The Anglican Church apologizes for misunderstanding Darwin, and for encouraging others to misinterpret his words. It is admitted that the theory of natural selection has not been disproved until these days.
Almost two hundred years ago, the man was born whose ideas changed the way we think about science, history and religion. Charles Darwin first published his ideas on the evolution of species in 1859, sided with Russell Wallace, and won the eternal ire of the Anglican Church.
Eternal? Actually, not anymore.
In an unusual move, yesterday (Sunday, 14.9) the Anglican Church officially apologized to Darwin personally, even though the man breathed his last over a century ago. The Anglican Church compares the act to the apology of Pope John Paul II from the Roman Catholic Church, for the persecution of Galileo Galilei and an acknowledgment of the place of the sun at the center of the solar system.
In an article entitled 'Good Religion Needs Good Science', Reverend and Doctor Malcolm Brown speaks to the man of science whose memory has been suppressed for years. "Charles Darwin: 200 years since your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for not understanding you, and by being the first to react incorrectly we encouraged others to not understand you."
It seems that at least part of the apology stems from the church's intention to separate itself from extreme Christian elements, who believe that the world was created in six days plus a picnic day. Many Christians, who come from the everyday life of the community, are unable to reconcile the attitude that claims that every word in the scriptures is true, and the scientific approach they need to succeed in getting a degree and finding a job. The Anglican Church is opening a new line of reconciliation and reconciliation between science and religion, which it needs in order to maintain the existence of religion even in the 21st century.
Brown recognizes the importance of Darwin as a scientist who observed the world around him, developed a theory that explained what he saw and collected a wide range of evidence to support it. "The result is that our understanding of the world has expanded, but the scientific process continues," explains Brown, admitting that, "the generations after Darwin were based on his work, but did not detract to a large extent from the basic theory of natural selection."
Brown emphasizes that the scientific method is not against Christianity, and specifies that, "Jesus himself invited people to observe the world around them and draw conclusions from what they saw in order to understand the nature of God (Matthew 6: 25-33). Christian theologians throughout the centuries have tried to understand the world and God. For Thomas Aquinas there was no such thing - science against religion. Both existed in the same kingdom and for the same purpose - the glory of God." A similar opinion can also be found in one of the greatest judges in Judaism of all ages, Rambam, who held a distinctly rational-intellectual Mishnah. In one of his most important books, which has become an asset of the Iron Sheep of Jewish philosophy, Rambam disapproves of mystical explanations and advocates logical explanations for religious commandments and the essence of the world. Now, almost a thousand years late, the Anglican Church also joins it.
Brown adds that, "Christians believe that the Bible contains everything we need to know to be saved from our sins, but they do not claim that it is the source of all knowledge... There is no reason to doubt that Jesus is still drawing people to the truth, through the work of scientists and others, and many scientists are motivated in their work out of the recognition of the deep beauty of the created world."
We can only hope that other clergymen in Israel and the world will also accept the decree of reconciliation between religion and science that began with Maimonides and continues with the Anglican Church these very days.
To the original letter on the Anglican Church website:
More of the topic in Hayadan:
41 תגובות
Eliahu,
There are over fifty different religions in the world, and unfortunately it is impossible to believe in all of them. Just think what would happen if you made a mistake and chose the wrong religion, and the vengeful gods of the Christians and Muslims would be angry with you, not to mention the great spider goddess of the Hopis.
What a bummer that would be.
Elijah:
There is no one here who believes in the creation of the world by chance, but it is not a coincidence that this is how you try to paint things.
Since such a large inaccuracy cannot arise in the event that your intentions are clear and it is also clear that there is no point in trying to convince you with logic.
That's why I'm not trying - I'm just showing you and others like you that we've noticed you, we've noticed your motives and we all wish you that the continuation of your dreams in Asphemia will be easy and without encounters with reality.
An idle argument, whoever believes that the world could have been created by chance, is a happy man. Live without worries
Because there is nothing to do anyway, it is possible, maybe, to fill out a lottery ticket because the chances here are very big compared to what they believe. So cheers to Darwin the genius and Hawking the super-genius and to all their gifted lecturing admirers. Just think what would happen if you were wrong. What a bummer that would be.
Better late than never.
Michael
same as above
To Michael
I really asked myself why Michael has not responded for two days, so here you are (politely) responding.
And really, there is no point in bringing up the subject again, after all we know each other's opinion very well.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
father. Goat:
Really cool.
You are obviously immune to persuasion through logic but it is the only tool at my disposal.
Yehuda:
I think you are wrong and misleading, but I don't have the strength to re-enter this debate that every time will end without you being able to deal with pointing out your mistakes and it turns out, also, without you having suffered from them.
I think if you were a cosmologist you would be really unemployed and it would be justified too.
What does evolution have to do with it???
How come man and baboon share a common ancestor.
There is a plant whose bloom imitates the reproductive organs of an insect
A certain one is amazing, including the smell (there are several)
Is it according to your method and on the assumption that the matter was worth years
And until the flower turned into a perfect cup, he asked the insect
And he said please keep coming because one day you will be able to dream here
Endless and free
And the insect answered, leave, my life span is only two weeks
L. A. B. Beaz
I once had the chance to give a lecture on evolution at the observatory in Givatayim and many of the listeners were ultra-Orthodox. They of course expressed their displeasure with the conclusions of evolution, and did not stop, and continued, and continued, until……
Well, Genesis, L, 25
What is this about?, Jacob our father works the Armenian Laban for Rachel and Leah and without payment and then he comes to Laban, flatters him and asks for his wages. Laban answers (verse 28): "A nikba is your burden on me and I will give it to you."
Now comes the interesting passage in which Jacob shows that, unlike the ultra-Orthodox today, he knew what evolution was and knew what to demand (verse 32): "I will pass over all your sheep today, remove from there everything that is spotted and braided, and whatever is brown in the sheep and spotted and spotted in the goats, and it will be my reward", in a free translation he asked White All red or striped sheep. Since these were not many, the Armenian son thought that here he had done the business of his life, Jacob was asking for a minimal amount for his work.
But, I already said that Jacob knew evolution, and immediately acted as required:-
"And on that day he removed the spotted and spotted goats, and all the spotted and spotted goats, everything that had white in it, and everything that was brown in color; And he gave, in the hands of his sons. And he went there, three days' journey, between him and Jacob; And Jacob, a shepherd of Laban's sheep. And Jacob took him a stick of brick, almonds, and chestnuts; And he split them, white shards - exposing the white, which is on the sticks. He moistened and displayed, the sticks that he had split, in the water troughs - where the sheep would come to drink in the presence of the sheep, and it would warm up in the bowl to drink. And the sheep turned to the sticks; And the flock was born, knotted and spotted. From the sheep, Jacob separated, and gave the face of the sheep to Akod and Kal-Hum, in a white sheep; And he had flocks by himself, and he did not feed on the white sheep. And so it was, in all the heat of the bound sheep, and there he would follow the sticks for the eyes of the sheep, Bharatim - for heat, with sticks. From and in the sheepfold, it will not be used; And the wrapped ones were for Laban, and the bound ones were for Jacob. Mag and the man broke out, very very; And he had many flocks, and maidservants and servants, and camels and donkeys." End quote.
Simply put what he did, he separated the redheads and swags from all of them and let the rest give birth to more redheads and swags. In addition, in order to increase fertility, he also used sticks processed in a certain way that the sheep must have taken a liking to them and they were fruitful and multiplied a lot.
And it worked, and how it worked, even among the camel and donkey slave girls.
Therefore, I suggest to the religious today, to be proud of themselves and to do as the Anglican Church did, to apologize to Darwin, and say: "Sorry, but we said it first"
The question is whether this story can work today on... donkeys?, I'm not sure.
Have a good and blessed day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Science can only investigate material existence by experiment
and observing how Hash behaves in as many experiments as possible
and set rules. Discover new materials and define them.
Fertilize eggs to understand and change genetics but always
We will need an egg that exists in our world. The scientist cannot create an egg
Or insemination. Lish will always be needed for any manipulation whatsoever
So far there is not and should not be a problem, not even with the question of how
Matter was created and how man was created in six or sixty days.
The problem begins when science penetrates the essence and from it and in its language
The experimental language tries to define and set rules.
Science has been trying for years to understand how one quark exists at a time
in at least two places
Science knows about the existence of the smallest particles from calculations
Mathematicians only and cannot understand how and how they behave
And every experiment and the very experiment itself causes different behavior.
According to the scientists, the lack of knowledge and the ability to research is rooted in disability
The devices that exist today. The result of a lack of understanding may be temporary
It is true that the Torah does not know how to make glycerin and is not an instruction book
Lettis start
But Darwin, how did Tzipi Livni say "small on her"
To Judah
shutter.
Hugin: At the top.
are limited
to my people
In connection with the responses of Michael, Roy Cezana and Hugin.
I actually think you are right. For example, I, who do not believe in the existence of gravitation in large cosmological systems, would I ever have a chance of being accepted into teaching? And if I were a teacher, I am sure that the dismissal letter would have reached me a long time ago.
Yigal, the head of the Israeli Astronomy Association, once told me that I was lucky that astronomy was not my profession, because I was unemployed.
It is a lie to think that Newton and others reached their conclusions after hundreds of experiments. Only a cold analysis of the situation known in their time, led them to abandon the paradigms known in their time and create new ones.
The knowledge that scientists are open to changes is also greatly exaggerated. I don't blame a dark mass expert whose entire Ph.D. was done on this topic to willingly agree to accept Sabdarmish's opinion that dark mass does not exist.
Unfortunately, the development of science is done more in the direction of finding excuses for existing theoretical problems, than changing the theories. The main thing is to continue with the existing paradigm.
Examples: - Gravitation was not neglected at the great cosmological distances, even though they discovered a gross inaccuracy in the calculations - remember the results of ten times and even ten thousand times the rotational motion of the spiral galaxies?, what was the solution they found, they added a mysterious dark mass and a visible mass.
And what happened next?, we discovered that the universe actually accelerates its expansion, again contrary to any possible gravitation in the high rocks of the cosmos. Once again this was proof that the whole concept of gravitation and dark mass is incorrect because the universe will have to slow its expansion and maybe even collapse.
Did this cause gravity to be neglected in the high rocks? No, no! Simple and easy, they invented the dark energy that will help them get through this problem, the main thing is not to give up the beloved gravity.
Now what is left for scientists to do, is to build the largest machine in the world, the axis accelerator, one of its tasks, and perhaps the main one, is to find the two particles of dark mass and dark energy.
Will they find?, what do you think I think?, what do you think?.
So let's not be naive. People don't change their opinions and their paradigms that quickly, and the truth is, I don't know what could make them change their opinions because you can always pull out excuses and explanations for the difficult theoretical problems that emerge. In the days of Galileo-Newton, the changes were made on simple ideas, anyone could go up on Migdal and do an experiment on the subject of free fall, but today it is about the high spheres, and anyone can say what they want and the possibilities for experiment and proof are limited.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael
Maybe the day after tomorrow we'll see..we'll see..we'll see..everything and the right time.
Good night.
Hugin:
I do not accept your argument.
Science has not lost its sources and in fact does not need sources to progress.
Let's test your proposal scientifically by experiment.
If you know how science should progress - please advance it with something. Tell us one truth that is unknown and can be tested experimentally.
Michael:
You're probably right, although I always have a tendency to send people wondering—just far away sometimes
You don't see and maybe it's hard to see - directly. This is also the essence of all broad education - it must swallow distance and raise a bird in order to see the whole picture.
What happened in the meantime that from the trees to the forest spaces and distance——–science also lost the connection to its origins.
So, the "keys" that we are talking about - here I present to you one by one and to all of them. In fact, in each and every response. What remains is (even if at the given pace) that slowly and maybe suddenly you will see and understand the essence of the "key" or keys that I have shared with you on the site.
So, that's it for now.
Hugin
Ami,
First of all, I object to the emphasis on the 'breakthroughs' such as Darwin, Pasteur, Newton, Einstein and the like. It is important to remember that the theories that those scientists created were based on hundreds of experiments and results made by 'less great' scientists. Grand theories are not created out of thin air, but are the result of a gradual process of research done by the entire scientific community. When enough problems accumulate in a certain theory, a particularly determined and talented scientist comes along, collects all the evidence and creates a new and more successful theory from them.
In other words, it is not that the rest of the scientists are 'mediocre people with little flight'. They advance science step by step, in their own way. When the time is right, and those people have accumulated enough results to confirm a new theory, then there is a paradigm shift. Many scientists, in my opinion, strive to discover and publish the theory that will break all conventions. What to do - not everyone succeeds in this, but many manage to change the existing theories in their small fields. In almost every field of science today, every 5-10 years a basic premise is broken. Many such breaks eventually lead to a paradigmatic change. And the whole point is that compared to religion, the rate of change of theories is so great that it is almost impossible to compare, and each new theory brings us a little closer to a more correct description of reality.
Ami:
The story about the professor is beautiful except that of course - it never existed and was never created.
The scientific establishment is a little unwieldy and it has to be because every conclusion has to be checked by many people.
There is no escape from this and it has nothing to do with your claim to which we responded. I repeat: contrary to what is stated in your claim, the world of science does not pursue power and conservatism and there is no basis for comparing it to the world of religion.
Hugin:
I do not intend to read any book to continue the discussion.
I assume that you are able to write a concise explanation of your words and also an answer to my questions (which were certainly not answered in the book) so please - don't be lazy.
Good Morning
I think that at this stage it is useful to read books by a company that understands the "near-distant" interest - I recommend the book "translated into Hebrew" by GG Hortek - "The Keys of Hanoch" - as preparation.
It is true that it was written in 1973 and only recently translated. But it concerns the steps that must be taken before you
Let's move on. And he is definitely suitable for nice infidels like you! And then we'll talk..ha..haha
In the blessing, you will be good children
Hugin
The approach that Roy and Michael present is a bit naive in my opinion.
The ability and the ability to break through the difficult and conservative boundaries in science is found in few and indeed most of us are mediocre scientists and not groundbreaking. It was Ran Levy from our acquaintance who told about that professor who tried to prove that matter can exceed the speed of light and discovered that what is faster than the speed of light is the time it took for his dismissal letter to reach him from the moment he proposed the idea. Very conservative science. It is true that from time to time there are upheavals and they are the ones that move science forward in great strides, but the crowd, the scientists, the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world - these are ordinary people overall. Mediocre people like most of us, with a little flight, without the ability to break conventions and conventions and that is how it is customary and accepted then and always. Once in a century, some Newton comes along who turns the bowl upside down and places, within the limits of science (it's always within the limits of mathematics by the way, if you can say that mathematics has limits) a better alternative.
The possibility of esoteric research is very strongly limited by the scientific establishment that does not allow research grants for esoteric research and of course also by the poor human material that does not bother or is not able to invent and think about science outside of science. I don't claim to be like that, by the way. Oh no. I passed the age of 30 and still haven't changed the world. It is unlikely that this will happen to me. So my review is both internal and external.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Forget about it.. God will not answer you.
I don't allow him
Hugin:
I did not understand.
According to you, after 21.12.2008/XNUMX/XNUMX we will have to switch to normal and not special preparation?
Why did you bring up the possibility that I would deny your existence? Have I ever atone for the existence of someone who exists?
The above question is addressed not only to Hugin but also to God if he exists and knows how to read.
Michael
Let's think, is a "key" designed to open something? Most likely yes.
A. What is the same "thing" that the key corresponds to? Is it the master of many doors, treasure boxes, information,....the holy of holies of the universes and creation. Entering the essence without prior preparation may disrupt all systems at the same time. Boom and nothing. And this is similar to Enos a virgin
The being. The core of the universe. Have you dedicated yourselves to this procedure?? Or are you actually rudely desecrating again
and over and over again my sanctified vitality in order to preserve the core of your existence. If you decided to commit suicide in the "most" elegant...scientific way, I should probably prepare my "keys" to at least escape from your world. Therefore, I must prepare you.
Now you can refute my words. We have time until 21.12.2008 for a special preparation.
But let's say that at this stage all your rebuttals are necessary for me for everything - and in order to prepare or defend myself.
Even if you say "for me you don't exist", this is an essence and a definition that you must check. If so, what is the proof of this? Is there anyone whose existence can be denied? Etc.
The truth is, Michael, I'm terribly tired and my place is passing on a spiritual inheritance and spare tools and keys to you. You know, just in case. This is it.
Hugin:
Just in case I ever want to do this on purpose and not accidentally:
How do you decrypt keys?
For Michael and Gil (well, if Roy and Ami are also interested, that's really fine.)
Harini hereby declares that the "keys" have always been in your hands.
And what you did, and perhaps unintentionally, you refuted them.
until they turned to gas.
So now that the dignity of our Darwin has been recognized by the Anglicans as well (the angels..hahaha) you have received more keys, something modern, original and refined to raise evolution
To the next stage.
So on behalf of all the pure and pure souls, we wish you success on one condition, and that is the main thing
Dear Paz, don't refute our existence any more.. otherwise.. we won't know.. hahahaha
Hugin: With the deepest seriousness you have ever known.
hahaha 😀
God forbid, I don't understand what this Hugin is saying.
And I think I'm a little more understandable.
Ami:
Science harnesses people's pursuit of power, happiness and wealth to advance human knowledge.
It is not for nothing that it is said "the jealousy of writers breeds wisdom."
Science is based on individuals pursuing their goals personally and taking responsibility for their words.
Religion harnesses human limitations for its own preservation and therefore it produces groups of zombies that are produced according to a uniform pattern and work together for preservation.
Therefore, religious jealousy increased - not wisdom, but war.
Pine:
What you describe is the god of gaps.
There will always remain unknown things and the religious will always use them to say that there is God.
The only way to "reconcile" science and religion is by religion renouncing the claims that science refutes.
In the meantime, science has already disproved all the main claims of religion regarding the way the world was created, so now the decent religious (those who understand that the revelations of science are superior to the claims of religion, in terms of their proximity to the truth) claim that everything science has discovered is true, but that it was God who activated the whole process.
The interesting thing about this is that with their (justified) folding in the face of the revelations of science, they also add claims to religion that were never made in it. Where does it say in the book of books that God just put the keys in and said to the world "Go!"?
age:
In a moment you will be Hugin.
Ami,
Scientists, in general, pursue power and conservatism just like religious people. The difference between religion and science is not expressed in the people who engage in them, but in the rules to which they are subject. Religion has one rule - "Believe, no matter what". Science has another rule - "Find the truth, no matter what."
When a cleric sees evidence that contradicts his belief, he must oppose it. When the scientist sees evidence that contradicts his belief in an existing theory, he is obliged to test it and verify which of the two theories are correct, and then change his belief to the theory that has proven itself.
You can be a cynic, of course, and claim that all scientists blindly follow the theories they were taught. From my experience, there are many such, but there are also many others who constantly try to examine the existing theories and find refutations for them. And the beautiful part is that when they succeed, the rest of the scientific world must accept their proofs, if indeed they are strong enough and correspond to the measured reality.
This is the main difference between religion and science. Science changes all the time and evaluates itself according to reality. The religion remains the same as much as it can, and insists on not examining itself according to the rules of reality and nature, if they contradict the existing example.
Asaf
Don't be a Hasid, learn!!!
Hugin: The collection.
All that remains is to instill wisdom in the heads of the followers of astrology/numerology, etc., so that the world starts to look more normal...
Are they apologizing to their generations?
If not, then Ehud Barak will soon apologize on behalf of the Labor Party.
A few more elections and the nonsense will begin.
It is beautiful this symbolic gesture especially today with all creationists.
To the point and Hogin
It is true that the Maimonides in Mora Nabukim (Hebrew, chapter XNUMX), raises the principle possibility that the world is primitive (a possibility that at the end Maimonides rejects this possibility, see ibid). But even for this method, God is the one who created the world.
Even though the Rambam advocates logical explanations for the mitzvot, he opposes explanations of mikary or spontaneous development of the heavenly substance, without God's intervention.
Therefore, in my opinion, this is just a statement by some priest from the Anglican Church without going into details about how evolution really fits with religion or what can be bridged between the fields and what is impossible to achieve.
To pine
This is the "spontaneity" of the universe))) an abstract witness in the space)) from which thought began < and from here both the religions and the teachings to many, many, many branches... to many connections (as we will see in the DNA
And as all the galaxies are reflected in the clouds. (This is in a nutshell)
I do not understand….
After all, everything is connected together, science and religion.
Why is it so hard to understand?
God created everything in the form of the big bang, whether it is from his thought or something else,
It is not so relevant because belief in God is also a choice and therefore as soon as you start from the assumption that there is a God you don't ask what was before.
Everything is God's creation.
But the permission is given.
It does not exist in the physiological sense of the word
These in its quantum sense,
We Christians feel God in every choice we make,
The hardest thing is to choose the choices that God wants us to make all the time
God flows through all of us and we all feel Him but only some of us listen.
If I could choose all the time what is needed, I would move on, but it is quite difficult because I am only human.
God is beyond dimensions.
Oren, you are wrong.
Even those who believe in God do not have to believe that he created the world. See Leibovitz (Rambam).
There are ways to bridge Judaism (or any other religion) and evolution,
See, for example, in the Wikipedia entry Torah and science
Therefore, there are religious people or believers who have long ago received the decree of reconciliation on this issue...
The Anglican Church is not a pioneer in the matter of bridging religion and science.
However, the question is how it all started, did it all start by chance,
Or that God is the one who started the creation and directed all the processes.
At this point, no clergyman will agree to compromise, including the priest mentioned in the article!!
Well.. Derwintska? Didn't we tell you that in the end you would also get recognition? Here you are.
And thank you in the name of Hod Damlakuta for the whole uplifting process to the people of Israel.
Hugin: In the name of the "first empress" - Amalitzka for great orders. - ISRAEL
charming,
Is the world of science distinctly different in its pursuit of power and conservatism than the world of religion?
A priest and a doctor….
How primitive can people be? To continue to believe in this or that higher power because they don't understand all the processes of the world..? Maso all those hypocrites who received an honorable title and also another title that is contrary to it, even though according to him they go together.
The religious establishment has always been a staunch opponent of important discoveries in science, and when the majority of the population of the religion's believers would accept the correctness of the discovery, the religious establishment would go back on its words, and even bring up ways in which the discovery even strengthens the correctness and power of the religion.
Isn't it clear that the Mossad is an organization whose entire will is power, which it derives from its blind believers, for whom the truth is the things that the Mossad presents as truth?
Totally an organization whose whole desire is power, which uses religion as a tool in which people easily fall into its trap, with the help of big words. Power is for increasing power and for keeping the unwanted away.