Questions+for+Discussion

=Questions for Discussion and Collaboration http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/04/2507015.htm= =Questions Darwinism cannot answer= Date: February 9 2009


 * Tom Frame**

Copernicus's demonstration that the Earth was not the centre of the universe was a significant blow to human pride. But Charles Darwin's conclusion that human beings were not unique in the natural world seemed to demolish any pretence that men and women were special. Early interpreters of Darwin's work were plainly ill-equipped to deal with the ramifications of this potentially devastating message. Since religion based its claim for God's existence squarely on the evidence of design in nature, denial was one of the few options available. It took more than 30 years for theology to perceive that evolution might, in fact, disclose an even more creative God, and that Darwin had actually paved the way for more profound theological thought. Both religious belief and evolutionary theory continue to contend for the hearts and minds of men and women. For some commentators, there are only two choices available to thinking people: theism or atheism. Either God exists and there is some divinely inspired purpose in human life, or God does not exist and humans will make what they can of life. There is, in my view, a range of other positions.Evolutionary theory does not explain everything we want to know about the natural world or human life, and some of what evolutionary theory purports to explain it hardly elucidates at all. While we might know how some things occurred we still want to know why. Most importantly, why is there something rather than nothing? So how does a Christian account for the origin of life and the emergence of religious faith in the light of evolutionary theory? Some continue to insist Darwin was simply wrong, basing their world view, as before, on the creation narratives in Genesis. Others have decided his theories have been largely discredited and alternatives are presently being devised. Still others accept he was mostly right and his theories have been verified. Evolutionary theory requires creation to be understood as a continuous process rather than an isolated act in the distant past. In this view, God creates in and through natural processes. I share the conviction of Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeontology at the University of Cambridge: nature controls the course of evolution but convergence, implying a higher purpose, controls nature. Conway has argued evolution is not arbitrary and if life were to evolve again, it would look very much as it does now. The physicist Freeman Dyson said: "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture … the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming." These lines of reasoning do not prove God's existence but they offer a movement towards the best possible explanation for what can be observed and understood of the natural world. I must concede that much remains unknown. But as the 2006 Templeton Prize winner John Barrow (a scientist) remarked, religious conceptions of the universe "are not the whole truth, but this does not stop them being part of the truth". The problem I face is weariness with science-based dialogue partners like Richard Dawkins. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate scientific conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions. A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide. Publicly, he advocates none of them. Even his much-publicised atheism lacks commitment and courage. It is a cultural preference rather than a philosophical conviction. Nietzsche and Camus believed the death of God would be revolutionary and terrifying. Jean-Paul Sartre said "atheism is a cruel and long-range affair". All that Dawkins can offer is a revival of old-fashioned secular humanism, whose hopes and aspirations are summarised in John Lennon's insipid 1971 composition //Imagine//. Sustained consideration of Darwinian theory has raised a number of new questions for me. When does design become domination? Why did God create human beings as objects of divine favour, "a little lower than angels" (Psalm 8, verse 5), lay a good life out before them in which they could live in harmony with the creator and other creatures, and then include within them the capacity, even propensity, to behave otherwise? I know the textbook answers to these questions, because I have offered them to inquiring students. But the easy answers are of limited value. Would knowing why there is something rather than nothing make a difference to life? I would once have said 'no'; I now say 'yes', even though the why remains elusive and might be forever. I find the materialist atheism of some rational sceptics harder to accept than theistic belief, and cannot make sense of my life in this world without believing in God and providence. Crudely naturalistic science leaves no room for poetic truth, refuses to honour any spiritual element in physical things and cannot accept the existence of a human soul. Such science is also inhibited from asking whether life has any meaning, as this would require stepping outside the processes that led its practitioners to the point of questioning. Evolution might account for the story of life's beginnings and progress, but it cannot explain its origin nor cast any light on its destiny.
 * Tom Frame is Professor of Theology at Charles Sturt University. This is an edited extract from his new book, Evolution in the Antipodes.**

=**YOUR RESPONSES**=

=
Tom frame is simply writing about the different beliefs of Charles darwin. Charles darwin does have many different beliefs and one of them is that human beings were not unique in the natural world seemed to demolish any pretence that men and women were special. I believe that Mr darwin is wrong in this instance as i quote The physicist Freeman Dyson said: "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture … the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming." I quoted this because i wanted to show that God knew he was going to end up creating some sort of humanity on earth. We didn't just appear we had to come from somewhere and this is where John Barrow (a scientist) states and i quote "religious conceptions of the universe are not the whole truth, but this does not stop them being part of the truth." So it doesn't matter yet as to where we came from it just matters knowing that its is partly the truth. Men and women are special as we are the only species trained and programmed to think and analyse in our brains about what we are going to say, what we are going to do, wether we are going to walk, run, skip or jog we are programmed to think about things. Where as animals yes they have common sense some of them dogs sleep when they are tired, eat when they are hungry run when the ball is thrown to them but most of these things they didn't think of themselves they were shown how to do it and they have been shown so regularly that it becomes a natural element to copy or mimick what is being done. So in one tiny part of this article Charles Darwin is wrong in what he has believed and it is proved by scientific study. To be continued.=====

=
Darwin's theory about the supernatural was that there was a sharp line between the natural world and the supernatural realms. It denied that the two interacted. The supernatural realm included the heavenly world of God with his angels and the world of satan with his demons. Toms frame's writing is about the different beliefs on Darwin theories. John Barrow Quoted "religious conceptions of the universe are not the whole truth, but this does not stop them being part of the truth." My theory about this statement is that the religious beliefs aren't wrong but then again they are not right, this is because there is nothing that tells us otherwise that we are wrong or right.=====

Life is a puzzle. It can be seen as something that puzzles you, or if you look at it more literary you can see it as pieces that all fit together to give a bigger picture, this bigger picture being our life, our world. The belief that we were created by God for a sole purpose of God only knows what isn’t these days viewed so much as the truth, rather more as a theory. A theory put forward by a Charles Darwin was that we evolved into what we are today. Darwin’s theory that human beings were not unique in the natural world seemed to demolish any former idea or view that men and women were special above all. It took 30 years for Darwin’s idea to even be considered as it was seen to go against the teachings of the Church. Followers of God, theism, were considered to be in denial of the Darwin theory. People who didn’t as such support the Darwinism theory but thought it made some form of sense were branded as atheists, non-God believers. This formed some debate in the hearts of men and women. When we step back and look at this theory, it doesn’t explain everything. It explains how we came about in our present state, but not how we came to be in the first place. Although, even with the evidence of what we know today, some people still insist that Darwin was right of track and creation story in Genesis is the true and only true creation theory. Darwinism is a logical conclusion to a question unanswerable. We can purpose answers to how we are now, which I personal believe that the Darwin theory sums up nice and sweet. However, the bigger questions of how the first piece of this giant puzzle was created I believe we’ll never know. I also believe that Darwin didn’t mean to go out and destroy the idea of the creation stories of other religions that so many people build their lives around. I believe his theory built upon it, in a way that Adam and Eve were not human but evolved to become the humans we are today. This has a sort of true as religion can only recall to about where humans would have been and it’s only now we are discovering a path to follow in the aim to someday frame this puzzle on the wall of our world for future generations to question.

** I guess in some hindsight our question how did we get here?, can never really be answered. There will never be enough scientific or religious knowledge to prove our theories. There will never be a real truth to it all. We can base the whole theory to religious beliefs. State that God made the universe and it's contents. We can analyse we were created through nature science, but how and when will we find answers. John Barlow quoted "are not the whole truth, but this does not stop them being part of the truth"; referring the the religious aspects of the creation of the world. I find this quote valid as it determines that while not all answers of creation or all theories will relate back to religion, does not rule out that the Lord had no participation in the creation story. We can track the start of the universe back to a molecule, but how was that molecule created? How did it get there and who put it there? We're out of solutions. This is where we start to depend on the religious aspects of creation. That's when we start to believe in a higher power. "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture … the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming." This quote also contributes to the idea of a religious creation.

Rachel.

People say to themselves how did we get here? this question can never be answered. There isnt enough facts or evidence in todays world to come up with an answer to thsi question. We base the creation stories on religous beliefs we learnt to grow up with meaning that God created the universe and everything that is inside of it. Some can say we came here throuh science or nature,but how will we ever find the correct answer. We can tract the start of the universe to a chemical reaction, but how did the chemicals get there if there was nothing there before space. We dont know the answer to this so we start to depend on the religous aspects of the universe being created. Pysicist Freeman Dyson got me thinking when he stated " The more i examine the universe and study the details of its architecture...the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense knew that we were coming". The reason why this got me thinking was because as christians we belivie that God created the Earth but if Earth was already here waiting for God to create us.

ALESSANDRO PERRI RESPONSE**


 * this written report about the findings, and hypotheses possed by darwin confounded the nation for many years, however, the results that came from his research were more impacting on the community in the long run. i strongly believe that without darwin many people in the world would still beliving in the dark. without the research of darwin people would not be asking themselves "why are we here?" because everyone could quite possibly still believe that the humans were supream beings on this planet. the idea of evolution being accepted by the christian church has once again become a giant step forward for man kind. this leap in history will most likely be condiered as one of the most crucial turning points for the world, and i agree with everything this article is saying, it is well written.-by adam.**

=darwin questions= //humans say to themselves how did we get here, and were did we come from? but will this question ever be answered. There isnt and never will be enough evidence to provide our answer that is strickly why people will follow a religion that suits them. We base the creation stories on religous beliefs we learnt to grow up with meaning that God created the universe and everything that is inside of it. Some people may say we cam from the stars or from the most amazing things although we may never no,but how will we ever find the correct answer? we may never no We can tract the start of the universe to a chemical reaction, but how did the chemicals get there if there was nothing there before space. We dont know the answer to this so we start to depend on the religous aspects of the universe being created. Pysicist Freeman Dyson got me thinking when he stated " The more i examine the universe and study the details of its architecture...the more evidence i find that the universe in some sense knew that we were coming". people may never no and people i think will never no but, were are we goin?//

from marco muscatello

the article by tom frame '//Questions Darwinism cannot answer//' is about the different views on Darwinism. Charles Darwin did not believe that humans were unique and his conclusion was 'human beings were not unique in the natural worlds seemed to demolish any pretence that man and woman were special'. if man man and woman were not special then the other animals or mammals would be capable of thought, feelings and reason that human beings are. and animals relies only on instinct to guide them throw life and will continue to do this even if there is obvious danger while a human can step back and acknowledge the danger and think of another way by jessica sulliavn (response)