Uniterian Universalism, the supposed place of the open mjnd. I believe in the principles of UUism… Sadly not sure our local church does. After incident after incident and a concensus that not only do we face prejudice there, neither of us are learning…..anything. The church’s mantra of “we are doing better than we were ten years ago” is no longer cutting it. I really don’t want to wait another five years in a church where its unacceptable to have beliefs..or more accurately to mention them.
Am I done with UUism? Maybe. Done with our church? Probably.
However I think it is dishonest to blindly continue in an environment of hostility or one which correctly or incorrectly I find puerile.
Having being given hostility by voicing a contrary position… I post the following words:
Despite the insistence of uninformed (largely online) Humanists there are holes in the “theory of evolution”. As this extract discusses. But the how dare someone have a different idea…amongst supposed….and I do mean supposed free thinkers.
#hypocrisy #closedminds #horsetheyrodeinon
“This exposition shows that the theory of evolution is impossible. In reality, despite appearances, no one any longer believes in it. . . . Evolution is a sort of dogma whose priests no longer believe in it, though they uphold it for the sake of their flock.”Though undeniably exaggerated in its manner of expression—that is, as regards its sweeping implications of hypocrisy on the part of the “priests”in question—this judgment, coming where it does, is significant in more than one respect. There is no doubt that many scientists have transferred their religious instincts from religion to evolutionism, with the result that their attitude towards evolution is sectarian rather than scientific.
The French biologist Professor Louis
Bounoure quotes Yves Delage, a former Sorbonne Professor of Zoology: “I readily admit that no species has ever been known to engender another, and that there is no absolutely definite evi dence that such a thing has ever taken place. None the less, I believe evolution to be just as certain as if it had been object ively proved.”
Bounoure comments: “In short, what science asks of us here is an act of faith, and it is in fact under the guise of a sort of revealed truth that the idea of evolution is generally put forward.” He quotes, however, from a present day Sorbonne Professor of Palaeontology, Jean Piveteau, the admission that the science of facts as regards evolution “cannot accept any of the different theories which seek to explain evolution. It even finds itself in opposition with each one of these theories. There is something here which is both disappointing and disquieting.”
Darwin’s theory owed its success mainly to a widespread conviction that the nineteenth-century European represented the highest human possibility yet reached. This conviction was like a special receptacle made in advance for the theory of man’s sub-human ancestry, a theory which was hailed without question by humanists as a scientific corroboration of their belief in “progress.”It was in vain that a staunch minority of scientists, during the last hundred years, persistently maintained that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis and that it runs contrary to many known facts, and it was in vain that they pleaded for a more rigorously scientific attitude towards the whole question. To criticize evolutionism, however soundly, was about as effective as trying to stem a tidal wave. But the wave now shows some signs of having spent itself, and more and more scientists are re-examining this theory objectively, with the result that not a few of those who were once evolu tionists have now rejected it altogether. One of these is the already quoted Bounoure; another, Douglas Dewar, writes: “It is high time that biologists and geologists came into line with astronomers, physicists, and chemists and admitted that the world and the universe are utterly mysterious and all attempts to explain them [by scientific research] have been baffled”; and having divided evolutionists into ten main groups (with some subdivisions) according to their various opinions as to what animal formed the last link in the chain of man’s supposedly “pre-human”ancestry, opinions which are all purely conjectural5 and mutually contradictory, he says: “In 1921 Reinke wrote: ‘The only statement, consistent with her dignity, that science can make [with regard to this question] is to say that she knows nothing about the origin of man.’Today this statement is as true as it was when Reinke made it.”
THE PAST IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESENT & THE RHYTHMS OF TIME
Martin Lings (24 January 1909 – 12 May 2005), also known as Abu Bakr Siraj ad-Din, was an English writer and scholar, a student of Frithjof Schuon and a Shakespearean scholar. He is best known as the author of a very popular and positively reviewed biography, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, first published in 1983 and still in print.