- Citation Styles for "Darwin, divinity, and the dance of the cosmos : an ecological Christianity"
- About the Hilliker Lectureship
- If Darwin Meditated
- See a Problem?
A wiser and more helpful response, especially for Christans, is to find a way to step back into the flow of nature from which we have extricated ourselves. Sanguin draws on the latest scientific understandings of the nature of the universe and weaves them together with biblical meta-narratives and frequently overlooked strands of the Judeo-Christian tradition to create an ecological and truly evolutionary Christian theology - a feat few theologians have even attempted.
The importance of this accomplishment can hardly be overstated. Click To Enlarge. Description Reviews. Reviews Editorial Reviews for this product are coming soon. Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction. We Get to Carry Each Other. What a waste of time and energy. If it was possible to bring about universal understanding of this it would allow a greater degree of peace to prevail among us.
Its obvious that humans have evolved to be what we are now. In this light, Darwin was absolutely correct. So in this context, how can there be further debate? Evolution is only a word that describes a process. To evolve means to change over time, nothing more nothing less. Change over time can mean anything from breeding toy dog breeds, to domesticating a plant to make it more suitable for agriculture, to viruses gaining antibiotic resistance.
In this sense, evolution makes no comment on the origin of life nor any comment on the origin of species. People can speculate on the origin of life and species as it relates to evolution, and that is valid. All you have to do is to look around, evolution is everywhere. People keep saying Darwin is a great scientest and evolution is a science.
The fact is no body ever really observed the evolving of one species to other, let alone repeating the process. Mutations yes but not new species. There are great scientists on both creationism believing in a Creator and atheism. The fact is atheism is also a religion, evolution is never proven in the same way as laws of physics and chemistry have been repeatable in labs. It is just as good as a religion.temp.cmnv.org/hdw-005-planet-der-traeumer.php
Citation Styles for "Darwin, divinity, and the dance of the cosmos : an ecological Christianity"
So we should stop calling evolution a science in the conventional sense. Steve Vanden-Eykel, why is it seemingly impossible for supposedly intelligent people to acknowledge that there are no man-made Gods and the only God there is is the ENERGY that formed and expands the universe? This Energy that formed our planet Earth is obviously very intelligent and endowed Earth and everything on it. What is the source of this Energy? I accept this without reservations because as a temporary entity on earth I have no means and no interest to find out.
Where did humans come from? Probably evolving from an amoeba, a microscopic one cell animal consisting of a naked mass of protoplasm constantly changing in shape as it moves and engulfs food. This one cell split to become two cells, separating as one positive charged male cell and one negative charged female cell. Thereafter, they could reproduce only by sexual coupling.
Humans have obviously evolved through stages in many forms. Perhaps one as dinosaurs. And with our first independent breath our brain is fired by oxygen into action and we awaken to consciousness. And when we can no longer sustain consciousness it is reabsorbed into the universal consciousness and we will never again like all other animals live as an entity of any nature. So we have but one kick at the cat. I encourage us to make it a good one. And now here you are, writing about evolution, and the philosophy of science, and getting everything wrong!
Darwin is widely praised by atheists for being a great scientist. To be fair, some of the mistakes may not be yours.
A neo-Darwinian is something else entirely. That is, they believe plants and creatures came into existence only through pure chance; via random mutaion, natural selection and the drive to survive. A dualist is actually the opposite; someone who believes that life, or the Universe, is more than just matter, but spirit as well. ID claims that the structures of organisms themselves, structures like the cell, or the eye, cannot have been produced by evolution and required intervention by a Designer.
Agnosticism is an epistemological statement. It is the belief that there is no way to know for certain whether God exists. It is NOT a middle ground between theists and atheists; you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
And for the record, Darwin was quite definitely an atheist, and probably an agnostic one. Well of course we are, if you define anyone more open-minded as not being atheist! Certainty is irrelevant to the definition. Would that then make them an atheist? Is that intentional? We understand that it is natural to create a narrative that puts your life into some sort of context; everybody does it, atheists included. We all come up with some sort of story that tells us where we came from, who we are, what we should be doing.
Spirituality and religion get into trouble when they insist that these narratives are more than mere constructs of the mind, but represent some sort of absolute truth. To the extent that there is such a thing as absolute Truth-with-a-capital-T, and to the extent that we are capable of learning it, it is the realm of science. But I also think that the statement is just plain wrong. When humans are bored we start chasing our tails.
I continue to wonder what a consensus of answers to these questions would do for humanity. Of course academia would lose another subject from their justification for employment list. None of these have a meaningful, positive effect on my life. I got way out where I am today happily without them. I am really interested in the Gerber vs. Darwin theory of evolution, a rather dramatic new theory disturbing yet liberating if science continues on the current course of validating it.
About the Hilliker Lectureship
Also is the idea of intelligence driven dynamic DNA. Life never evolves out of non-living matter. Let alone the evolution of the amazing structure and function of the human body and the activity of the human mind. This fact alone is sufficient to provide damning evidence against unbelief in a creator. A sad, sad case, is Ben Steiner, who pretends to be a contra-intellectual challenger in that flawed pseudo-documentary in which he appears. That said, I am not against any faith at all, or spiritual resources; even mysticism, for that has a purpose as well — a uniquely human purpose.
But no one can talk seriously about evolution even spiritual evolution based on a dogmatic approach, that now pretends to be scientific. I have asked my self and others the question of evolution and science and god and the universe, many, many times. The closest that I feel, I have been to the truth, is that nothing exists. Who are we really? A body? A mind? A consciousness? Two days ago, I was reading a lecture from Steven Hawking. In it, he talks about the big bang, and how no one can tell what happened before that.
During the big bang, there was a point of singularity, where infinite pressure and infinite heat in an infinitely small space, caused the big bang. There was so much of energy produced, that this energy formed particles, which in turn formed stars, suns, planets… and life???
Am I just some energy that has turned into a body? And it is true in many ways. Energy dies eventually, and so do we. If you feed energy with nutrition, it could exist as energy for a longer time, but eventually die out when nutrition runs out. Having had a biologist mother the daughter of a Presbyterian minister and a minister father son of a biology professor I grew up with no mental or spiritual conflict between faith and science.
In this age of retrogressive thinking on the part of Creationists and the oxymoronic Intelligent Designers, we need to be reminded that many of us understand that science and religion need not clash, but may indeed compliment one another. Many of your readers may not be aware of the Clergy Letter Project www. The project is designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible and to elevate the quality of the debate of this issue.
Doug, Thank you once again for your insightful and well written work. Perhaps a sentence was dropped, because as printed, the paragraph suggests that dualism is the same as natural selection.
If Darwin Meditated
Can any one tell me that if evolution is the case, what will human beings be like in ten thousand years? Will we be so advanced or regressed to what???
- Savannah No.2: Mehr als die Geschichte einer großen Liebe (German Edition);
- Subscribe to Alban Weekly;
- Best of Family Portrait Photography, The: Professional Techniques and Images.
- Customers who bought this item also bought!
- Communication Yearbook 18: Volume 13.
- Darwin, Divinity, and Dance of the Cosmos Study.
- The Second Coming of Jesus: 2030 AD.
Do not put your trust in earthly man. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. The day is coming when they will have their card called. Sorry for any confusion. Anyone that has studied biology at school will understand that symbiosis is when two organisms work together for the benefit of both organisms, for exmple lichen. Lichen is a symbiosis between algae and fungus. As for the alga, it uses the minerals and water to make food for the fungus and itself.
But unfortuantely, this is not the case. Sure there is an element of chance but that is not the main point, if u understand the rest of the situation then u would see how it makes sense. Altruism is one of the examples shown against evolution. Are u saying a community of individuals which help each other to survive will not cope better than one in which it is every man for himself. Any of these situations if u think about them make sense. I urge u to open ur eyes and ur mind and not just listen to some old book, or even just me.
Look into it yourself, look at the evidence and make up ur own mind. This otherwise well-presented overview unfortunately falls into the polarized thinking around the issues of Darwinism, religion and other views such as mysticism and transcendentalism. The tip-off is Mr. The truth is, most are atheists, some are not, some hedge their bests in agnosticism, and some just compartmentalize. But, the scholarly defining characteristic of neo-Darwinism does not revolve around questions of divinity and the like.
Of interest to philosophers is that this broadly documented view shows that not just competition, but perhaps as or more importantly, cooperation is the main driving force behind evolution. None of this requires any straying into theological territory. Mr Todd; excellent, a home run!
See a Problem?
Encouragingly it seems US Churchmen of all faiths have banded together to say essentialy what Your headline says. Again, thanks for another winner. That is simply speculation. Of course everyone is entitled entitled to their own opinion, but opinions do not necessarily reflect factuality. A divine force may cause evolution, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support this.
Your reasoning is generally referred to as God Of The Gaps. Because there are gaps in our current knowledge, people assume that God, or some divine force must be at work. However keep in mind that not so long ago, the same reasoning was used to explain lighting, or why the sun rose. Science cannot yet explain all phenomena, and perhaps it never will, but this does not mean that these things are unexplainable. We may not yet know the answers, but that does not mean there are no answers.
Also while I agree that education is extremely important to help people become good citizens within their community, it is highly debatable whether religion helps in this process or hinders. Every day around the world there are unspeakable atrocities committed in the name of religion, by people who fervently believe they are doing Gods work. We cannot know for certain whether or not he was an Atheist. Publicly he called himself Agnostic, however from reading his works, I believe his views may have been closer to that of an Atheist.
However his family situation, and the society in which he lived would have made it extremely difficult for him to admit to this, if indeed it was closer to his true convictions. Despite the enormous controversy his theories have promoted throughout the years, in life he always endeavoured not to cause offence to anyone.
He considered Atheism to be an aggressive stance, and he was not an aggressive person. Evolution and Religion have no conflicts. We can believe that evolution happened, but the cause of evolution is a Divine force. Science or religion does not explain all the mysteries of the universe. Scientists who study quantum mechanics know that all the laws of physics break down at the sub atomic level. No one has explained what dark matter is exactly. Evolutionists say DNA technology validates the argument for evolution.
But recent DNA technology also has baffled scientist if everything can be explained by evolution. They found that human behavior mutates the gene in just one generation. You can add the diabetic gene into your gene pool just by, bad control of diabetes, and it appears in your immediate offspring, a revolution, not evolution! Evolution has not explained why a human being has conscience, and can evaluate his own actions, but an ape cannot!
We cannot survive science alone! Science alone does not enable us to behave as a good citizen in a community. Having faith in something that cannot be validated by science, but it is not wrong! National patriotism is faith! We do not know if the country is going to take care of us, but we still have faith! We need to provide education to our young about ethics, social responsibility, and ability to communicate and empathize with other human beings. But civic or moral education cannot be given in a science class, but in a civic education class!
In the past our forefathers thought that the parents and church provided this civic education, so we do not need to repeat in schools. But these days, parents have been grossly negligent about this, so providing civic education is not a bad idea! And it has no religious connotation!
Share Adjust Comment Print. Charles Darwin is widely praised by atheists for the way his theory of evolution denies the existence of God. How, Birch asks, could the marvels of human consciousness have come into existence if our minds are just pre-programmed like computers? I suspect if he were living today, Charles Darwin may have been drawn to such ideas. This Week's Flyers.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.