expelled

Originally posted by whodey
I think a better question is why are we talking about an obscure carpenters son some 2000 years later on the other side of the world.

He wasn't the son of thes character carpenter. He, the said person born for 2000 years ago, was a bastard. His mother had it with some other, some ghost of some kind... (She said 😵 )

Originally posted by FabianFnas
He wasn't the son of thes character carpenter. He, the said person born for 2000 years ago, was a bastard. His mother had it with some other, some ghost of some kind... (She said 😵 )

She was a single mother. Drama.
In those days kids didn't have sexual education, in fact it would be a couple of thousand years before the scientists agreed on where kids came from. She might not have known what had been done to her, is it really important? Apparently there was a call for someone like him or we wouldn't still be talking about him right now, problably, we'd be finding brilliant solutions for the plastic soup.

"It's a bird.. it's a plane..."
"Who ya gonna call..?"

Originally posted by whodey
I think a better question is why are we talking about an obscure carpenters son some 2000 years later on the other side of the world. Also consider the fact that Christ never held any public office nor worldly wealth of any kind. All he had were 12 obscure followers with him like himself. 😉

I have absolutely no idea why so many people are so morbidly fascinated with this person, quite whoever they actually were. Still, people are free to believe what they will, but that ain't science.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]I have absolutely no idea why so many people are so morbidly fascinated with this person,

The reason is simple. Darwin came up with a theory that was extremely controversial in that it "seemed" by many to defy the church. This then triggored a battle between church and science that continues to this day. This battle between church and science caused many in science to leave the church as well as embolden those who were atheists to begin with. Therefore, Darwin became somewhat of a hero among nonbelievers and to bring Darwin down in the minds of many would be to dicredit him enough to have others question everything else he stood for.

In comparison, Christ was a very controversial figure who seemed to defy the "church" of his day and he is my hero. Revolutionary men begin revolutionary movements so the natural reaction in fighting these revolutions is to attack their respective leaders. Albiet, it is as little harder attacking the words of Christ than it is those of Darwin, although you may disagree.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Still, people are free to believe what they will, but that ain't science.[/b]

But what is science without an interpretative element? What is raw data without being able to piece them together like a jig saw puzzle? We are all wired to interpret our finding so you might say we are wired towards a particular belief system no matter the data we may encounter.

Originally posted by whodey
But what is science without an interpretative element? What is raw data without being able to piece them together like a jig saw puzzle? We are all wired to interpret our finding so you might say we are wired towards a particular belief system no matter the data we may encounter.

The fact that all knowledge must be interpreted does not make either all knowledge nor all interpretation equal.

In science we interpret data sets based upon specific questions that we have set up. We look into what is already known, and we attempt to further that story. Occassionally, perhaps less occassionally than you think, we say something along the lines of "the data suggests x, although further testing is required to confirm this". One of the worst things you can do in science is over-interpret your results. If the data doesn't show it - don't interpret it as such. If the data in unequivocal, then make that clear.

Biblical scholarship, on the other hand starts with unparsimonious data, which cannot be experimentally examined or verified. It them goes on to build a huge theological ediface on these shaky foundations. It overinterprets parts, with little or no emphasis placed on contradictory passages (for example, "love thy neighbour as thyself" and "stone homosexuals, adulterers and your enemies to death" - what if your neighbour is a homosexual adulterer who you don't like, what should you do?!?

I have no problems with people interpreting evidence, but it has to be done in an intellectually honest, balanced way - and I've never seen that done by any theological group.

Originally posted by whodey
The reason is simple. Darwin came up with a theory that was extremely controversial in that it "seemed" by many to defy the church. This then triggored a battle between church and science that continues to this day. This battle between church and science caused many in science to leave the church as well as embolden those who were atheists to begin with. ...[text shortened]... harder attacking the words of Christ than it is those of Darwin, although you may disagree.

Darwin's theories stand irrespective of his personality or lack thereof. Even if he was a complete swine, like Isaac Newton supposedly was, it doesn't mean he was wrong - no matter how much anyone would like him to be.

I'm sure Christ was a very great philosopher - but I don't believe him to be the son of God. I don't believe God exists. If you view that as a personal attack [on God or Jesus], so be it, but I doubt they'd view it that way.

It is revealing, however, that Christians on this site, and in, for example, Ben Stein's movie expelled, attempt character assasination so readily to try and score points. When I say Kent Hovind was a fraudster, i have the backing of the US judiciary service. When I say that Ted Haggard was a hypocrite, I can point to his sermons on the evils of homosexuality and contrast that with his personal behaviour. When I say God was infanticidal, I can point to the killing of the firstborn, or Noah's flood. All of which are intellectually honest things to say. When people attack Darwin, they do it by misrepresentation of what he said, and by quote mining, a decidedly intellectually dishonest practice.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

Biblical scholarship, on the other hand starts with unparsimonious data, which cannot be experimentally examined or verified. It them goes on to build a huge theological ediface on these shaky foundations. It overinterprets parts, with little or no emphasis placed on contradictory passages (for example, "love thy neighbour as thyself" and "stone homose ...[text shortened]... h" - what if your neighbour is a homosexual adulterer who you don't like, what should you do?!?

Of course you are leaving out Biblical archaeology. After all, it is a scientific discipline that is based on the history of the Bible.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

When people attack Darwin, they do it by misrepresentation of what he said, and by quote mining, a decidedly intellectually dishonest practice.[/b]

From what I have read he seems to be in favor of eugnics to a certain degree and to some extent a racist. Of course this was the pervailing opinion in the scientific community of his time so I am not sure it is fair nailing him to a cross for it. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
From what I have read he seems to be in favor of eugnics to a certain degree and to some extent a racist. Of course this was the pervailing opinion in the scientific community of his time so I am not sure it is fair nailing him to a cross for it. 😉

Then you haven't read very far. Whilst Darwin appreciated the implications of his theory for the development of any species (ours included) he specifically advocated against eugenics, although he did mention that it's probably a bad idea to breed with someone who carries genetic diseases. For the sake of any progeny, I'd say that's good advice. Indeed, we really have no problem with eugenics of this type in our society anyway - we have laws against incest, for example, and not just because it's "yukky".

As for Darwin believing in the concept of race, well, many still do. You are right, it was a prevaling opinion in England in his day and age. Still, it remained in the US until the 1950's. Truth be told, it still remains in the good ol' United States of Jesus. Why do you think Barrack Obama is so controvertial. And, of course, the majority of slave owners and traders were devout Christians. Christianity is not in a position where it would be wise to criticize others.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
. Truth be told, it still remains in the good ol' United States of Jesus. Why do you think Barrack Obama is so controvertial. And, of course, the majority of slave owners and traders were devout Christians. Christianity is not in a position where it would be wise to criticize others.[/b]

Well of course Christianity is not without sin. If it were its ideology would be seriously flawed because it identifies that we ALL have a sin nature to deal with. Having said that, I defy you to show where racism against blacks is supported in any way by the teachings of Christ.

I think what this shows is how Christians and atheists alike adopted a racial bigotry all based upon social norms of their day. They then incorporated these ideas into their science and into their theology. It shows the power of belief and how it effects how we process information.

Originally posted by whodey
The reason is simple. Darwin came up with a theory that was extremely controversial in that it "seemed" by many to defy the church. This then triggored a battle between church and science that continues to this day. This battle between church and science caused many in science to leave the church as well as embolden those who were atheists to begin with. ...[text shortened]... of many would be to dicredit him enough to have others question everything else he stood for.

What absolute nonsense.
Religion and science have had conflicts throughout history. Darwin was not particularly exceptional for being involved in one of those fights.
Darwin is not a particularly big hero to most atheists but he does seem to stand out as an anti-hero to many creationists. To me, Darwin stands with Newton, Einstein, Napier and many other great scientists / mathematicians of the past. His theory is one of the biggest most important theories in science today (along with relativity and others). But I do not see his theory as particularly atheistic in nature any more than relativity, or logarithms.
Also keep in mind that the vast majority of theists (those with a scientific education at least) agree with Darwins theory. I first heard about evolution and Darwin (as fact) from my parents - both Christians.

Originally posted by whodey
But what is science without an interpretative element? What is raw data without being able to piece them together like a jig saw puzzle? We are all wired to interpret our finding so you might say we are wired towards a particular belief system no matter the data we may encounter.

Scientific findings should stand irrespective of the experimenter / interpreter. The facts speak for themselves. The independent verification of results is a key part of the scientific process. If two people get different result from the same data then one of them at least is not a scientific result.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course you are leaving out Biblical archaeology. After all, it is a scientific discipline that is based on the history of the Bible.

I am willing to bet that either:
1. the 'discipline' you talk of is not scientific.
or
2. you do not accept their findings.

Every scientific study of the events of the Bible that I have heard of has found major discrepancies between the historical accounts in the Bible and other sources of historical information.

Originally posted by thyme
She was a single mother. Drama.

No she wasn't, she wasn't a single mother. She was about to get married with her boyfriend. She didn't have sex with him, but she had sex with someone, else.
Jesus was born outside the marriage, with a father who came out of the plain air (she said). And her boyfriend believed her? Jeezus...