Did Darwin Kill God?

[2smokinberyls smockfrocks]

we don't even know which way round is which

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Can God be killed?

 

[2smokinberyls smockfrocks]

Can God be killed?

have you been drinking wine?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

have you been drinking wine?

No. I am married to a vicar though. She’s a lost cause, sadly.

 

[2smokinberyls smockfrocks]

No. I am married to a vicar though. She’s a lost cause, sadly.

pics?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

pics?

You’ll have to turn up on a Sunday.

 

[2smokinberyls smockfrocks]

You’ll have to turn up on a Sunday.

i usually do.

 

[threespires]

Maybe the thread title should've been not God but the bible......Adam & Eve etc.

Has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim? Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life?
Some cosmologists now accept there could have been a superior force designing the Universe, a God...Stephen Hawking mentioned this several times......We just don't know.

Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.

Science and religion coexisted quite happily for centuries until the 19th century when Draper and White put forward their Conflict Thesis suggesting they (science and religion) were intrinsically in conflict. Interestingly most modern historians of science view their thesis and writing as highly selective tosh. Despite this they were hugely influential and their writings left us with some significant historical misconceptions like the idea that we spent many centuries assuming the earth was flat in some sort of backward religiously driven cul-de-sac.

Modern historical analysis of the relationship between science and religion recognises much greater complexity. Even just looking at the cases of Darwin and Galileo show religious figures adopting positions on both sides of the argument and the scientific communities of the day did not see themselves as attacking religion.

People either forget or have never been aware that some of our greatest scientists were also priests. Copernicus was a priest, Lemaitre (big bang theory) was a priest, Mendel (genetics) was a priest. The history of some subjects like seismology and volcanos owes large swathes of their advancement to religious people.

The notion of this inherit conflict between science and faith was pretty much discredited by serious scholars by the 1970s. It gets resurrected regularly, if you'll pardon the pun, by people looking to flog books but this faux conflict has never been a significant part of our human history and in my opinion nor should it be.

 

[Bill Walker]

Science and religion coexisted quite happily for centuries until the 19th century when Draper and White put forward their Conflict Thesis suggesting they (science and religion) were intrinsically in conflict. Interestingly most modern historians of science view their thesis and writing as highly selective tosh. Despite this they were hugely influential and their writings left us with some significant historical misconceptions like the idea that we spent many centuries assuming the earth was flat in some sort of backward religiously driven cul-de-sac.

Modern historical analysis of the relationship between science and religion recognises much greater complexity. Even just looking at the cases of Darwin and Galileo show religious figures adopting positions on both sides of the argument and the scientific communities of the day did not see themselves as attacking religion.

People either forget or have never been aware that some of our greatest scientists were also priests. Copernicus was a priest, Lemaitre (big bang theory) was a priest, Mendel (genetics) was a priest. The history of some subjects like seismology and volcanos owes large swathes of their advancement to religious people.

The notion of this inherit conflict between science and faith was pretty much discredited by serious scholars by the 1970s. It gets resurrected regularly, if you'll pardon the pun, by people looking to flog books but this faux conflict has never been a significant part of our human history and in my opinion nor should it be.

We all have our crosses to bear.

 

[halfcenturyup]

And why is Jesus always depicted as a blond haired white guy with a tidy beard?

..... and wearing sandals? Wait a minute, he must have been a Guardian reader then \O/