Archive for the ‘science’ Category

And Darwin Replied….?

September 15, 2008

The ever entertaining hierarchy of the Church of England are at it again. This time they are apologising to Charles Darwin on the 200th anniversary of his birth. They are apologising to him for the Church of England’s negative response to his theory of natural selection. Its good knock-about stuff from the Cof E. Of course they are more interested in being pc than they are in being historical. It wasn’t only Christians who reacted negatively to Darwin’s theory it was also the scientific community who were much more severe on Darwin that Christians. Some Christians found the theory preposterous. Others were more ready to accept it but were worried about how some people, like Thomas Huxley, were pushing the theory to atheistic conclusions.

But here we have the Cof E making a pointless apology to a man who is dead and like so many of the pc brigade failing to accept that ideas and debates are part of the evolution of the historical process. They might be of more service if they actually encouraged serious interaction between the scientific and Christian worldviews today. On second thoughts maybe not, who knows what they might come up with.

I rather like the response of one of Darwin’s descendants to this apology. He says, ‘When an apology is made after 200 years, it’s not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.’ Exactly.

Watch this space for an apology to those atheists who have been offended by the CofE’s historic belief that God exists

Why do we look for God?

May 21, 2007

A recent article in the New York Times considered the current state of the scientific debate on how evolutionary theory can explain religious consciousness. Like all scientific theories where one enters the debate largely determines one’s findings. Those with Christian faith read the evidence that we are hard wired for religion because God made us that way. Sceptics however read the evidence as some kind of residual from a bye-gone era. The great problem that all have of course is defining religion. That religion means so many different things to so many different people.
I rather lean towards CS Lewis notion that our hunger for God is an appetite like any other appetite. That is that where we have an appetite it suggests that it has a capacity to be filled. It echoes Augustine’s great line, ‘O Lord you have made us for yourself; and so our hearts are restless until they find rest in you.’
The current scientific debate reminds us of the failure of modernity- that not everything can be explained by scientific data. Human knowing is not at the centre God is.
Scott Atran’s youthful outburst quoted in the article rather sums up the whole situation, ‘God exists, or if he doesn’t we’re in trouble.’
You can read the whole article at