does not fit with divine creation. You're absolutely right that most of it is mental masturbation, but there is science behind it. And, unlike many, I appreciate any intelligent discourse about subjects such as these, as they are both enjoyable and educational. One cannot learn much from those that agree and present no opposing view.

No, I seriously doubt that we will ever pinpoint the exact beginning of life itself. Even if we somehow traced the origins of homo sapient existence, we're never going to be able to backtrack far enough to find the absolute beginning of everything. It will always remain speculation.

But, as I stated earlier, I really don't want to know all the answers. Where's the fun when the exploration and extrapolation is removed?

If you look at religious texts as historical accounts, you're doing it wrong. They are the wisdom and philosophy of thousands of years condensed into writings whose meaning depends on the reader.

OK, I can agree with this sans one caveat: the understanding of the target audience is in fact history. Understanding THEIR understanding is a good indicator of everything they were surrounded with, what they lived through on a day-to-day basis. In that regard, they are historical tomes. Perhaps not literally, but I believe that they contain truths that are pertinent not only to theology and philosophy, but in science, as well.

The great flood is a good example. Science has proven the possibility of a world flood, and archeologists have discovered evidence of an ark. Combined with the biblical account of Noah's task, appointed to him straight from the Divine Creator Himself, the lines between analogy and history are occluded with theistic belief, scientific evidence, debate, and even the translation of the original text. I am convinced that some of it is true while some of it is embellishment.

More to the point, and lost many times over in translation, are the forces that drive seeming ambiguity that our minds simply may not or cannot comprehend. This may be a prodigy of our own evolution, where science encroaches every aspect of our lives.

Imagine, if you will, how a man would describe the Internet 2,000 years ago. It would not make the Internet any less of a historical fact, but the recount of the forces of its creation would be greatly conceived and recorded in error and fantasy.

There is room for both.

Unfortunately Intelligent Design and Evolution can not co-exist they are competing theories (which is a pity) because evolution is driven by diversity and ID is not its that simple.
In the end ID is little more than an attempt to put a scientific face on creationism.

Again, I disagree that they are competing theories. Something, be it God or chance, created life. It MUST have a beginning. Without a beginning, evolution cannot exist, as there would be nothing to evolve.

Why is it so unfeasible that a divine creator began life, adding to it an ability to adapt on its own? Is it so different than obscure art: the artist paints the picture, which evolves and digresses depending on the perception of the viewer?

It is not difficult for my mind to understand that life can be created with an internal sense of adaptation.

Umm they are two totally different systems, the big bang is a theory to explain the formation of the universe and evolution is the mechanism by which organisms/species adapt to there environment there is very little correlation between the two theories.

Here is a well written paper on the problems of ID from a scientific point of view...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520

If the universe did not exist, then neither would life. If life did not exist, then neither would evolution. They are a symbiotic relationship, one relying on the other to function (though evolution is the greater recipient). They may be totally different systems, but in this context the one theory (evolution) is valid only if the other theory (the Big Bang) is true. Thus, we must examine both to hypothesize the other.

 

[major liability]

No argument there, I believe Jesus was an awesome human being, and there are some proven facts in the Bible. Not so sure about the rising up to the heavens part, though. The flashy fantastical stuff will get people's attention, but the core message of compassion, mercy, and generally loving mankind is the important part.

Imagine, if you will, how a man would describe the Internet 2,000 years ago. It would not make the Internet any less of a historical fact, but the recount of the forces of its creation would be greatly conceived and recorded in error and fantasy.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that the extremely improbable (as an agnostic I won't say impossible ) stuff, like the parting of the sea and burning bush, actually happened, but the people couldn't explain it? If such feats were achieved by technological means (like the internet) that suggests to me extra terrestrial life influencing our development as a species, which I honestly find more believable than magical powers... And it would be nice to have an interstellar big bro watching out for us, but I believe that is very unlikely, and that the magical happenings in the Bible are fictional stories, or perhaps true stories with magic added for effect.