Posted on 09/13/2008 3:24:36 PM PDT by gondramB
The Church of England will tomorrow officially apologise to Charles Darwin for misunderstanding his theory of evolution.
In a bizarre step, the Church will address its contrition directly to the Victorian scientist himself, even though he died 126 years ago.
But the move was greeted with derision last night, with Darwin’s great-great-grandson dismissing it as ‘pointless’ and other critics branding it ‘ludicrous’.
----
Church officials compared the apology to the late Pope John Paul II’s decision to say sorry for the Vatican’s 1633 trial of Galileo, the astronomer who appalled prelates by declaring that the earth revolved around the sun.
The officials said that senior bishops wanted to atone for the vilification their predecessors heaped on Darwin in the 1860s, when he put forward his theory that man was descended from apes.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That’s a very interesting take - makes me want to go read up some more - thanks.
Love it. Great quote.
Can we table such divisive articles until after the election?
That’s a Max Born quote about Max Planck. he also made made one of the best Nobel Prize acceptance speeches:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1954/born-speech.html
>>The human mind is conservative, and the scientist makes no exception from this rule. He will accept a new theory only if it stands the trial of many experimental tests.
... A philosophy in which the notions of chance and freedom are fundamental seems to me preferable to the almost inhuman determinism of the previous epoch - but that is no scientific argument.<<
Not going to argue there.
What’s divisive about it? Both the Evos and the Creationists thinks the Church of England is run by a bunch of idiots. What do you know, we finally agree on something (but for very different reasons)!
PS For a Creationist perspective on all this, see #19.
What’s divisive about it? Both the Evos and the Creationists think the Church of England is run by a bunch of idiots. What do you know, we finally agree on something (but for very different reasons)!
PS For a Creationist perspective on all this, see #19.
Do you think that is needed? We are always going to have issues with less than unanimous agreement. we ought to be be able to still support correct candidate.
There is a very old book, and now out of print for over 50 yrs called ‘LADY CHARLOTTE’. She was a friend who cared for Darwin in his later years. She wrote that he repented and had deep regrets about his ‘THEORY’, and many times said “it was only a theory”. He died a christian according to her. It was a loan to me from a church member, about 25 yrs ago to read, and it was a very small, maroon covered book about 4” X 6”...but I don’t remember whether it was published in UK or not. At the time it wasn’t important to me as it should have been, and I wish it had registered at the time more thoroughly. It would be priceless now if one could find a copy, although I guess all copies the “theorist” could find are gone but maybe some private collection has one.
Good point. Also, I am sick of mass-media ignorati getting this wrong: Galileo was not the originator of the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. He did invent the telescope, and made many discoveries about the nature of other planets. He is also considered the father of the science of mechanics. He was often wrong, especially about astronomy—as everyone was, since it was a time of great scientific ferment and creativity. Besides being brilliant, Galileo was a narcissistic self-promoter and a clueless hothead.
The originator of the heliocentric theory was Copernicus. That would be Father Copernicus—a Catholic priest who published his hypothesis only at the insistence of his clerical superiors. (The Church was not exactly on the sidelines of the scientific revolution.)
The most vitriolic enemies of the heliocentric theory at the time were Protestant. For example, Martin Luther considered it a blasphemy against the Bible, since the Bible in numerous passages speaks of the sun "rising." In contrast, Catholic theology has never required adherents to take such details of wording literally, since imagery is considered integral to human communication.
Personally, I think the Anglicans are currently led by publicity hounds, and that's why we're hearing about this.
This statement clearly shows that they know that evolution is quite impossible, but they cannot admit it 'officially' because it would end the gravy train. So they have to conjur up a cock'n bull story to nurse us along a little longer, until the whole thing fails catastrophically.
Its not a threat to a scientific theory to say its a theory once you know what a scientific theory is.
That story ( the one in the book, not yours) seems improbable as told because Darwin knew what a scientific theory was its not a negative to label a scientific theory.
We have gravitational theory, the theory of relativity, semiconductor theory etc.
Its different than a mathematical theory that can be proved and become a theorum. Scientific theories are always subject to new evidence but accepted scientific theories represent the best current explanation for observed evidence.
==So they have to conjur up a cock’n bull story to nurse us along a little longer
Yep, they’re frantically searching for a replacement theory.
==until the whole thing fails catastrophically.
This will be one of the most glorious events in our lifetime. Can you imagine? It will be like getting news that the Nazis have surrendered, or the Iron Curtain has fallen. Oh happy day!
Why?
Science still struggles to come to grips with things that the scriptures handle quite well. Science remains irrelevent to the spiritual, and moral realm.
Science is a tool of technology, which is in turn a tool of industry. Technology continually gives bigger and better toys and tools, and using those tools does not require of us that we accept the frail, inadequate beliefs of those that developed them.
If they had any sense, they would remain silent; each time they speak they look more foolish.
Heresy! Heresy I tell you!!!
Mark 8:36
A theory is a machine of a sort, that is designed to deal with a particular conundrum. You feed the conundrum in one end, turn the crank, and retrieve information at the other end. When you reach a point where you realize that the information is not sufficiently addressing the conundrum, you start work on a new machine (theory).
except for specific miracles, the church needs to acknowledge and support the role of science.”
Why?
Science still struggles to come to grips with things that the scriptures handle quite well. Science remains irrelevent to the spiritual, and moral realm.
Science is a tool of technology, which is in turn a tool of industry. Technology continually gives bigger and better toys and tools, and using those tools does not require of us that we accept the frail, inadequate beliefs of those that developed them.
________________________________________________
Amen to that!
This reminds me of the news today about hurricane Ike with a woman on already predicting the 2009 hurricane season...using science from studying solar phenomenon, climatology and something else...and it’s evident they could be alomost dead on, or we could have a very quiet hurricane season or worse than they imagined.
In other words, we’ll get what we get with all our science in the world or none at all!
Being a christian does not mean that creationism is exclusive, in fact the Big Bang theory fits Creationism in that the Bible says in Genesis that ‘God spoke the earth into existence’, and to me that would be one heck of a big bang. Especially considering the rest of the explanation about how he parted the waters for land.... If scientists would read the Bible (and many do and agree), then this silly argument would not be so ridiculous.
For example, we all know dinasours existed, but Adam and Eve came much later, and that was the beginning of Jesus ancestory....There are ignorant people on both sides who fail to understand. Now as for coming from apes..NO the textbooks that don’t lie actually admit there is a problem with that one. FoxNews has a list of history textbooks that are lying about Reagan and history, and science has some of the same.
I’m a former college instructor, so my education is quite good. I know what a “theory” is, and the definition is that it’s a “belief that has not been proven, although many facts appear to substantiate it”. So the jury is still out on Darwin’s theory, and I believe that science will eventually prove the Bible correct. Most teachers teach it as truth, but only because they have nothing else to believe in. It’s still labeled a “theory” and not a “fact”.
True.. "what do you know for sure?" would/could be answered differenly every ten years for thousands of years.. A mere few decades ago Medical personel were prescribing laudanum(Opium+ mercury) as healthy.. and curative.. COMMONLY..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.