Darwin, Evolution and God: The Present Debates - Professor Alister McGrath

[@jwt242]

Very interesting lecture - definitely can't wait for the next one in his series...

[@1blackaura]

thanks for this interesting lecture

[@joshuaolian1245]

in effect, this was a great lecture

[@ADavidJohnson]

In effect.

[@PhilosophyVajda]

Seriously, does he say this prepositional phrase a hundred times in an hour?

[@michaelmckinney7240]

Nearly an hour to say mostly nothing, the most definitive comment I heard after listening to a very verbose presentation is that Darwin's theory is "very interesting." The clumsy attempt to link Darwin with eugenics is unconvincing.

[@charles-mr4oz]

Professor McGrath is an intelligent man so how come a numpty like me can sit here with a cup of coffee at 6am and clearly see that his religion is nonsense and identify so many ways to pick apart his arguments (I won't call them theories) that I don't know where to start. That is the biggest question that arises from this talk.

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

Perhaps you need a little humility in the face of thousands of years of great minds who have believed in the rationality of a creator.

[@dagwould]

Maybe the problem is that he tries to combine two worldviews into one: 1. modern darwinian evolution and its story that material is all there is and everything has only a material cause (including ideas, including the idea of 'grand theory evolution') and is therefore of no real ontological significance, and 2. Christian theism and its story that mind is the fundamental reality, indeed, self-existent minds in relationship, and these are causal of everything else, including material all of which therefore has real ontological significance.

[@urasam2]

@@Freethinkingtheist77 Great minds can just as easily be misled, deluded or just plain wrong about things.

[@davidroberts1689]

I suppose there's still unanswered questions on Galileo's theory of the solar system. We should still be teaching this controversy. (sarcasm)

[@davidroberts1689]

Religion throughout history has been found to be myth.

[@phild249]

@@davidroberts1689 Perhaps. but an alternative has not even been suggested let alone debunked or reviewed.

[@ortcutt]

Is there any actual content to this lecture? None that I could find.

[@mechtheist]

I cannot understand why eugenics gets tied to Darwin and his theory. It's nothing more than breeding, like dog breeding or cattle breeding, practiced for over 10,000 years. What did Darwin's work add? That breeding could be applied to humans? But that's been understood for thousands of years also. Seems a confused understanding of an erroneous notion.

[@burkhardschmorell3973]

It seems more than one dumb-dumb commenting on here can't even divine from the title that the tone of the talk is expository, not persuasive. But people who have an ax to grind rarely look before they leap.

[@david808323]

I thought Alister McGrath was a Bible believing Christian. But the more I listen to this lecture the more I get the impression he believes in evolution, theistic evolution.

[@paulreader1777]

As you point out there is a broad interpretation of Christian belief. Many of us have no difficulty in accepting evolution as the mechanism by which life, including human life, continues to change. Genesis and evolution are remarkably, though not perfectly, compatible with one another when you consider that the text of Genesis can only describe a contemporaneous understanding of the processes involved.

[@CandideSchmyles]

I find it incredibly disheartening that any center for learning still gives voice to any theological perspective. The substance of this talk was so weak as to be almost absent precisely because it has no philosophical, let alone scientific, credibility any more. It is like the last weak breath of an ancient and decrepit beast. And even on the science it fails to be up to date. For a decade or so now it has been impossible not to conclude that there is at least some component of Lamarcian evolution actively at work in the expression of genes. Genes and the tissues, sinews and fibers they code for are highly adaptive and react to the environment. They rely not just on chance mutation but on a reactive memory inherited from ancestor genes. Evolution is complex and multifaceted and what is required for any given organism to thrive is largely down to luck that its environment is stable enough to do so. There is no theological aspect to this what so ever.

[@lexschmitz6027]

+Eideric You need to consider the difference between micro and macro evolution. There is great debate about the validity of macro evolution. I for one do not see evidence of macro evolution.

[@damiangames1204]

@@stevenicholson4714 You cannot prove anything false without knowing everything there is to know. Evolution is very clearly evident, it does not need to disprove religion, it simply needs to make more sense than the other theories

[@utjason8]

@@lexschmitz6027 "You need to consider the difference between micro and macro evolution" Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over a long period of time. Look at the fossil record, there's mountains of evidence supporting macro evolution. So much evidence that it hasn't even been questioned for almost a century.

[@urasam2]

@@lexschmitz6027 You’ve had five years to look into the scientific evidence for macro evolution. How are you getting on?

[@DaveTheBigTomato]

Starts out wrong. Darwin built on OTHER research. He did not start the idea. The religious sects conceded that the earth was in fact ANCIENT...and constantly changing.

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

As Leo says, McGrath explicitly states that Darwin didn't begin the theory of evolution.