Second-year dental student Emily Mackie said the university’s decision to call its inaugural Dundee Christmas Lecture “Why Evolution is Right … and Creationism is Wrong” is badly timed and insensitive to Christians. ...Miss Mackie, who is also a member of Dundee University’s Christian Union—reckons the lecture will create divisions rather than bring the community together.
She said, “I appreciate that the role of a university is to encourage academic debate on a wide range of sometimes controversial issues.However, as a Christian I am offended that the lecture purporting to coincide with such an important Christian festival has so clearly been chosen to antagonise Christians. I also feel that the lecture title allows no scope for a balanced debate on the subject. I call on the university to take a moral stand and choose a new title which better reflects the celebration of the birth of Christ.”
Source: The Courier
I think that Emily Mackie and like-minded Christians need to get over themselves by learning that Christmas isn't an exclusively Christian holiday and isn't all about them. The rest of the world doesn't need to stop what they are doing so that Christians can celebrate themselves and pretend that they are somehow special. If Christians want to focus on "the birth of Christ" this time of year, they are more than welcome to do so — though somehow few actually go so far as to eschew all the secular aspects. Isn't it curious how those most insistent about Christmas being a "religious" holiday spend more time on commercial and secular aspects than any religious ones?
Anyway, there's no reason why a university should put a hold on academic and scholarly topics which some Christians object to. Can you imagine the uproar from conservative Christians if a university actually did refuse to hold a lecture which Muslims complained was contradictory to their own religious beliefs? Many conservative Christians would be horrified at such censorship — but then we find some expecting just such treatment for themselves when their own religious beliefs are at stake. It seems to me that people who really were secure in their faith wouldn't be concerned.
of course science can prove creationism is wrong. since science can prove things it doesn’t actually observe right?
Hi There Random Guy,
It seems to me that not being around for most of our evolutionary history to observe it is not fatal for evolution or science generally. Lots of things in science are not directly observable. I don’t think anyone has directly seen an atom, certainly not an electron or any of the smaller sub-atomic particles. Yet, this part of the theory in physics has withstood rigorous testing, with plenty of fine-tuning of the theory along the way. And it is a sound basis of most of our modern technology. It works.
The case against creationism is really that the consequences in the real world that we would expect to see, such as no evidence of processes that would have taken longer than say 10,000 years, are not seen. There is geological evidence of processes, including evolutionary ones, but also things like decay of radioactive isotopes, formation and movement of continents, erosion of mountain ranges, that took hundreds of millions or even billions of years to happen.
Evolution, on the other hand, fits very nicely with available evidence. Also, and just as importantly, it gives biologists a great framework for organizing the discipline and making testible hypotheses about biological processes past and present.
You could, of course, maintain that the universe was really created 10,000 years ago (or something like that. Pick your date) and that God (to test faith for example) or the devil (to undermine faith) deliberately set it up to look as if the world were much older. This is the tack taken by some creation defenders. In the technical, philosophical sense, this may not be impossible. But this strategy takes it out of the realm of science which looks to use observation to test ideas and theories. And I don’t see any good reason to suppose that that is true.
Interestingly, my impression is that most of the mainline protestant denominations that have commented on this regard the creation story as allegorical or as some kind of non-literal account and see no contradiction between their beliefs and evolutionary theory. I think the official catholic position is similar, though that may change with the new pope. Many of our founding fathers (if you are american) were deists, who thought that god set up the world with creation and then just let it go without any interference later.
Even Baxter Black, the cowboy poet reconciled his belief in both genesis and evolution in a poem where he stated “God made the Earth in seven days, but that was cowboy time.” After giving a number of rhyming examples of cowboy time, he finished up with: “So I reckon the Lord sat back and told the angels ‘Take a break. We’ll get it done in seven days however long it takes.’”*(I think I’ve quoted accurately, but its been a few years since I’ve heard the poem. So apologies for any inaccuracies.)
i do not argue whether or not evolution is a viable theory/science. however does evolution disprove the creationist theory. because since science is based on observed patterns/occurrences that support the theory. however, the origin of life cannot be explain as a scientific problem in the words of Dr. Hubert P. Yockey.
i would be quiet interested in going to this lecture (even if i’m christian) because it seems interesting. unfortunately, i am not in Britain.
Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life, only after life has already begun. Evolution does have something to say about the origin of species.
I think we need more information on this story to make a decision.
How often does Dr. Jones give this lecture? Is its timing related to a class he teaches, or is this the only time to give the lecture at this location? Why is it being referred to as a “christmas lecture”?
It could be that the timing of the lecture is on purpose, to irritate Christians.
I belive evolution is right – but timing the lecture at christmas in order to bait the christians is wrong.
It is possible that the idea of evolution is distasteful to religions who reject it because evolution suggests growth, expansion, and change of the human psyche. These are things that religion’s do not want. The song is to remain the same tune sung 2000, 3000 years ago in the human psyche if one is to be faithful to a religious belief system. Those who have moved on from religion accept expansion of the mind and experiences and those who do not can’t fathom or process expansion of the mind and experiences.
I’d go a step further and point out that all the Biblical evidence points to Christ being born in the Spring time, not December.
The extra-biblical evidence points to Christ not being real at all.
(The extra-biblical evidence points to Christ not being real at all).
And if he was real, he was most likely a defector from the Nazarean Essenes.
Another problem with Emily Mackie’s complaint is that there’s the implied suggestion that all Christians oppose evolution.
Look at the absurd excuse being given to these Christians by a “mens rights advocate” (see whining misogynist with a victim complex) at reddit:
The phrase that comes to mind is ‘Who cares?’
Obviously Emily does, but I don’t see why anyone else really should.
Steve Jones is a big name. Evolution is his thing. It’s a popular topic.
What would be Ok to talk about?
‘How we know the Big Bang happened?’
‘Genetic modification and stem cell research?’
The interesting topics seem to upset some people. ‘How levers and pulleys affect mechanical advantage’ would just not generate the same type of public interest.
I think the university should do whatever it wants without regard to religion. But just for the record, if I lived in the area I’d be disappointed in the timing. Christmas is not a good day to hold an event like this. I’d be too tied up in family events to attend.
The creation story is in the OT, not the NT. Xmas supposedly celebrates JC who was introduced in the NT. So what’s the problem?
According to the university’s web site, the “Christmas Lecture” took place on December 1.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/pressreleases/2007/prnov07/annuallecture.html
December 1 is “World’s AIDS Day”. Perhaps that’s why Emily Mackie is upset.
Because if the creation story is not literally true, then there was no literal fall from innocence into sin. If there was no literal fall, it’s harder to justify the need for a literal sacrifice for the sake of a literal salvation.
Emily Mackie: I also feel that the lecture title allows no scope for a balanced debate on the subject.
Does Ms. Mackie understand that a “lecture” is different from a “debate?” I guess not.
There is also the consideration that randomguy is just an idiot (cretin, moron, pick your term)and so is Emilie Mackie.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves are impotent.
Emily’s problem seems to be a lack of understanding of Hebrew.In Chapter 1 of Genesis the waters above and the waters below are separated by what is described in English as a firmament.The Hebrew word Raqia suggests the idea of a beaten metal dome as the sky.It is difficult from this, among other things, I think to argue for a literal interpretation of the story.As Martin Luther once wrote , it is a shame that we christians don’t know our own books.