Print
A natural selection
by UC Observer
Thanks to Craig Howard for the link.
http://www.ucobserver.org/columns/observations/2008/05/
A natural selection
Why a faith-based magazine feels it's important to sponsor a museum exhibit on Charles Darwin.
By David Wilson
My colleague Rev. Lee Simpson called to me from her office one morning late last winter. "Did you hear William Thorsell on the radio last night?" she asked.
Thorsell runs the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Lee, The Observer's operations director, had heard Thorsell on CBC's weekday drive-home show plugging a new visiting exhibit about the life and work of Charles Darwin. In the course of the interview, Thorsell mentioned that the museum had been unable to secure any corporate sponsorship for the exhibit, which was highly unusual. Follow-up news stories painted an even starker picture: major corporate sponsors had shunned "Darwin and the Evolution Revolution" everywhere else it had been mounted — in New York, where it originated, in Chicago, in Boston. The consensus was that Darwin and evolution were "too hot to handle."
To me, that's like saying gravity is too hot to handle. But let's be charitable and concede that corporations in the U.S. have a legitimate fear of getting caught in the crossfire of the ugly evolutionary wars that have raged in recent years over attempts to get evolution banned from the classroom or discredited as a science. What I can't accept is the U.S. creationist chill creeping across our border.
"Do you think we should sponsor the exhibit?" Lee asked. The more we thought about it, the more we were drawn to the conclusion it would be consistent with this magazine's history of advocating a healthy, respectful relationship between religion and public education. That stance actually goes back to Darwin's own era, when our founder, Egerton Ryerson, a Methodist minister, fought for the establishment of public education in Upper Canada. Sponsoring the exhibit would also make a statement: if a small faith-based operation like ours isn't afraid to support a museum exhibit that encourages people to think about their place in creation, then large secular corporations shouldn't be afraid either.
We went to see the exhibit for ourselves. I was struck by how it captured the intellectual excitement of Darwin's age, the sense that his theory of natural selection helped humans unlock some of the mysteries of life — maybe not the why, but the how. I found myself musing on how the theory evokes the inherent beauty of a creation that is constantly and eternally evolving. And I was impressed by the exhibit's straightforward take on the historic tensions between religion and evolution. There is nothing in the Darwin exhibit that threatens or diminishes religion or people of faith. Interestingly, I bumped into a United Church minister who was touring the exhibit with his wife and two friends. I asked him what he thought about it. "Great," he said. By the end of the day, we were sponsors.
Our sponsorship consists mostly of promotional favours. The financial portion comes from money earmarked in our budget for special projects. From the outset, our hunch was that readers would support what we were doing. And they have, overwhelmingly (see Letters, page 6).
This is a project of The Observer, not The United Church of Canada, but clearly it has touched a nerve of goodwill toward the United Church. I've been amazed by how many people have written or called to say how proud they are to be United Church members.
I've been doubly amazed by the number of people outside the church who've called to express their admiration. I wonder if there isn't a lesson here for the United Church as it discerns a path into an uncertain future: engage with the culture, and maybe the culture will engage with you.
http://www.ucobserver.org/columns/observations/2008/05/
A natural selection
Why a faith-based magazine feels it's important to sponsor a museum exhibit on Charles Darwin.
By David Wilson
My colleague Rev. Lee Simpson called to me from her office one morning late last winter. "Did you hear William Thorsell on the radio last night?" she asked.
Thorsell runs the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Lee, The Observer's operations director, had heard Thorsell on CBC's weekday drive-home show plugging a new visiting exhibit about the life and work of Charles Darwin. In the course of the interview, Thorsell mentioned that the museum had been unable to secure any corporate sponsorship for the exhibit, which was highly unusual. Follow-up news stories painted an even starker picture: major corporate sponsors had shunned "Darwin and the Evolution Revolution" everywhere else it had been mounted — in New York, where it originated, in Chicago, in Boston. The consensus was that Darwin and evolution were "too hot to handle."
To me, that's like saying gravity is too hot to handle. But let's be charitable and concede that corporations in the U.S. have a legitimate fear of getting caught in the crossfire of the ugly evolutionary wars that have raged in recent years over attempts to get evolution banned from the classroom or discredited as a science. What I can't accept is the U.S. creationist chill creeping across our border.
"Do you think we should sponsor the exhibit?" Lee asked. The more we thought about it, the more we were drawn to the conclusion it would be consistent with this magazine's history of advocating a healthy, respectful relationship between religion and public education. That stance actually goes back to Darwin's own era, when our founder, Egerton Ryerson, a Methodist minister, fought for the establishment of public education in Upper Canada. Sponsoring the exhibit would also make a statement: if a small faith-based operation like ours isn't afraid to support a museum exhibit that encourages people to think about their place in creation, then large secular corporations shouldn't be afraid either.
We went to see the exhibit for ourselves. I was struck by how it captured the intellectual excitement of Darwin's age, the sense that his theory of natural selection helped humans unlock some of the mysteries of life — maybe not the why, but the how. I found myself musing on how the theory evokes the inherent beauty of a creation that is constantly and eternally evolving. And I was impressed by the exhibit's straightforward take on the historic tensions between religion and evolution. There is nothing in the Darwin exhibit that threatens or diminishes religion or people of faith. Interestingly, I bumped into a United Church minister who was touring the exhibit with his wife and two friends. I asked him what he thought about it. "Great," he said. By the end of the day, we were sponsors.
Our sponsorship consists mostly of promotional favours. The financial portion comes from money earmarked in our budget for special projects. From the outset, our hunch was that readers would support what we were doing. And they have, overwhelmingly (see Letters, page 6).
This is a project of The Observer, not The United Church of Canada, but clearly it has touched a nerve of goodwill toward the United Church. I've been amazed by how many people have written or called to say how proud they are to be United Church members.
I've been doubly amazed by the number of people outside the church who've called to express their admiration. I wonder if there isn't a lesson here for the United Church as it discerns a path into an uncertain future: engage with the culture, and maybe the culture will engage with you.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 39 of 39 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #179870 by nalfeshnee on May 13, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Interestingly, what The Observer entirely fails to mention is that that the initial co-sponsor of this project (other sponsors have now also come forward) is the Humanist Association of Canada.Read the press release from the museum itself, here:
http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=qtur22rxkp
Correction: to be fair, the HAC doesn't mention the United Church either: http://www.humanists.ca/press-releases/.
Shame: would have been a nice opportunity for both sides to share in the glory, rather than claiming it for themselves.
Also interesting is the poll on their front page: "Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution [sic] compatible with your faith?"
Answers so far: Yes 79%, No 21%.
OK, I confess I voted.
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
3. Comment #179884 by Dinah on May 13, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I bumped into a United Church minister who was touring the exhibit with his wife and two friends. I asked him what he thought about it. "Great," he said.
Well, that's all right then. The theory of evolution is saved.
Other Comments by Dinah
4. Comment #179899 by Philip1978 on May 14, 2008 at 1:15 am
Hmmm good and bad I think.I like the idea that this magazine is open minded enough not react in the frantic manner of lets say the creationist movement, I find that encouraging.
But I still have this small annoyance with the words
I was struck by how it captured the intellectual excitement of Darwin's age, the sense that his theory of natural selection helped humans unlock some of the mysteries of life - maybe not the why, but the how.
Why does the why in that sentence have to imply by default that a god was involved?
I am probably being far too pedantic but I simply cannot see the reason for saying things like that when the explanation of why does not cut the mustard when invoking an impossibly complex god to oversee and manipulate evolution by natural selection.
Am I being too picky? If so I will get back to my enormously large cup of Tea and appreciate the reasonable stance this magazine is taking! :)
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
5. Comment #179903 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 1:23 am
Philip-
it's essentially the default statement on evolution, so he had to say it. But otherwise, this is very reasonable behaviour.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
6. Comment #179909 by mixmastergaz on May 14, 2008 at 1:32 am
I don't think you are being too picky Philip. This how/why thing gets on my nerves too. Also there seems to me to be something slightly self-congratulatory about this. Only fools boast about doing something that one ought to be doing anyway. It's like seeking praise for not being irrational, closed-minded arseholes. Of course, I'm pleased that this group are more open minded than most of their co-religionists but there's no need to champion them for it; it's what they ought to be doing anyway. Other Comments by mixmastergaz
7. Comment #179915 by Adam Morrison on May 14, 2008 at 1:47 am
It's good to see that the anti-evolution sentiment isn't really seeping into Canada (or so I hope), but it's dissapointing to see companies refuse to sponsor it due to US media perspectives.
I'm definitely going to have to stop in Ontario on my way back to the prairies.
Other Comments by Adam Morrison
8. Comment #179918 by gcdavis on May 14, 2008 at 1:53 am
Unlike the US, in the UK most Anglican and Jewish leaders and quite a few Catholics too, accept Evolution as fact, perhaps not to the extent of sponsoring a Darwin exhibition. However it is just these moderates that RD (and I agree) finds most irritating. The creationists assert the bible is truth and act accordingly, daft but at least consistent. People like those in from the UC Observer pick and choose which bits they regard as true leaving the unpalatable bits to one side. This policy is dishonest but it chimes with the way many people think about religion.
http://whengodsonyourside.blogspot.com/
Other Comments by gcdavis
9. Comment #179919 by Apeseed on May 14, 2008 at 1:54 am
It is very depressing though that in a world where corporations have no problem doing business with states who have abysmal human rights records Darwin and evolution were "too hot to handle."Other Comments by Apeseed
10. Comment #179936 by LaTomate on May 14, 2008 at 2:40 am
I don't really see what the fuss is about. I guess it's because I don't live in the US... Comment #179918 by gcdavis:
Unlike the US, in the UK most Anglican and Jewish leaders and quite a few Catholics too, accept Evolution as fact
One of my ex-girlfriends came from a staunchly catholic family, and I remember seeing a book issued by the Vatican explaining how evolution works. I think the Vatican had only recently accepted evolution as a valid scientific theory at that point.
I doubt there is a real conflict between Islam and evolution either, if you twist and squish everything hard enough to fit.
This evolution vs creationism debate is not raging in Europe for the moment, and I hope creationism will never try to impose itself on us like it is in the US :/
Other Comments by LaTomate
11. Comment #179938 by BNCbright on May 14, 2008 at 2:41 am
Am I being dense, or does it seem that the belief that species alive today as a result of evolution through some version of Darwinian natural selection originating from some large organic compounds billions of year ago is DIRECTLY incompatible with a relgious belief of God as the creator of life and some 'special' status of humans as compared to other animals, or inanimate objects for that matter?! We seem to have more respect for 'moderate' Christians (or others) who believe in evolution as well as their faith, but in so far as they're both wrong (for the God bit) and seemingly believing contradictory things (as above) - isn't the bible bashing nut job on safer ground (half-joking)? Moderates seem to want to have their cake and eat it. I don't like that a great deal. Another prime example is the prevalent, and equally odd, belief by many religious that any other religion is preferable to atheism (Islam probably not included in this example), or at least that there is little wrong in moving from one denomination to another or converting in order to marry. Isn't this just conceding that you might be wrong after all, and all the other religions have just as much 'chance' of getting it right?
BNC
Other Comments by BNCbright
12. Comment #179946 by Barry Pearson on May 14, 2008 at 2:55 am
gcdavis said: Unlike the US, in the UK most Anglican and Jewish leaders and quite a few Catholics too, accept Evolution as fact, perhaps not to the extent of sponsoring a Darwin exhibitionThere are several religious organisations in the US that are prepared to stand up and be counted.
National Center for Science Education - Statements from Religious Organizations:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3992_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp
This is actually important, whatever the motives of the organisations concerned. Parents trying to avoid Creationism & ID encroaching on science classes are often religious, as are school officials and presumably local politicians (and judges!) One of the methods recommended by NCSE is to ensure that the battle is seen not as "evolution versus religion" (or "evolution = atheism"), but instead "science & sensible religious people versus Creationism & ID".
It is also why Ken Miller is a better witness than Richard Dawkins in such trials!
EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
13. Comment #179951 by Barry Pearson on May 14, 2008 at 3:04 am
LaTomate said: I remember seeing a book issued by the Vatican explaining how evolution works. I think the Vatican had only recently accepted evolution as a valid scientific theory at that point.I thought the Vatican still believed that humans are a special case? (Eg. specially created with a soul?)
I doubt there is a real conflict between Islam and evolution either, if you twist and squish everything hard enough to fit.
My reading is that vast numbers of muslims believe there is a conflict. Harun Yahya appears to have had a big impact on school policy in Turkey (Old-World Creationism). In a Channel 4 TV programme in the UK, a question was asked of the muslim audience and perhaps half indicated that they didn't believe in evolution. It is hard to tell from the Koran what the official line should be, but there are plenty who go along with the Creationist line, especially given the general belief that Allah created the universe.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
14. Comment #179953 by enew on May 14, 2008 at 3:06 am
11267erOther Comments by enew
15. Comment #179954 by enew on May 14, 2008 at 3:08 am
sorry last post a error, simply testing my account valid continue pleaseOther Comments by enew
16. Comment #179956 by rod-the-farmer on May 14, 2008 at 3:11 am
No, Philip1978, I think you ARE being a bit picky. As an ex-member of the UC of Canada, I think it is great their magazine chose to sponsor the exhibit. Never mind the how/why question, I think/hope this sponsorship will become news in all those places in the U.S. which refused to show it. I can easily imagine those museums saying "See, not all religions are against evolution ! Only some extremists." If I lived in one of those U.S. cities where the exhibit was NOT shown, I would be on the phone to the radio/TV people, asking if they heard about this, and why don't they make it a small news item. Sometimes you have to prod them a bit to get them to open the controversy. Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
17. Comment #179961 by Apeseed on May 14, 2008 at 3:18 am
The British government is funding more than 100 Islamic faith schools where they are teaching the Quranic version of creation. I read that the government weren't enforcing the teaching of evolution in the curriculum for fear of coming off as anti-Islamic. There was also the case two years ago of the Muslim medical students handing out leaflets denying evolution. Islam might turn out to be a greater danger for the teaching of evolution in Europe than Evangelical Christianity which is still pretty marginal.Other Comments by Apeseed
18. Comment #179974 by Philip1978 on May 14, 2008 at 3:43 am
Rod-the-farmerCool, I will take that under consideration, I just thought I would air an idea and see where it got me. The English and History Graduate in me wanted to pick on something! :)
I really don't want to understate the importance of what these guys are doing, I fully appreciate the idea that they want to confront this ridiculous notion that evolution is false. Too many people are being warded off the idea and its time to project a better image, knowledge of evolution should never be a scary thing.
But I still think that the future of this breaking of the "controversy" surrounding this issue would be better placed to not keep invoking something too complex like a god to explain something like evolution. Teaching evolution should be a lot easier than that, religion has built up a very unnecessary wall to stall attempts at furthering its progress.
I think the How/Why argument is still annoying and unhelpful, it does not do much good mucking around sticking gods into it but I will give the magazine its due credit and hope it encourages other magazines to do the same and possibly further people's understanding rather than scare them off it
Right, I will get back to my tea, thanks for the advice
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
19. Comment #179979 by Sally Luxmoore on May 14, 2008 at 4:02 am
In my view, religion really is incompatible with an acceptance of the theory of evolution and therefore those 'middle of the road' Christians who say they accept it have not considered (or worse, are deliberately ignoring) the following two questions:1. Please explain where the doctrine of 'original sin' came from in a world where evolution is an accepted fact (i.e. no expulsion from Eden).
If you can't explain this, then in what sense did Jesus die for you?
2. Please explain, since in your theology only humans have 'souls', at what point in the approximately 200,000 years of human evolution did 'god' inject that soul?
I keep asking Christians these questions. I would genuinely like to hear their response. However, no-one has ever answered me.
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
20. Comment #179983 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 14, 2008 at 4:11 am
Sponsoring the exhibit would also make a statement: if a small faith-based operation like ours isn't afraid to support a museum exhibit that encourages people to think about their place in creation, then large secular corporations shouldn't be afraid either.
Damn, talk about sticking it to the man. Kinda reminds me of DonExodus debunking creationism...as a Christian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_5Vstf6OHk
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
21. Comment #179988 by LaTomate on May 14, 2008 at 4:19 am
Comment #179951 by Barry PearsonI thought the Vatican still believed that humans are a special case? (Eg. specially created with a soul?)
I recall the book actually had the picture of an ape turning into a man (you know, the famous evolution image).
I think Catholic believers in evolution think that "God made man in his image" means that every human has a soul, which resembles god, and that adam and eve were the first "souled" humans.
I think that's bollocks, of course, but we need to get help against creationism where we can.
As for Muslims, I know there's a conflict. I was a Muslim and raised in a Muslim country and was not taught evolution in biology class but my teacher hinted at it and told us if we were interested to read it up ourselves.
I know a lot of Muslims who are ashamed of the state of science in their countries and Islam's seemingly opposition to science in some cases. They believe (and I did when I was a believer) that science and Islam should not ever be incompatible. I think the state of things there is pretty much as it is in the US... people are very divided.
I think there's also a huge misunderstanding over there (and in every society actually, even "advanced" ones): people confuse science and engineering - or science and technology. They don't really understand what science really is, and how people practice science. They still believe that what scientists do is make nicer mobile phones and computers (I say this but I'm a software engineer myself).
You always hear of third world countries wanting to modernise through technology, but as soon as the science behind it is contrary to their beliefs, they close their eyes and cover their ears. Stoopid.
Other Comments by LaTomate
22. Comment #179994 by 5keptical on May 14, 2008 at 4:28 am
The United Church of Canada is quite progressive and hence is reviled by most of the others.A friend's marriage ceremony was presided over by a long-time friend of the family who is an openly gay female minister of the UC.
Not every "religious" person is closed-minded or non-rational (it just seems that way sometimes...)
Other Comments by 5keptical
23. Comment #180001 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 14, 2008 at 4:49 am
I've been doubly amazed by the number of people outside the church who've called to express their admiration.
What's their number? They accept intl calls? :)
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
24. Comment #180004 by Peacebeuponme on May 14, 2008 at 4:53 am
rod-the-farmerNo, Philip1978, I think you ARE being a bit picky.I disagree. The how/why distinction, that is often trotted out by amateur theists, is unthinking and boring. Including it in the statement above indicates that David (whilst gladly acting in a way we want moderates to) is shutting the door to science in dealing with certain questions - presumably ones that only religion can answer.
Its a "science can only get us so far" reference, and that is disappointing.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
25. Comment #180009 by Mr. Flibble on May 14, 2008 at 5:22 am
I am surprised that no one here has yet posted about actually seeing the exhibit. I did so 2 weeks ago. In a day of serendipity I was reading The God Delusion again on the Subway as I headed to the ROM to see the exhibit. :)I took about 3 hours to go through the whole exhibit. It is not very large per say, but I wanted to read every display, and every note laid out. I was surprised at how slowly other people were walking through it, and actually paying attention. It was not lacking in people in any way.
It is not the best exhibit to take the kids to, as I saw a few bored kids (except in the kids section of the exhibit).
The most surprising thing to me though, was the sheer volume of information had collected, and how much work he had done long before the beagle voyage on bug collecting etc.
Other Comments by Mr. Flibble
26. Comment #180016 by Andrew Stich on May 14, 2008 at 5:38 am
"Evolution can explain the how, but it cannot explain the why."As far as I can see, there are two main refutations to this argument:
1) Yes it can; it can explain why (how, rather) we feel that there is ulterior purpose. Those who genuinely think that there is no reason to live, will tend not to.
2) "Maybe evolution is the how, and God is the why." When explaining the origin of anything, one doesn't NEED a why (why, of course, meaning with regards to purpose). True purpose is something that can only be found in thinking beings and their creations; there is no evidence for an original thinking being called "God"; therefore, we can, for the sake of parsimony, assume that there is no why, at least relating to God. There also is no evidence for aliens having seeded our planet to accomplish some purpose (harvesting us, probably). The point is, it's not fair to randomly assume that everything has a purpose. It has to be demonstrated, like everything else.
Other Comments by Andrew Stich
27. Comment #180025 by Sally Luxmoore on May 14, 2008 at 5:53 am
"Evolution can explain the how, but it cannot explain the why."
Andrew:
I agree.
To put it more succinctly: 'What why?'
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
28. Comment #180045 by Johnny O on May 14, 2008 at 6:21 am
Islam might turn out to be a greater danger for the teaching of evolution in Europe than Evangelical Christianity which is still pretty marginal.
Maybe in Britain, but not in other European countries. Especially France. They don't even let Muslim children wear headscarfs at school.
And they won't get a sniff in the Scandanavian countries
Other Comments by Johnny O
29. Comment #180060 by black wolf on May 14, 2008 at 6:48 am
The why question boils down to the same trouble that the design inference gets into, just not as quickly and obviously. In order to determine the why, you have to either know the designer's/god's will and intentions/plans (which is what the religious claim to have gotten revealed, without any evidence above hearsay), or you have to reach an endpoint where nothing happens anymore in spite of what should happen through natural laws (read evolution). As the former is unlikely to a degree of about 1, and the latter is nowhere in sight, I think we can reasonably conclude with great certainty that the why question is as vacuous as the design presumption. Other Comments by black wolf
30. Comment #180086 by movingshadow on May 14, 2008 at 7:48 am
I feel much better about printing those UC newsletters, now Other Comments by movingshadow
31. Comment #180092 by Szymanowski on May 14, 2008 at 8:00 am
WHY were there no corporate sponsors?!Is Canada about to join the US, scraping away at the bottom of the barrel?
Other Comments by Szymanowski
32. Comment #180139 by AmericanGodless on May 14, 2008 at 9:06 am
The "How/Why" rhetoric, along with "NOMA" and "It's just the way God did it" are what Richard in TGD called the "Neville Chamberlain school" of evolution. Peace in our time. Make nice with the believers so that at least some mention of evolution can be made in science classes. Intellectual integrity and scientific consistency are downplayed in the interest of gaining political allies.It is sad, because it rips the heart out of the theory, promotes public misunderstanding, and risks delaying scientific progress. Future scientist who see evolution as a means used by a divine skyhook will be ill prepared for the work of discovering the cranes by which life originated and evolved. We can only hope that a sufficient number of students will see beyond the politics and actually get the point.
Other Comments by AmericanGodless
33. Comment #180156 by Solarium Solaris on May 14, 2008 at 9:38 am
gcdavis said
However it is just these moderates that RD (and I agree) finds most irritating. The creationists assert the bible is truth and act accordingly, daft but at least consistent.
Creationists definately don't act like they think the Bible is the literal word of God. When was the last time a Christian stoned a disobediant child? Christian fundamentalists, like moderates, in reality do pick and choose which parts of the Bible to live by, but just don't admit it or resort to the old "it's not meant to be literal" trick.
When people really act in accordance with the Bible (or Koran or whatever), you get the Middle East.
Other Comments by Solarium Solaris
34. Comment #180173 by SharonMcT on May 14, 2008 at 10:33 am
Mr. Flibble:I saw the exhibit in Chicago while I was there visiting. I was unaware of what the article above describes as a lack of sponsorship. The exhibit was just as crowded that day as it was for the previous exhibit I had been to at the Field Museum - King Tut.
I agree that from what I saw, people were really taking their time with it and getting as much enjoyment out of it as I was. It made my day, in fact, to see so many people at the museum devouring everything they could about Darwin. :)
I live in Edmonton as usually don't have access to a museum that offers these kinds of huge touring exhibits. I am glad to know that many Canadians will get the opportunity to go to this exhibit in particular, no matter who helps sponsor it.
Other Comments by SharonMcT
35. Comment #180227 by Apeseed on May 14, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Comment #180045 by Johnny O on May 14, 2008 at 6:21 am
Maybe in Britain, but not in other European countries. Especially France. They don't even let Muslim children wear headscarfs at school.
Actually in reaction to the headscarves debacle Islamic schools are now being opened in France.
PARIS â€" A fourth private Islamic school in France is to be inaugurated next week to meet the growing needs of the Muslim minority amid a boom in faith-based schools in the strictly secular European country.
And
There had been a strong desire among French Muslims, estimated at six to seven million, to have private Islamic schools after Paris banned hijab and religious symbols in state schools four years ago.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1203757659745&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout
Other Comments by Apeseed
36. Comment #180237 by notsobad on May 14, 2008 at 12:25 pm
his theory of natural selection helped humans unlock some of the mysteries of life - maybe not the why, but the how.
Evolution tells us that there is no original why, only what we make of it.
Am I being dense, or does it seem that the belief that species alive today as a result of evolution through some version of Darwinian natural selection originating from some large organic compounds billions of year ago is DIRECTLY incompatible with a relgious belief of God as the creator of life and some 'special' status of humans as compared to other animals, or inanimate objects for that matter?!
It's incompatible. If Genesis is not true, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, the rest of the book is pointless.
If someone accepts evolution and science, miracles are nonsense. If miracles are nonsense, the book is pointless.
Other Comments by notsobad
37. Comment #180241 by Grumpy Max on May 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Mixmastergaz wroteOnly fools boast about doing something that one ought to be doing anyway
I'm not sure this is true. It may be viewed as immodest, but in this instance it sure is useful. It does demonstrate that, whatever arguments you may have elsewhere with these people, there is at least some common ground. Which from the writer's point of view helps alleviate the knee-jerk "you attend church, therefore you're a moron" response, which, understandably, he wants to avoid. And by boasting about it he's got a lot of other faith-heads donating to what we all agree is a worthy cause.
I have a lot of time for thinking Christians (which isn't as oxymoronic as a lot of posters here assume!) and think we should welcome middle ground where we find it. They tend to do a lot of good works and not always as an excuse to evangelise on the side. Creationists are fucktards, though (with apologies to Irateatheist).
Other Comments by Grumpy Max
38. Comment #180334 by Mr. Flibble on May 14, 2008 at 3:53 pm
SharonMcT:I agree, it is good to see this kind of thing sponsored irrespective of who is the sponsor. I was unaware of the lack of funding as well until I read it here today. I am also fortunate to be working in Toronto for 2 months, as I live in Victoria BC.
Sadly though, as I am out here, Richard Dawkins has been speaking in Vancouver... That I would have liked to have seen as well!
I will say that I got quite a strong feeling of spirituality* from the exhibit. I often get a great feeling of incredible reverence at a museum.
*I should not need to clarify this, but by spirituality I am referring to this use in the same way as Einstein and Hawking and their mention of god.
Other Comments by Mr. Flibble
39. Comment #180726 by perkyjay on May 15, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Ever since I've lived in Nakusp I've had respect for United Church people. In fact I've said,"scratch a member of the United Church and you'll find a very lukewarm believer, even maybe an agnostic". Anyway they are,in the main, very pleasant people.Other Comments by perkyjay
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #179869 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 10:58 pm
A Darwin exhibit sponsored by a church. I would call this is a miracle had I believed in miracles. More events like these would help Christians contain the toxic versions of their faith themselves. But one must be careful, lest they not try to distort Darwin's message to suit their theological agenda.Other Comments by 82abhilash