Happy birthday to both Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin!

[tcmahoney]

I did not realize that the two were born on the same day in 1809.

That fact, though, inspired this excellent column (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/12/INGU9H55MD1.DTL) on the different strengths of religion and science.

A more effective way to bolster religious belief than attacking Darwin is to remember that religion addresses questions that are completely beyond the range of science. The meaning of life, the nature of good conduct, the nature of the human soul: Science is not set up to deal with any of these.

This is why religion remains so potent -- and, I think, so positive -- a force in modern America. It alone provides answers to the hardest questions we all face. In a health crisis, we want help from a doctor who practices medicine in a completely rational and scientific manner. But our prayers that this medicine helps go to a supernatural being, not to the doctor.

I'm not the religious type. It's getting close to 11 on a Sunday morning, and I'm lounging around at home in the same clothes I slept in last night. I probably should go post in the "What kind of Catholic were you?" thread.

But for all of my dislike of religion, I can certainly see the need to believe in a higher being. When one loses a family member, or sees good friends struggling with health crises, relationship crises and all the other woes of the world, I can certainly see why someone would want to find some sort of sense, or to find a way to make things right.

To me, the attacks on Darwin reveal not any flaws in the theory of evolution, but a deep-seated insecurity by his Christian critics about their own religion. If God is truly God, with all the powers and rights and prerogatives that you would expect from God, then there's no need for Him to be troubled by Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution.

Instead, Darwin's critics seem to have puffed him up to be the son of Satan, turning him into a near-mythical figure capable of destroying Christianity all by his lonesome. In the various evolution debates I've seen, I've seen some pretty bizarre views, first and foremost being that the existence of evolution somehow disproves God, which is every bit as silly as saying that the existence of the New York Yankees disproves the existence of soccer.

I guess what I'm saying is that when I need to console my mother on the loss of her brother and sister within the past year, or I'm really rooting for a friend to make it through his life-threatening health crisis, or pondering the reason for my existence and my purpose in life, I need a God that's bigger than the one that's scared of Charles Darwin.

Ms. Bass is right. Religion shouldn't try to play away.

[Val1]

As a liberal fundamental Christian, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Darwin is not the antiChrist and evolution is not really the heart of the matter.

Fundamental Christians, and to a greater extent fundamental Muslims, are all having trouble dealing with modernity. Evolution is just the lingua franca of the rebellion.

[christopher d]

And another great article, this one from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/national/13evolution.html?incamp=article_popular_2

About an effort by several mainstream Protestant (and other) denominations to hold "Evolution Sunday", and combat the thought that in order to be Christian, one must have one's eyes closed to the world around.

At St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church, a small contemporary structure among the pricey homes of north Atlanta, the Rev. Patricia Templeton told the 85 worshipers gathered yesterday, "A faith that requires you to close your mind in order to believe is not much of a faith at all."

"There was a growing need to demonstrate that the loud, shrill voices of fundamentalists claiming that Christians had to choose between modern science and religion were presenting a false dichotomy," said Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and the major organizer of the letter project.

Mr. Zimmerman said more than 10,000 ministers had signed the letter, which states, in part, that the theory of evolution is "a foundational scientific truth." To reject it, the letter continues, "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

"We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator," the letter says.

[yokefello1]

Darwin is my homeboy.

[Dr. Wankler]

As a liberal fundamental Christian, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Darwin is not the antiChrist and evolution is not really the heart of the matter.

Fundamental Christians, and to a greater extent fundamental Muslims, are all having trouble dealing with modernity. Evolution is just the lingua franca of the rebellion.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi06/kazin.htm

Interesting article along these lines by the guy who just published a biography of William Jenning's Bryan, the definitive liberal fundamental Christian from the late 19th, early 20th century.

[spejic]

I didn't like the Cynthia Bass article. I thought it was a rather poor attack on creationists. And using Lincoln as an example is particularly weak - he didn't hold a conventional belief system and wasn't a Christian. It was also too soft on religion - it isn't a source of morality.

[IntheNet]

To me, the attacks on Darwin reveal not any flaws in the theory of evolution, but a deep-seated insecurity by his Christian critics about their own religion. If God is truly God, with all the powers and rights and prerogatives that you would expect from God, then there's no need for Him to be troubled by Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution...

tcmahoney: I wonder if you paused, after the creation of this paragraph, to consider the obverse; the other side of the coin in the debate if you will. Indeed, the attacks on creationism by the secular reveal, in my opinion, a far more obvious (and let me borrow a phrase from you) "deep-seated insecurity" by them and their secular followers. Specifically pursuant to the potential instruction of creationism in schools to accompany evolution, this "deep-seated insecurity" by the secular borders on absolute paranoia that their lock on the education of a monopoly, on theories on the origin of life, might be challenged. And to pursue this evaluation to its end, if Evolution is indeed the explanation for our origin, isn't belief in Creationism an evolutionary step in our existence? Appreciate hearing your thoughts...

[yokefello1]

We stand at the brink of what could become an ugly and pointless thread. I request that all involved consider this before we get into philosophy arguments with 14 year olds and begin insulting eachother.

That said, if everyone is willing and the mods don't object I am fully willing to throw down.

[BenReilly]

Instead, Darwin's critics seem to have puffed him up to be the son of Satan, turning him into a near-mythical figure capable of destroying Christianity all by his lonesome. In the various evolution debates I've seen, I've seen some pretty bizarre views, first and foremost being that the existence of evolution somehow disproves God, which is every bit as silly as saying that the existence of the New York Yankees disproves the existence of soccer.

I always thought the existence of the New York Yankees disproves the existence of God. Or at least a benevolent God.

[yokefello1]

Oooh... nobody wants to touch this all of a sudden.

[spejic]

Oooh... nobody wants to touch this all of a sudden.Rest assured the button for destroying InTheNet's post has a finger hovering over it. I just thought your plea has merit and am waiting for someone else to make the move that will send this thread spiraling out of control.

[yokefello1]

Rest assured the button for destroying InTheNet's post has a finger hovering over it. I just thought your plea has merit and am waiting for someone else to make the move that will send this thread spiraling out of control.

Thats what I figured. Thank you for doing your job.

[Matt in the Hat]

tcmahoney: I wonder if you paused, after the creation of this paragraph, to consider the obverse; the other side of the coin in the debate if you will. Indeed, the attacks on creationism by the secular reveal, in my opinion, a far more obvious (and let me borrow a phrase from you) "deep-seated insecurity" by them and their secular followers. Specifically pursuant to the potential instruction of creationism in schools to accompany evolution, this "deep-seated insecurity" by the secular borders on absolute paranoia that their lock on the education of a monopoly, on theories on the origin of life, might be challenged. And to pursue this evaluation to its end, if Evolution is indeed the explanation for our origin, isn't belief in Creationism an evolutionary step in our existence? Appreciate hearing your thoughts...
Sir, if you continue to post like that you are more than welcome to stay in this forum

And you are wrong

[christopher d]

tcmahoney: I wonder if you paused, after the creation of this paragraph, to consider the obverse; the other side of the coin in the debate if you will. Indeed, the attacks on creationism by the secular reveal, in my opinion, a far more obvious (and let me borrow a phrase from you) "deep-seated insecurity" by them and their secular followers. Specifically pursuant to the potential instruction of creationism in schools to accompany evolution, this "deep-seated insecurity" by the secular borders on absolute paranoia that their lock on the education of a monopoly, on theories on the origin of life, might be challenged. And to pursue this evaluation to its end, if Evolution is indeed the explanation for our origin, isn't belief in Creationism an evolutionary step in our existence? Appreciate hearing your thoughts...

To both tcmahoney and ITN:

If your premises are correct (ie that Christianity is rendered insecure by evolution and that those wishing to further evolution are secular), would you care to discuss the overwhelming majority of mainstream Christianity that takes the Genesis story as mythology, rather than history?

[christopher d]

I always thought the existence of the New York Yankees disproves the existence of God. Or at least a benevolent God.

To borrow a signature from a Real Madrid fan: If the Yankees didn't exist, New York would have been forced to create them.


If only to piss off the rest of Baseball.

[minorthreat]

To borrow a signature from a Real Madrid fan: If the Yankees didn't exist, New York would have been forced to create them.


If only to piss off the rest of Baseball.Heh. While I'm honored you used my ex-signature, a more appropriate paraphrasing would be that if the Yankees didn't exist, it would have been necessary for the Red Sox to invent them, presumably so that they have a target for their whining, moaning, and inferiority complexes. ;)

[Dr. Wankler]

Happy birthday today, 15 February, to Galileo.


http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/index.html

[Caesar]

To me, the attacks on Darwin reveal not any flaws in the theory of evolution, but a deep-seated insecurity by his Christian critics about their own religion.
Not to agree or disagree, but (religion aside) to me simply saying "criticism = insecurity" is a wonderfully simplistic way of looking at any matter.