Two imfamous Christians organisation (BioLogos Foundation & The Discovery Institute)  have unsheathed their swords to take on each other over doctrinal issues - namely the issues of our origins.  Why it has had to come to this without God intervening is beyond the minds of casual observers like myself.  Now these two institutions have decided to go into the battle of ideas and culture all for the sake of their God.

Not only is this so very funny and hilarious (              )  but it is reminiscent of the Arian controversy of the 4th century from which the present incarnation (pun intended) of Christian doctrine emerged.   What will the beknighted merchants of ignorance not try and sell to their credulous and gullible sheep?

Read the article below;

---

Reposted from The New Scientist

[size=18pt]                                             Christians battle each other over evolution
[/size]


The Discovery Institute – the Seattle-based headquarters of the intelligent design movement – has just launched a new website, Faith and Evolution, which asks, can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, as far as the Discovery Institute is concerned, is a resounding: No.

The new website appears to be a response to the recent launch of the BioLogos Foundation, the brainchild of geneticist Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and rumoured Obama appointee-to-be for head of the National Institutes of Health. Along with "a team of scientists who believe in God" and some cash from the Templeton Foundation, Collins, an evangelical Christian who is also a staunch proponent of evolution, is on a crusade to convince believers that faith and science need not be at odds. He is promoting "theistic evolution" – the belief that God (the prayer-listening, proactive, personal God of Christianity) chose to create life by way of evolution.

It sounds like a nice idea, but to my mind any time you try to reconcile science and religion by rejecting Stephen Jay Gould's notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" and instead try shoehorning them into a single worldview, something suffers. My concern is that science will take the hit – and Collins's speculative arguments about divine intervention via quantum uncertainty seem dangerously poised for the punch. The Discovery Institute's concern, on the other hand, is that Christianity will take the hit. "For Christians," they write on their website, "mainstream theistic evolution raises challenges to traditional doctrines about God's providence, the Fall and the detectability of God's design in nature." For them, reconciling evolution and religious faith is simply a hopeless endeavour.

I think it's interesting that the Discovery Institute – which has long argued that intelligent design qualifies as science – seems to have given up the game and acknowledged that their concerns are religious after all. It's equally interesting that the catalyst doesn't seem to be someone like Richard Dawkins pushing atheism, but Francis Collins pushing Christianity. Perhaps the Discovery folks realise that Dawkins's followers are never going to be swayed by intelligent design; Collins, however, might very well cut into their target audience of scientifically-curious evangelicals.

The Discovery Institute has now made it crystal clear that they have no interest in reconciling science and religion – instead, they want their brand of religion to replace science. Which makes it all the more concerning when their new website includes resources and curricula for high-school biology classes, and promotes the pseudoscientific documentary film "Expelled" as part of their campaign to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of "academic freedom".

Watching the intellectual feud between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos is a bit like watching a race in which both competitors are running full speed in the opposite direction of the finish line. It's a notable contest, but I don't see how either is going to come out the winner.

huxley2:

What will the beknighted merchants of ignorance not try and sell to their credulous and gullible sheep?

>snip<

It's a notable contest, but I don't see how either is going to come out the winner.

You know, huxley2, reports like this are sure to catch your fancy - as much as it arrests the interests of many others, both religious and non-religious. However, it's also interesting that such occurences are not unique to religious institutions. On the same subject of evolution, it's not secret that two evolutionists were in very bitter feud up until the demise of one of them. Their names? Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen J. Gould - their quarrel was quite serious, both were atheists and both did not agree with each other on the intricacies of their cherished beliefs.

People interpret issues differently because they see them differently - and that is not only among and between religious people, but also among atheists. Who 'emerges' the 'winner' is also only a matter of how the public interprets the outcome.

pilgrim.1:

You know, huxley2, reports like this are sure to catch your fancy - as much as it arrests the interests of many others, both religious and non-religious. However, it's also interesting that such occurences are not unique to religious institutions. On the same subject of evolution, it's not secret that two evolutionists were in very bitter feud up until the demise of one of them. Their names? Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen J. Gould - their quarrel was quite serious, both were atheists and both did not agree with each other on the intricacies of their cherished beliefs.

People interpret issues differently because they see them differently - and that is not only among and between religious people, but also among atheists. Who 'emerges' the 'winner' is also only a matter of how the public interprets the outcome.

Hello Pilgrim.

Are you serious about Dawkins and Gould disagreeing over evolution? Really? What was the bone of contention?

huxley2:

Hello Pilgrim.

Are you serious about Dawkins and Gould disagreeing over evolution? Really? What was the bone of contention?

Hi again huxley2,

I wonder if you seem to be of the opinion that they were both in perfect agreement?

pilgrim.1:

Hi again huxley2,

I wonder if you seem to be of the opinion that they were both in perfect agreement?

Whatever difference they might have had, it is secondary to what the evidence or facts say. Whether they were in agreement or not matters less in science.

Then I don't consider your initial question was necessary.

Your query was this:
[list]

huxley2:

Are you serious about Dawkins and Gould disagreeing over evolution? Really? What was the bone of contention?

[/list]

. . .whereas, my point was about their disagreeing on intricacies:

pilgrim.1:

Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen J. Gould - their quarrel was quite serious, both were atheists and both did not agree with each other on the intricacies of their cherished beliefs.

It's interesting that the initial report has some theists polarised towards evolution; and yet, that is not a comforting thought to atheists. The point in my reply was that even atheists who are inclined towards evolution are not all agreed on the intricacies of their cherished belief. I thought you'd already have known that, for it was not only those two (Richard Dawkins and late Stephen J. Gould) that were at odds, but a handful of atheist evolutionary biologists. I hope this clears things up for you.

pilgrim.1:

Then I don't consider your initial question was necessary.

Your query was this:
[list][/list]

. . .whereas, my point was about their disagreeing on intricacies:
It's interesting that the initial report has some theists polarised towards evolution; and yet, that is not a comforting thought to atheists. The point in my reply was that even atheists who are inclined towards evolution are not all agreed on the intricacies of their cherished belief. I thought you'd already have known that, for it was not only those two (Richard Dawkins and late Stephen J. Gould) that were at odds, but a handful of atheist evolutionary biologists. I hope this clears things up for you.

Can you show me any branch of science over which there has not been controversy and massive disagreements? Does that make their disputants position a "cherished belief system"? Oh dear, I am disappointed each time we get to this level of cuddling.

Cuddling? Have I missed something?

huxley2:

Can you show me any branch of science over which there has not been controversy and massive disagreements? Does that make their disputants position a "cherished belief system"? Oh dear, I am disappointed each time we get to this level of cuddling.

@huxley2,

You need not be disappointed. Perhaps you're only being reactionary, which again is unnecessary. I've often stated that the disagreements that people imagine are only peculiar to religious folks are also very present in other fields of enquiry - and your statement above (especially the highlighted) only buttresses my point. I earlier in this thread said: "it's also interesting that such occurences are not unique to religious institutions", and in another thread which you opened I've also made the point, such as in this one where I opined that - [list]

pilgrim.1:

It's not only in Christianity you find this situation - so many other worldviews and fields of enquiry have people saying different things within the same 'coterie' (for want of a better expression).

[/list]
You could skim through several of my posts in the past where I've repeatedly made the same observation, so I don't think your reaction was necessary.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,

You need not be disappointed. Perhaps you're only being reactionary, which again is unnecessary. I've often stated that the disagreements that people imagine are only peculiar to religious folks are also very present in other fields of enquiry - and your statement above (especially the highlighted) only buttresses my point. I earlier in this thread said: "it's also interesting that such occurences are not unique to religious institutions", and in another thread which you opened I've also made the point, such as in this one where I opined that - [list][/list]
You could skim through several of my posts in the past where I've repeatedly made the same observation, so I don't think your reaction was necessary.

I asked for a branch or area of science for which there has not been disagreements and sometimes unfriendly disputes.  And I am still waiting.

In fact, science thrive with these disputes, for without this disputes science would not advance.  I do not know of any good scientist who would not change their position were they to be given uncontrovertible evidence that refutes their position.

Religion, on the other hand does not operate like this.  Religion and science are methodologically different is their approach;

Religions is founded on methodological revelation and faith, while science is founded on reason, objectivity, verifiability, repeatability and methodological naturalism.

Take for instance the bloody dispute over the nature of Jesus in the 4th century, ie the Arian Controversy.  Was it settle by objective means?  What is the evidence that swayed the victors of that particular debate?

How can we show objectively that Christian doctrine is true and others are by implication false?

huxley2:


I asked for a branch or area of science for which there has not been disagreements and sometimes unfriendly disputes. And I am still waiting.

In fact, science thrive with these disputes, for without this disputes science would not advance. I do not know of any good scientist who would not change their position were they to be given uncontrovertible evidence that refutes their position.

Religion, on the other hand does not operate like this. Religion and science are methodologically different is their approach;

Religions is founded on methodological revelation and faith, while science is founded on reason, objectivity, verifiability, repeatability and methodological naturalism.

Take for instance the bloody dispute over the nature of Jesus in the 4th century, ie the Arian Controversy. Was it settle by objective means? What is the evidence that swayed the victors of that particular debate?

This is a joke and inconsequential. It's either you are playing hard at understanding simnple issues or simply choose to not understand - which would be magical. To make things simpler for you, my point was this: there's hardly any field of enquiry where diagreements do not occur. That was the plain point I made; and then asking me to provide you with one where it does not occur is simply funny.

huxley2:
How can we show objectively that Christian doctrine is true and others are by implication false?

Ah, I see you didn't even care to read. Please show me where you read in my responses the very thing you assumed by the highlight? It just seems you're stretching your query beyond what you read in my replies.

pilgrim.1:

This is a joke and inconsequential. It's either you are playing hard at understanding simnple issues or simply choose to not understand - which would be magical. To make things simpler for you, my point was this: there's hardly any field of enquiry where diagreements do not occur. That was the plain point I made; and then asking me to provide you with one where it does not occur is simply funny.

Ah, I see you didn't even care to read. Please show me where you read in my responses the very thing you assumed by the highlight? It just seems you're stretching your query beyond what you read in my replies.

Now, you are joking. You referred to the Dawkins-Gould disagreeement to imply that;

1) As advocates for evolution, such disagreement would mean evolution was unproven or wrong, OR

2) Their disputes implies science was wrong-headed

Dispute in science is nothing new and it is hardly worth mentioning. And such disputes usually gets mentioned by detractors of science when they want to denigrate science, rather than to refer to it as evidence that there is health debate in the subject.

Did you refer to the Dawkins-Gould debates as evidence for the health of science or to detract from the process of science?


I invited you many times to show examples in science where such debates are not rife, but you failed to avail.


You are a Christian, a Christian converted from Islam. What objective evidence have you got that Christianity is true and that Islam by implication is false? OR are they both true?