Which Christian denominations won't accept Darwinism?

[exchemist]

Here is a very recent and interesting article written by Ken Miller:

On "Darwinism"

Miller is such a good writer and so sensible. Thanks for this - the most uplifting defence of both science and humanity I have read in weeks!

But Marilynne Robinson goes down in my estimation. Pity - I rather like her books.

 

[Audie]

It is easier to demonize if one can identify the "bad guy".

I wonder if it is a mind set for people of a "revealed" faith.

Zoroastrianism comes from the prophet Zoro, right?

Lutheranism. Same, named for its prophet.

So, as lo and many a fundy thinks that evolution is a
religious faith, of course it is Darwinism, a
cult of the prophet Darwin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder if it is a mind set for people of a "revealed" faith.

Zoroastrianism comes from the prophet Zoro, right?

Lutheranism. Same, named for its prophet.

So, as lo and many a fundy thinks that evolution is a
religious faith, of course it is Darwinism, a
cult of the prophet Darwin.

Possibly, in other words massive projection by the fundies. Though Darwin is well respected in the sciences no one takes his work dogmatically. As a result there has been no problem correcting the errors or deficiencies in his work over the years. Yes, much of the basics still holds as being correct. But there have been quite a few changes in the details.

 

[Jumi]

I wonder if it is a mind set for people of a "revealed" faith.

Zoroastrianism comes from the prophet Zoro, right?

Zoroaster is the English name for it.

Lutheranism. Same, named for its prophet.

No one thinks of Luther as a prophet to my knowledge at least.

So, as lo and many a fundy thinks that evolution is a
religious faith, of course it is Darwinism, a
cult of the prophet Darwin.

There's some logic to this, I think. They want to associate it with social darwinism to eugenics to nazis.

 

[Audie]

Zoroaster is the English name for it.


No one thinks of Luther as a prophet to my knowledge at least.


There's some logic to this, I think. They want to associate it with social darwinism to eugenics to nazis.

I do know that about zoro and luther btw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do know that about zoro and luther btw.

Since it appears that we have taken a humorous bend I looked for a rather blasphemous cartoon I saw once of Luther Nailing 95 Feces to the Church Door. Sadly I could not find it.

 

[metis]

There is no doubt the Vatican bowed to Darwinism. The Anglican Church did too.

They accepted the reality of what the scientific research is rather clearly indicating, which is a + in my book.

 

[Audie]

They accepted the reality of what the scientific research is rather clearly indicating, which is a + in my book.

Well, seriously, the churches that have not caught up with
the 19th century are not really doing their flock a favour.

 

[metis]

Well, seriously, the churches that have not caught up with
the 19th century are not really doing their flock a favour.

I agree and, as far as I'm concerned, any religion or denomination that doesn't accept the general findings of basic science should be considered bogus. If they're going to lie and distort about that, what else are they willing to lie and distort about?

 

[exchemist]

I wonder if it is a mind set for people of a "revealed" faith.

Zoroastrianism comes from the prophet Zoro, right?

Lutheranism. Same, named for its prophet.

So, as lo and many a fundy thinks that evolution is a
religious faith, of course it is Darwinism, a
cult of the prophet Darwin.

Haha, you are thinking of Zorro, a fictional caped swashbuckling crusader, apt to carve his initial Z on doors and things, as in the "Mark of Zorro" film. (The baddie is played by Basil Rathbone, because following Hollywood convention, baddies always have Engish accents. As an Englishman I find this tiresome but there we are. )

Zoroastrianism is, as been pointed out, from Zoroaster (or Zarathustra, c.f. Richard Strauss's tone poem "Also Sprach Zarathustra", the opening bars of which were used to introduce coverage of the Apollo moon shots on UK TV), an ancient, i.e. pre-muslim era, Persian prophet. Zoroastrians are, or were, sometimes called Parsees, which basically means Persians. (The Persian or Iranian language is called "Farsi"). We had one Zoroastrian in our Dubai office when I worked there. He was Indian of course. All the parsees in Iran have been wiped out or displaced by the intolerance of fundamentalist Shia Islam.

I expect you knew all that but just in case not...... I am new here after all.

 

[Audie]

Haha, you are thinking of Zorro, a fictional caped swashbuckling crusader, apt to carve his initial Z on doors and things, as in the "Mark of Zorro" film. (The baddie is played by Basil Rathbone, because following Hollywood convention, baddies always have Engish accents. As an Englishman I find this tiresome but there we are. )

Zoroastrianism is, as been pointed out, from Zoroaster (or Zarathustra, c.f. Richard Strauss's tone poem "Also Sprach Zarathustra", the opening bars of which were used to introduce coverage of the Apollo moon shots on UK TV), an ancient, i.e. pre-muslim era, Persian prophet. Zoroastrians are, or were, sometimes called Parsees, which basically means Persians. (The Persian or Iranian language is called "Farsi"). We had one Zoroastrian in our Dubai office when I worked there. He was Indian of course. All the parsees in Iran have been wiped out or displaced by the intolerance of fundamentalist Shia Islam.

I expect you knew all that but just in case not...... I am new here after all.

New or not, it has been suggested that if I have a sense of humour at
all it is on the dry side and not necessarily funny anyway.

I was not aware of the paleo- anthropology of
American tv shows, though I thought I heard the
name "Zoro" somewhere.

Zoroastrian, I didnt know that existed past about the time
of babylon or something. But there are live ones. Cool,
I guess?

Re the villainous English, I had an attitude toward
them, so that the sound of that accent would set me off.

Some adolescent idea about being anti-colonialist.
I guess.

Here in the USA, the nicest professor you could ask for
was an Englishman, and I thought, "What are you
doing, feeling hostile to him?" So I got over that
right away.

Plus, always a big fan of the Queen.

You are a recovering chemist?

 

[David T]

Anglicans are Protestants. Furthermore so are Methodists, the Church of Scotland, American Episcopalians, none of whom has difficulty with the science of the origin of life or geology.

This whole denial of "Darwin", which is usually shorthand for denial of any science where it conflicts with the literal words of the bible, is to a large extent a 20th century invention of the Seventh Day Adventists, an obscure and extreme sect in N America. They have been successful in promoting their ridiculous ideas about the bible and, by making a lot of noise, creating the impression that this is what all Protestants think. It's nonsense.

Pope Benedict is simply repeating the standard and totally uncontroversial view that the laws of nature are part of God's creation and so the unfolding of natural processes in accordance with those laws is also God's creation. This is how churchmen have reconciled their faith to the march of science for at least 150 years now.

In other words, no need for supernatural tinkering to suspend the laws of nature as it goes along, which is what creationists, including IDers maintain (without any evidence).

Correct

 

[Jumi]

Zoroastrianism is, as been pointed out, from Zoroaster (or Zarathustra, c.f. Richard Strauss's tone poem "Also Sprach Zarathustra", the opening bars of which were used to introduce coverage of the Apollo moon shots on UK TV), an ancient, i.e. pre-muslim era, Persian prophet. Zoroastrians are, or were, sometimes called Parsees, which basically means Persians. (The Persian or Iranian language is called "Farsi"). We had one Zoroastrian in our Dubai office when I worked there. He was Indian of course. All the parsees in Iran have been wiped out or displaced by the intolerance of fundamentalist Shia Islam.

Getting a bit off topic, but they still exist there as a small minority... @MD @Rival would probably know more about that.

 

[Deeje]

How do you decide what scientific findings are 'true and provable'?

Simple.....whatever science can actually "prove" rather than what they "assume" is true from the way they interpret evidence. If you read what evolutionary scientists write about their conclusions, if they use the the words, "might have"...."could have"..."leads us to conclude that"....."must have"....etc, you know that this is 'assumption', not provable fact. Their articles are riddled with such terms, which means that they really have no proof for what they are asserting (as all the scientists here keep telling me, there is no proof in science) so their conclusions are based on educated guesswork. IOW what science teaches as fact is not really fact, but only what they "believe" happened all those millions of years ago. There is not a single shred of solid, substantiated evidence that single celled organisms transformed themselves into creatures as big as a multi-story building with nothing directing the process except blind chance.

I look at the incredibly complex processes that are programmed into biological creatures and I see design, some of it brilliant! I see purpose and interdependence in an ecology that was designed to support all this "life".....blind chance is so out of the question when you really look at what scientists are assuming.

Use your eyes as well as your heart......we are not just 'biological' and neither are they.

(Google Images)

I could fill pages with images of these creatures and never get to the end.....the very sight of them stirs something in the human heart that moves it to praise the Designer of all these beautiful and unique living things who share this planet with us. Such diversity could never be the product of blind forces because blindness cannot create or appreciate beauty....or give us a sense of majesty.

Tell me if you think any of these creatures would exist if it were not for the senses that they were given? We often take them for granted....sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch....you really believe that such functions are merely biological accidents?....that nothing intelligent designed them? Now tell me what use those senses would be without a brain to process them all and to direct the body to act? Tell me who programmed these creatures to sustain themselves so that they can replicate their 'kind' perpetually?

If we can't 'see' design...then IMO, we have been 'blinded' in ways we cannot discern. One can never say "I see" and really mean it.

 

[Sapiens]

Simple.....whatever science can actually "prove" rather than what they "assume" is true from the way they interpret evidence. If you read what evolutionary scientists write about their conclusions, if they use the the words, "might have"...."could have"..."leads us to conclude that"....."must have"....etc, you know that this is 'assumption', not provable fact. Their articles are riddled with such terms, which means that they really have no proof for what they are asserting (as all the scientists here keep telling me, there is no proof in science) so their conclusions are based on educated guesswork. IOW what science teaches as fact is not really fact, but only what they "believe" happened all those millions of years ago. There is not a single shred of solid, substantiated evidence that single celled organisms transformed themselves into creatures as big as a multi-story building with nothing directing the process except blind chance.

I look at the incredibly complex processes that are programmed into biological creatures and I see design, some of it brilliant! I see purpose and interdependence in an ecology that was designed to support all this "life".....blind chance is so out of the question when you really look at what scientists are assuming.

Use your eyes as well as your heart......we are not just 'biological' and neither are they.

(Google Images)

I could fill pages with images of these creatures and never get to the end.....the very sight of them stirs something in the human heart that moves it to praise the Designer of all these beautiful and unique living things who share this planet with us. Such diversity could never be the product of blind forces because blindness cannot create or appreciate beauty....or give us a sense of majesty.

Tell me if you think any of these creatures would exist if it were not for the senses that they were given? We often take them for granted....sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch....you really believe that such functions are merely biological accidents?....that nothing intelligent designed them? Now tell me what use those senses would be without a brain to process them all and to direct the body to act? Tell me who programmed these creatures to sustain themselves so that they can replicate their 'kind' perpetually?

If we can't 'see' design...then IMO, we have been 'blinded' in ways we cannot discern. One can never say "I see" and really mean it.

Your entire post is a paean to argument from incredulity and ignorance.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is easier to demonize if one can identify the "bad guy".

Actually I'm one of the very few Christians here that supports Darwinian principles and excludes any supernatural / divine intervention in evolution.
so why should I demonize Darwin?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I'm one of the very few Christians here that supports Darwinian principles and excludes any supernatural / divine intervention in evolution.
so why should I demonize Darwin?

I was not necessarily saying that you are. Sadly when one group starts to misuse a term others sometimes adopt it even if no harm was meant.

 

[Deeje]

Your entire post is a paean to argument from incredulity and ignorance.

My entire post is about being human......not some kind of 'AI' that is devoid of this quality.
Does that make you uncomfortable?

 

[Deeje]

Beauty is the direct result of the divine presence in the carbon chemistry that originated life...but...unfortunately, life unleashes itself in a very chaotic and disordered way...because God cannot control it.
Otherwise there would be no suffering, if he could.

I think it is beneficial to explore the causes of human suffering from the Bible's perspective, evaluating all the evidence and coming to correct conclusions before assuming unsubstantiated things about the Creator. Have you ever really explored the causes?
I wonder because you seem to think that God is somehow 'out of control' with regard to his creation. Nothing could be further from the truth IMV. There is a big difference between God being "out of control" and him 'stepping back' to allow certain things to take place as a way of proving a point and settling an important issue that could have remained unresolved forever if it was not addressed and settled in the beginning.

Let me illustrate.....suppose you were an excellent teacher in a math class and you put up an equation on the board and taught your students that this was absolute truth. Then one student stands up and says that you are wrong and he can prove it. What are your options? Send the student to the principle on report for being disruptive or insubordinate in class?.....or allow the student time to prove that he is right? All the other students are now wondering if he has a case. If the teacher sends the student to the Principle for reprimand, does it prove that the teacher is right, or merely that he has more power because of his position? Wouldn't a wise teacher invite the student to prove his case, uninterrupted?

Now put that principle to work in God's contending with his adversary in Eden. To simply remove the rebel who made the accusations, (as God had every right to do,) would have proven nothing to other intelligent beings who were observing the scene and hearing the accusations and wondering if satan was right. Was God a liar? Did he have his human children's best interests at heart, or was he just on a power trip? Did he have a right to tell them what to do if he was less than who and what he said he was? Was obeying that one command really so important?

The only way to prove who was right, was to allow the rebel to prove his accusations. God would step out of the picture and allow the scene to play out as he knew it would. This whole exercise is about the responsible use of free will. It had to be "free" but not absolutely, because too much freedom would result in abuse. The free will of one would then impact on the free will of others, causing trouble and conflict and resulting in untold suffering. God knew that this would not go well because he did not design humans to exercise power over each other.....giving humans power just corrupts them. The more power they exercise, the more corrupt they become. We see this very clearly in the world. If God had intervened to alleviate the suffering caused by this rebellion, man would never see the full impact of the devastation it can cause.

God was right to restrict freedom to within reasonable limits but "telling" his children was not enough, because they now had doubts raised by someone who appealed to selfish interests....God had to allow them to experience the full consequence of what total freedom means...and where it leads....and as we can see in this world ruled by the devil, nothing good comes from humans exercising power over other humans. After all these thousands of years, we are no further forward...in fact we have not advanced one little bit

There is a time limit for this exercise however, and I believe we are nearing the end of it. Humans have tried every conceivable kind of rulership and they have all failed due to corruption. We have reached a point in human history where mankind is now its own worst enemy. Humans have developed weapons that can obliterate all life on this planet. God cannot allow them to destroy it completely.....he will intervene as he always said he would, but the rebel's case will have been settled beyond all doubt....humans cannot rule themselves independently of their Maker. It is the height of arrogance to assume that we can, given the clear evidence in our track record.

Precedents have been set that will not allow rebellion to ever surface again. Not in this realm nor in the one where angels reside. All of God's intelligent creation will have seen for themselves how destructive the abuse of free will is when God's rules are disobeyed.

Right from the beginning, it is all God has ever asked of us.

I kindly invite you not to be offensive...thank you.

Its not unusual for evolutionists to get cranky when presented with visual evidence for intelligent creation.

 

[Deeje]

Your entire post is a paean

paean
noun

1. a song of praise or triumph.
   
   • a creative work expressing enthusiastic praise

YESSSSS!!!!

It certainly is!