Curches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday

[Lemur]

Revenge of the reasonable:

Churches celebrate Darwin`s birthday
By UPI
Feb 12, 2006, 19:00 GMT

NEW YORK, NY, United States (UPI) -- Nearly 450 Christian churches in the United States are celebrating the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin Sunday.

The churches say Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science, the Chicago Tribune reported.

'It`s to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don`t have to make that choice. You can have both,' said Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, who organized the 'Evolution Sunday' event.

A variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches, are participating in the event, which grew out of Zimmerman`s The Clergy Letter Project, another effort to dispel the perception among many Christians that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive, the newspaper said.

[solypsist]

why did you post this?

[Proletariat]

Nice to hear from the less-interesting majority of Christians out here. Happy birthday, Chuck.

[Louis VI the Fat]

why did you post this?

Because the creationism debate has been a recurrent theme here, these churches are trying to reconcile Darwinism and creationism, and he would like people's opinions on it?

'It`s to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don`t have to make that choice. You can have both

Personally, I don't see how one can have both. You need to be able to believe in either two sets of conflicting ideas, or have a very imaginative sense of logic.
Good for them though.

[Proletariat]

Are you saying they're mutually exclusive, Louis? I don't see how they can be unless you're intepreting the Bible literally, which I don't think very many mainstream Christians over here do.

Edit: I see you snuck Creationism in there, now. You're right about that, but the article mentions 'religion,' not necessarily the c-word.

[Navaros]

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

[Proletariat]

Oh dear

[Louis VI the Fat]

Are you saying they're mutually exclusive, Louis?

Oui.

I don't see how they can be unless you're intepreting the Bible literally, which I don't think very many mainstream Christians over here do.

But you don't have to take the Bible literally to believe in creationism. I know not many Christians literally believe the earth is six thousand years old. But many believe that God created all life. All species. Rather than them having evolved from one kind to the next.

Either God created man, or humans are evolved apes. I find it difficult to reconcile the two.

[Papewaio]

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

No legitmate Church does not understand the concept of turning the other cheek or that God judges not man.


You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

I for one have no issues reconciling the two. Mind you I see God more like a scientist that is running a chem experiment or running Code

OS Universe 7.0 (6.66 was buggy as hell)
Application Earth 1.5 (Each Prophet being a major update, only some of which were needed, and this regional differentiation has a problem with leaking out and markets fighting each other)... Earth 2.0 is the second comming and like MS apps has been annouced but continously pushed back due to security flaw fears.

[Proletariat]

Either God created man, or humans are evolved apes. I find it difficult to reconcile the two.

I find it difficult too, not for that reason. It's kinda cheap, but you could just blow that off by saying humans were created by God through evolution via apes.

The part that I find particularly fun is when it's argued that life is such a complicated thing it must've been created by a Higher Being. Tell that to a 12 year old in a hospitol with a rapidly mutating strain of HIV that won't react to any of our treatments.

Anyway, I'm in the medical field and in the land of the blind the one-eyed Prole is Queen. Therefore I hope they start teaching creationism in our public schools from kindergarten on.

[Lemur]

why did you post this?

The debate seemed so natural, I really didn't feel it required an introduction. And as I said, it's the revenge of the reasonable.

[Navaros]

You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

[GoreBag]

You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

Picturesque, almost.

[Papewaio]

If someone sells an idealogy that neglects facts and truth for a higher good they are the ones in sheeps clothing.

[Hurin_Rules]

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

I guess that means Catholics aren't Christians?

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...a&ct=clnk&cd=5

[Watchman]

If it were impossible to simultaneously be a good Christian and a good scientist, a whole lot of groundbreaking research would've been left undone.

How people fit God into their world or don't is something I don't bother with so long as they don't bother others with it. I'm a big believer in the privacy of opinion.

[Samurai Waki]

...this is one of the few times I actually wholeheartedly agree with Watchman

[Crazed Rabbit]

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

No legitimate Christian would support Muslim violence, riots, and intimidation against freedom of speech.

Those who do are Apostate Christians that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

I guess that means Catholics aren't Christians?

To him, I bet they aren't. Heck, we've been believing in evolution for over 50 years, maybe before most people did!

I will say that I think Darwin was planning to become a minister before he left on the Beagle.

Crazed Rabbit

P.S. I wonder why Islam's position on creationism and evolution is? Anybody know?

[Redleg]

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

So Artificle Selection for genetics is ludicrous. Interesting? Have you ever studied animal and the selective breeding process done to improve livestock?

These is just one of the area's that Darwin studied.

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

Oh someone is showing their lack of knowledge aboute other faiths.

[Redleg]

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

He is probably closer to God then you are at the moment.

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

Darwin was not a false teacher of religion.

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

From what I remember of my science and biology to be more spefic. I never read where Darwin stated that the word of God is a lie. Care to reference the work where he stated that?

Tsk Tsk - someone does not understand the teachings of Jesus.

[Xiahou]

I find it difficult too, not for that reason. It's kinda cheap, but you could just blow that off by saying humans were created by God through evolution via apes.

Well, I dont know any rational person that really thinks man evolved from apes. However, I certainly don't see the disconnect between evolution and the belief in God. It makes far more sense to me to believe that God would've laid down a framework, call it the 'big bang' or whatever, knowing it would function and grow into what we have rather than God just creating the world static, as it exist however many thousands of years ago that the fundamentalists say it was.

The part that I find particularly fun is when it's argued that life is such a complicated thing it must've been created by a Higher Being. Tell that to a 12 year old in a hospitol with a rapidly mutating strain of HIV that won't react to any of our treatments.

I dont see how any of the arguments over disease, suffering, or tragedy suggest the lack of God, but I find this argument particularly bad. Has the 12 year old directly done anything to cause himself to get HIV? Most probably not. But, the prevelance of HIV among mankind is almost certainly as a direct result of human actions- promiscuity, IV drug use, ect. To wonder why God would allow a child to get infected isnt a whole lot different than asking why God would allow a murderer's bullet to hit its victim. If one can accept that we have free will, one must also accept that our decisions will have consequences.

I guess that means Catholics aren't Christians?

According to Navaros? Certainly not. Personally, if you're going to start making a list of the "true Christian" churches, I think the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have a much better claim to it than the ones.

[Goofball]

Well, I dont know any rational person that really thinks man evolved from apes.

Really?

I know hundreds of rational people who believe man evolved from apes. Many of them are also Christians.

[Xiahou]

Really?

I know hundreds of rational people who believe man evolved from apes. Many of them are also Christians.

Oh, I doubt that.
No serious scientist would suggest man evolved from apes.

[BDC]

Oh, I doubt that.
No serious scientist would suggest man evolved from apes.

Apes and humans had a common ancestor...

Darwin was quite a religious man, initially. Until his faith was destroyed by those who insisted on taking the Bible literally over what they could see with their eyes.

An interesting other example would be Gallileo. Does anyone still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe? Remember it too the Church 200 years to remove one of his books from the Prohibited list. He regarded himself as a really good Catholic too, and had many friends high up in the Church.

[Xiahou]

Apes and humans had a common ancestor...

Hey, somebody gets it.
I would've also accepted 'homo erectus'.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it ironically funny when so-called 'enlightened' folks try to look down on religious people for not believing that humans evolved from apes. Anyone who's looked at the issue at all realizes no one thinks that's true.

[BDC]

Hey, somebody gets it.
I would've also accepted 'homo erectus'.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it ironically funny when so-called 'enlightened' folks try to look down on religious people for not believing that humans evolved from apes. Anyone who's looked at the issue at all realizes no one thinks that's true.

Yes.

Of course Homo erectus was only a human ancestor. ;)

Although this whole species thing is a little suspect. If you traveled back in time there wouldn't be a sudden divide, where one generation suddenly couldn't have offspring with the previous. And how do you class species in asexual organisms?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

Youve got a log in your eye Navraos,

Darwin was himself a christian, all he did was show the method whereby different species came into being. An act no more blasphemous then any observation you make of the world around you, the bible did not contain all gods methods as they were unimportant to the central message, but by the order of creation occuring in genesis you can still see the pattern of evolution from simple sea creatures to mankind (and other organisms).

[Kralizec]

I dont see how any of the arguments over disease, suffering, or tragedy suggest the lack of God, but I find this argument particularly bad. Has the 12 year old directly done anything to cause himself to get HIV? Most probably not. But, the prevelance of HIV among mankind is almost certainly as a direct result of human actions- promiscuity, IV drug use, ect. To wonder why God would allow a child to get infected isnt a whole lot different than asking why God would allow a murderer's bullet to hit its victim. If one can accept that we have free will, one must also accept that our decisions will have consequences.

I think Proletariat was trying to say that it's silly to say life couldn't have been the result of evolution, while HIV viruses are so damn adaptive there's nothing we can do about it.

[Xiahou]

I think Proletariat was trying to say that it's silly to say life couldn't have been the result of evolution, while HIV viruses are so damn adaptive there's nothing we can do about it.

Perhaps I misunderstood. But I dont get the argument that viruses adapt and 'evolve' so quickly as evidence that evolution can't have divine origins either...

[Kralizec]

I wasn't trying to make that argument. I don't claim to know what caused life, but that it has since then evolved is clear to me at least.