[You can see a flyer for the events here.]
Related to this is a story I found on the BBC's website. Apparently Charles Darwin was offered the position of rector at the University:
Scientist Charles Darwin could have been a rector at the University of Aberdeen, it has been revealed.
Darwin, who introduced the theory of natural selection to explain evolution, was offered the position in 1872.
However he declined the post in a letter, citing the "status of my health" as the reason.
Scientist and philosopher Thomas Huxley, who was a friend of Darwin and a strong supporter of his theory of evolution, accepted the position.
Darwin circumnavigated the globe in the 1830s.
His book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was published in 1859.
The Aberdeen connection has been revealed as the university launches a series of events to commemorate Darwin's life and work, beginning with celebrations to mark what would have been his 200th birthday on Thursday.
Dr Stuart Piertney, senior lecturer in evolutionary biology at the University of Aberdeen, said: "Darwin was invited to take on the post of rector by John Smith Craig, an undergraduate student studying medicine in 1872 - the same year the sixth edition of his most significant work The Origin of Species was published."
"Darwin replied by letter to say that whilst he was very honoured to be asked, his ill health would make it impossible for him to accept.
I think it's a shame that we missed out on having such a prestigious scientist as rector.
It's important that occasions such as this anniversary are used to celebrate and highlight the work done by scientists around the world to progress human understanding and to improve the human condition. Especially in the face of religious ideologues who wish to disrupt and overturn science because it clashes with what they want to be true.
Posts
Just to stir things up a bit...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/darwin.html
Wait a second!!! Darwin was a Christian!!! Who knew?
ReplyDelete(Answer:everyone)
Seriously, Darwin was a Christian all of his life. His beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on the Theory of Evolution. The strength of Evolution is based on the evidence for it not the identity or stances of its proponents. That's part of what separates science from religion.
Darwin was not a christian all his life,he denounced christianity at the age of forty knowing that his theories were contra to christian teaching. There is a story that he was converted on his deathbed and sorely regretted leading the world astray with his teaching. This will never be proven or unproven.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I am not a fan of his and do not accept the theory of evolution.This is the beauty of of the Labour Party and indeed this blog. We all share the same political values but arrive at them from a wide range of ways.
Debate strengthens democracy.
Not a fan of his? Why? He increased humanity's understanding of the world through his work, I can't think of anything he did worthy of dislike.
ReplyDeleteDarwin did not denounce Christianity and then repent:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/georgepitcher/3560025/Charles-Darwin-was-not-the-father-of-atheism.html
"But it wasn't his science that destroyed his residual faith; it was the death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. Darwin's alienation from his former faith was driven by bitter personal experience, not cold, scientific analysis, as those who hail him as faith's nemesis might like to claim.
In later life, Darwin refrained from committing himself to atheism. He tended to have theistic moments, such as when contemplating how the universe came to be here at all. Darwin intuitively understood the pre-Enlightenment relationship between faith and reason, or the idea of a reasonable faith that is as old as Augustine. Unlike today's posturing and positioning, he was a brave and honest explorer of all that makes us work. That's what we should be celebrating and aspiring to recapture this week."
As for the death bed conversion:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html
"“Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: ‘How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done.’ He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he ‘would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss.’
“With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. ‘I was present at his deathbed,’ she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. ‘Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.’” (Ellipsis is in the book)"
You "do not accept evolution"? Well tough, because as much you may dislike it the evidence overwhelmingly backs evolution. Evolution is a fact whether you can accept it or not.
Reasoned debate strengthens democracy.
I love this thread so here is the ramblings of an old man.
ReplyDeleteDarwin proved that evolution did in his theory happen, and as we all know scientists cannot prove conclusivly that something does or does not happen but in all probablility it did.
But this does not explain other things such as why we as humans are no longer evolving and before im jumped on this statement was made last week on bbc breakfast by Sir David Attenborough who I think we have to accept might be a bit of an expert in the field of natural science.
So we have evolved up to this point and now we have stopped (this might explan why so many tories are still thatcherite).
Whether Darwin did return to the church at his death is neither here nor their what is clear is that because of Charles Darwin taking on the established theories of science that we are better today than we were in the past.
And yes reasoned debate does strengthen democracy, Darwin proved that.
There are several quotes attributed to Darwin in which he denounced the exisitence of God. As the poster above said that is neither here nor there, more an intresting cavieat.
ReplyDeleteNo I do not accept evolution. If it was fact why is it still referred to as the THEORY of evolution.
Genesis 1 v 1 " In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
I do not have a problem with evolutionists, after all they need some sort of theory to comprehend human existence. Creationism in my opinion is far far more plausible than "a big bang" There are several renowned scientists which also subscribe to that.My source as I posted above has been proven to be historically accurate so I have no reason to doubt it. For example there are more historical references and sources to confirm Jesus' existence than that of Julius Ceasar out with the Bible.
That is my reasoned opinion.
On a side note how was the Gaza debate? I ended up being stuck in a captains meeting for all hours.
Genesis 1 v 1 " In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
ReplyDeleteDo you accept then that god also then created scientists and as such gave them the intelligence to question.
Yes I do accept that, but why would an intelligent person conclude that we all came from apes?
ReplyDeleteHows the knee big man?
But this does not explain other things such as why we as humans are no longer evolving and before im jumped on this statement was made last week on bbc breakfast by Sir David Attenborough who I think we have to accept might be a bit of an expert in the field of natural science.
ReplyDeleteSo we have evolved up to this point and now we have stopped (this might explan why so many tories are still thatcherite).
For the most part people who say we are no longer evolving do so on the basis that selective pressures are taken off by things like modern medicine and the fact that people susceptible to illnesses that would have killed them off in childhood in previous times can now live to reproduce.
There are several quotes attributed to Darwin in which he denounced the exisitence of God. As the poster above said that is neither here nor there, more an intresting cavieat.
Saying you don't believe in god or find it hard to believe in god is hardly "denouncing christianity" as you put it.
No I do not accept evolution. If it was fact why is it still referred to as the THEORY of evolution.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
The fact that you use that creationist argument shows a poor understanding of how science operates. A scientific theory is an idea which is supported by the evidence. Evolution is based upon a mountain of evidence which shows it to be true. It is called a theory because it is backed by evidence, not because it is in someway uncertain.
Creationism in my opinion is far far more plausible than "a big bang" There are several renowned scientists which also subscribe to that.
Your opinion is foolish and wrong. The idea that there is a magical all-powerful being which created the universe is a fairytale which should be left where it belongs, in the bronze age. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, it is merely based upon wishful thinking.
The strength of a theory comes from the evidence that supports it not the people who subscribe to it. The Big bang theory, like Evolution, is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Creationism is supported by nothing.
For example there are more historical references and sources to confirm Jesus' existence than that of Julius Ceasar out with the Bible.
That statement is the one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus's life outside of the Bible. None.
Despite what the gospels claim about Jesus's amazing activities and widespread fame he is completely absent from the chronicles of the time.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html
Contrastingly there is a wealth of evidence (including his own writings) concerning the life of Julius Caesar.
That is my reasoned opinion.
No it's nonsense based on what amounts to little more than fairytales. It has no grounding in reality.
Yes I do accept that, but why would an intelligent person conclude that we all came from apes?
Because that's what the evidence shows. That's the way science works, a conclusion is not invalidated simply because you dislike what it says.
Sorry if my previous comment comes off as abrasive and rude, but I have a great deal of respect and affection for science so the proponents of things like creationsim who tend to attack science seriously antagonise me.
ReplyDelete"For the most part people who say we are no longer evolving do so on the basis that selective pressures are taken off by things like modern medicine and the fact that people susceptible to illnesses that would have killed them off in childhood in previous times can now live to reproduce".
ReplyDeletePersonally (and without entirely biased projections of percieved views of millions of creationalists) I don't believe people have or are still 'evolving' simply because there is no evidence to show me they are. Human adaptation in response to new and changing modern medicing is non synonomous with evolution.
"Your opinion is foolish and wrong. The idea that there is a magical all-powerful being which created the universe is a fairytale which should be left where it belongs, in the bronze age. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, it is merely based upon wishful thinking".
Comments made in a sarcastic and childish manner should be kept far from a forum in which topics as advanced as 'where our universe came from' are being discussed. They don't do any favours regarding attention being paid to your 'evidence based' opinions.
"The strength of a theory comes from the evidence that supports it not the people who subscribe to it. The Big bang theory, like Evolution, is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Creationism is supported by nothing".
I'd need a few sources of this 'evidence' to take any measure of informative substance from such a sweeping generalised statement. The strength of a theory comes from the evidence base behind it. The Big Bang theory is not proven fact- scientist or not, the definition word 'theory' remains the same.
Lastly I would put to you (not because I somehow feel my opinion is greatly important in the grand scheme of things, but because I'm bored) that arguing for arguments' sake alone is never a productive use of your precious time- If we wish to discuss the origins of our universe, we should first read some books, form coherent opinions and not jump on the Big Bang Bandwagon simply for the thrill of gunning down the belief of millions...
I dont wish to convince you I'm right, I'm not that presumptuous.
"Sorry if my previous comment comes off as abrasive and rude, but I have a great deal of respect and affection for science so the proponents of things like creationsim who tend to attack science seriously antagonise me".
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, although you may find this impossible to concieve, I also have great 'respect and affection' for science- I believe science is a key factor of this complex universe we form such a small (yet very opinionated) part of. It holds together all that surrounds us- without science, the world would not work. Is it so inconcievable to think that a powerful God would HAVE to be behind such a complex and perfect balance of matter? Speaking of which, where DID the first two particles COME from?? The Big Bang Theory (along with my higher biology teacher) never did give me an answer to that.....Strange.
Is it so inconcievable to think that a powerful God would HAVE to be behind such a complex and perfect balance of matter?
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence or any theory (other than simply hand waving and "god of the gaps" arguments) that would suggest that a creator is needed. Postulating the existence of such a creator is useless, as it doesn't solve any questions about the universe it merely hand waves them away. It would be like not knowing how electricity works and so saying maybe it's magic which we will never understand and leaving it at that. Any conscious creator with the ability to create the universe would have to be so immensely complex that theorising the existence of a creator to explain complexity is self defeating. It merely pushes the question back to being how did this creator (of which we have no evidence) form?
I would challenge the statement "complex and perfect balance of matter", what do you define as perfect? If you mean perfect for life then I would say that in the entire universe we are only aware of one planet that contains life. In such a huge expanse the probability of there being conditions for life, not matter how improbably, would be high simply through chance. There's no need to suggest an all-powerful being to explain that.
With regards to the complexity of life, physics, chemistry, and biology provide theories to explain stellar and planetary formation, the formation of organic precursors such as amino acids and how early life could evolve into more complex life forms. Imagining god did these things is simply ignoring the questions in favour of false certainty.
Speaking of which, where DID the first two particles COME from?? The Big Bang Theory (along with my higher biology teacher) never did give me an answer to that.....Strange.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the first two particles. If you are suggesting the Big bang originated from two particles that is incorrect. The universe originated from a singularity.
Here is a youtube video that explains the mechanism of the Big Bang:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPUutjtqfw
Personally (and without entirely biased projections of percieved views of millions of creationalists) I don't believe people have or are still 'evolving' simply because there is no evidence to show me they are. Human adaptation in response to new and changing modern medicing is non synonomous with evolution.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was talking about in that paragraph is that some people believe that a reduction in natural selection would lead to humans no longer evolving. It has nothing to do with the opinions of creationists or whether evolution is correct or not.
And if you cannot see evolution perhaps you should try actually reading some science books or websites. The evidence is easy to find.
Comments made in a sarcastic and childish manner should be kept far from a forum in which topics as advanced as 'where our universe came from' are being discussed. They don't do any favours regarding attention being paid to your 'evidence based' opinions.
It is hardly childish to describe ignorant ramblings as such. And my opinions are not "evidence based", they are the views shared by the vast majority of scientists who have done years of research and extensive experimentation to form these theories.
I'd need a few sources of this 'evidence' to take any measure of informative substance from such a sweeping generalised statement. The strength of a theory comes from the evidence base behind it.
You can find this evidence in any science textbook. There are hundreds of websites that explain the science behind evolution and the formation of the universe, it is simply not difficult to find it.
The Big Bang theory is not proven fact- scientist or not, the definition word 'theory' remains the same.
Scientific theories are backed up by the evidence. The word theory in that context is not the same as the colloquial definition of theory. Theories cannot turn into theories; facts are used to build up theories. The Big bang theory is the dominant theory because all of the evidence supports it.
Lastly I would put to you (not because I somehow feel my opinion is greatly important in the grand scheme of things, but because I'm bored) that arguing for arguments' sake alone is never a productive use of your precious time- If we wish to discuss the origins of our universe, we should first read some books, form coherent opinions and not jump on the Big Bang Bandwagon simply for the thrill of gunning down the belief of millions...
I assure you I have read plenty on the subject and I am perfectly happy to read plenty more. It is not jumping on the Big Bang bandwagon to agree with the informed opinion of the vast majority of people who actually know what they're talking about. And the beliefs of religious believers has absolutely no bearing to whether the big bang is true or not.
Science is the most important and most useful tool in improving the situation of human beings everywhere. Defending science against ignorance is never a waste of time.
"Defending science against ignorance is never a waste of time"
ReplyDeleteAh yes, that great arguement "I'm well read and correct and you're ignorant"....such high regard for the opinion of others.
I object to the 'science vs Christianity' ideology along with scores of other well read(shock!) and informed (surely not!) Christians who would simply choose to (and please forgive us for so doing) disagree with the common assumption that the Big Bang theory has in fact been proven- It is not a mere 'settling' for any 'god of the gaps' and resent the implication that anyone, for simply believing in our equally studied 'God theory' must be ignorant and somehow unaware of how the world works.
If there was anything mentioned above that I had NOT previously read up on, discussed or studied on countless occasions I would thank you for the insight and go fill the gaps in my knowledge...That's not to say I know everything- again I wouldnt be so presumptuous. As it stands, Christianity is not a belief in God through imaginative day dream or to quick fix their lack of understanding of science- dont make me laugh...the opposite is the case; Christian scientists, professors, lawyers, doctors, (But I thought Christians were all just idiots?..) have found themselves being convinced that there is simply no other answer good enough. Not from lack of substantial book-reading or world experience either. The Big Bang simply doesn't cut it for me. And where DID the first MATTER come from?......I still haven't got an answer to that from THE theory.
I will bow out at this juncture, not through personal ignorance or fear at the hint of abrasive science vs christian rantology (as if thats some new and unexpected concept), but because it's obvious when people should simply agree to disagree....
Ah yes, that great arguement "I'm well read and correct and you're ignorant"....such high regard for the opinion of others.
ReplyDeleteI do have a high opinion of others, but I do not respect willful ignorance. Evolution and the big bang are accepted by the majority of intelligent people, that includes a large number of Christians and members of other faith. Saying that you do not accept evolution and then going on to show that you do not even understand something as basic as what a scientific theory is shows that you are completely ignorant on the subject.
If there was anything mentioned above that I had NOT previously read up on, discussed or studied on countless occasions I would thank you for the insight and go fill the gaps in my knowledge...That's not to say I know everything- again I wouldnt be so presumptuous.
Well since you "haven't seen" any evidence for evolution why don't you try reading about evolution.
Christianity is not a belief in God through imaginative day dream or to quick fix their lack of understanding of science- dont make me laugh...the opposite is the case; Christian scientists, professors, lawyers, doctors, (But I thought Christians were all just idiots?..) have found themselves being convinced that there is simply no other answer good enough. Not from lack of substantial book-reading or world experience either.
There are plenty of intelligent christians who have given a lot to the world including large numbers of scientists. Very few churches in Britain disagree with Evolution and the Big Bang Theory so to suggest that being for these theories is to be against christianity is absurd. The Catholic Church and the Church of England amongst many others accept evolution as true.
The Big Bang simply doesn't cut it for me. And where DID the first MATTER come from?......I still haven't got an answer to that from THE theory.
The first matter condensed from the energy of the Big Bang. The origin of the Big Bang is a subject that has not been settled with many competing theories.
At no point did I say that evolution WITHIN species does not occur TODAY- what I would disagree with is the Big Bang theory- and the ACTUAL origin of matter and life. This is, in fact, the only difference between where our beliefs lie- you believing that the "first matter condensed from the energy of the Big Bang" which does not, even with adaptation of species and evolution in general, appear to me to sufficiently explain the complexities of life and human nature. Perhaps I appeared to condemn all of your deductions (and those of many others) in one fell swoop- that was not my intention. I am aware that many Christians believe many different aspects of the Big Bang-I prefer to break it down into specifics, rather than to say I believe or disbelieve the WHOLE LOT. What I do not accept is the very origin of the first matter, or this first 'energy'- I simply dont believe that everything just came to be.
ReplyDeleteIf I appeared in any way abrasive or ignorant- I apologise- I also am passionate about what I believe in....
I don't think there's anything wrong with passion in arguments. And I would say that as much as I care about defending the Big bang theory and Evolution, I think that ensuring that we live in a fair and just society in which everyone has a fair chance at life and we don't allow any member of society to be neglected is more important. And I think we agree a lot more on that issue.
ReplyDelete