1
   

Kenya bishop leads anti-evolution fight

 
 
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 05:14 am
Quote:
Kenya bishop leads anti-evolution fight

Evangelists want fossil exhibits kept out of sight


Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday September 10, 2006
The Observer


The world's most important collection of human fossils may soon be hidden from public view - if religious leaders get their way.
In a move that has stunned scientists, senior clergy have demanded that the bones and skulls currently exhibited in Nairobi's National Museum of Kenya be removed from display to prevent young Africans from being corrupted.

'It's creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith,' said Bishop Boniface Adoyo, who is leading the hide-the-bones campaign. 'When children go to museums they'll start believing we evolved from these apes.' Not surprisingly, the bishop's remarks have infuriated scientists who consider the museum's collection to be unrivalled anywhere else in the world. Its fossils include those of the 4 million-year-old apeman, Australopithecus anamensis, the 1.5 million-year-old remains of the Nariokotome boy, the most complete skeleton of an ancient human ever found, and a series of other bones that highlight crucial phases of our evolutionary past.

Many of these fossils were discovered by palaeontologists Louis and Mary Leakey in areas around Lake Victoria and Lake Turkana and are generally regarded as providing stark demonstrations of how our species was shaped by natural selection.
Their son, Richard Leakey, and his wife Maeve, have continued this fossil-hunting tradition. They too have been dismayed by the bid to suppress the museum's fossils. 'The church is being ridiculous,' said Richard Leakey. 'Its leaders are out of step. Evolution theory is accepted across the world. This is scientific history and Kenya has the best of this evolutional history. Globally, few can match that claim to fame.'

The National Museum of Kenya is currently preparing to reopen next year after completing massive EU-funded renovations. As part of that work a special exhibit, The Origins Of Man, which displays the key finds around Africa's Great Rift Valley - considered by many the cradle of humanity - is now being set up.

However, it is this display that African evangelicals say they find offensive, because it promotes Darwin's theory of evolution. As a result, they are demanding that the display be removed or at least shunted to a less prominent location.

'When museums put it out there that man evolved from apes, theologically they are affecting many people who are Christians, who believe God created us,' says Bishop Adoyo, the chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, which claims to represent churches of 35 denominations with nine million members.
Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,793 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 05:46 am
They can tamper with the evidence, but they can never squelch the truth,
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 06:43 am
Which truth is that Ed?

How about a world of exclusive evolutionism being unworkable.

As the changes in train are being run by science it is the scientists who have the duty to show how an exclusively scientific Weltanschauung will work in practice rather than simply indulging in cheap posturings whilst taking advantage of the institutions and traditions of a religion-toned society.

Would you "squelch" a truth that was damaging to society? Just to stick your two pennyworth in.

"The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure, to live it you have to explode."

Bob Dylan. Where Are You Tonight?

The idea of "truth" is an asserted affectation popular with those who don't or can't look at it too closely.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 06:51 am
I am not responding to obstructionist, stupid statements this morning, spenius.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 07:06 am
The use of " obstructionist, stupid statements" is an assertion designed to veil an inability to respond which it does not do.

As-

Quote:
I am not responding to obstructionist, stupid statements this morning, spenius.


is dependent for any meaning on the assertion and as the purpose of it is not achieved it constitutes as stupid a statement as a girl pulling out her tongue and going "meuuhh!" and anybody who can't see that has no business offering advice on how Kenya should be run.

But tomorrow morning might be different I suppose.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 07:36 am
spendius wrote:
Which truth is that Ed?

How about a world of exclusive evolutionism being unworkable.
And your proof is what? That is a pretty absolute statement there spendi. I can provide more proof for evolution than you can to support this. Prove that a world created by evolution is unworkable.

Quote:
As the changes in train are being run by science it is the scientists who have the duty to show how an exclusively scientific Weltanschauung will work in practice rather than simply indulging in cheap posturings whilst taking advantage of the institutions and traditions of a religion-toned society.
One could say the opposite as well spendi. In a world run by religion it is the religious that have the duty to show without cheap posturing. You are the one here taking advantage of science by using scientifically created objects to deny that science can do anything. Perhaps you should go preach from a street corner and stop using science at all.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 07:51 am
Quote:
Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn't necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn't reject evolution altogether.


And

Quote:
"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."



But more recently Benedict XVI, the present Pontiff, has been studying on the issue.

Joe(no one is betting he backs his predecessors)Nation
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 08:02 am
I agree parados that the idea that an exclusive scientific world is "unworkable" is an opinion. I asked about that opinion. I wouldn't argue that our system is workable now. We do run the world and have undreamt of luxuries at our beck and call. And they say that if it works don't fix it.

There is a logic to a scientific materialism which can be followed. One can see it in operation in animal husbandry. It has operated to some extent in the former Soviet Union, China under Mao and presently in N Korea.

I meant unworkable by our present system.

You might go and preach on a street corner yourself if you think it sound advice to posters.

The major problem as I see it is that those on here who purport to represent science, which they don't of course, is that they are given to statements like-

Quote:
Perhaps you should go preach from a street corner and stop using science at all.


and

Quote:
I am not responding to obstructionist, stupid statements this morning, spenius.


Seemingly with a flick of the wrist. Give that stuff power and the game really is up. The only possibility of it not being is to eradicate nepotism which would require some rather dramatic changes in our institutions.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 08:27 am
Joe quoted-

Quote:
"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."


That's a partial definition of intelligent design theory. The key part is, of course, "on the part of men experienced in both fields" and who are presumed to be unencumbered by wives and children and at some distance from their parents, siblings and other members of their extended families.

It has nothing to do with Intelligent Design or with Creationism whose proponents are usually encumbered by family ties and social networks.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 09:13 am
spendius wrote:
I agree parados that the idea that an exclusive scientific world is "unworkable" is an opinion. I asked about that opinion. I wouldn't argue that our system is workable now. We do run the world and have undreamt of luxuries at our beck and call. And they say that if it works don't fix it.
.

If it works then why are you proposing we fix the teaching of evolution by including ID?

Somehow you don't seem to like your tactics turned against you. Why is that?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 10:17 am
parados wrote-

Quote:
Somehow you don't seem to like your tactics turned against you. Why is that?


Sorry mate- you have lost me with that. Maybe others can see what you mean but I'm afraid I can't. It looks like another assertion to me but I'll allow it might mean something.

Quote:
If it works then why are you proposing we fix the teaching of evolution by including ID?


As I have never said any such thing, nor would I, I don't have much of an idea what that's about either. If you have got bored with Easy-Trick No 1 (assertion) and moved up a gear to Easy-Trick No 2 (saying somebody said something they didn't, a classroom trick, and then saying something really, really clever about it it might be worth your while to consider that such stuff has no effect on me. It might affect others. I don't know. I would doubt it.

Anyway- who exactly is the "we"?

Is the Keynan Government included which has a delicate balance to maintain?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 11:17 am
Re: Kenya bishop leads anti-evolution fight
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
Kenya bishop leads anti-evolution fight

Evangelists want fossil exhibits kept out of sight

'It's creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith,' said Bishop Boniface Adoyo, who is leading the hide-the-bones campaign.


"Hide-the-Bones" campaign. That's too funny Smile
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 11:31 am
You know Spendi,
I don't think you even know what you write..


Quote:
Which truth is that Ed?

How about a world of exclusive evolutionism being unworkable.


You ask a question which you then answer. The only way to read your sentence is "It is true that a world of exclusive evolutionism is unworkable." If you had used a question mark then it would be a question as to whether it was true or not. Your choice of punctuation makes it a statement. When questioned on it you said it was opinion. Is your opinion truth? Should we accept it as truth without any question?

You then went on to say that those running the changes in the train have a duty to show something rather than indulging in cheap posturing. That is all you have done, cheap posturing. You have presented an opinion and claimed it was 'truth'. You feel you have no need to justify it at the same time you require others to justify their opinions far beyond the low standard you set for yourself.

You have managed to make edgar's statement almost prescient concerning anything else you would post here.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 11:32 am
Re: Kenya bishop leads anti-evolution fight
rosborne979 wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
Kenya bishop leads anti-evolution fight

Evangelists want fossil exhibits kept out of sight

'It's creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith,' said Bishop Boniface Adoyo, who is leading the hide-the-bones campaign.


"Hide-the-Bones" campaign. That's too funny Smile


The campaign buttons will be recycled for use in the upcoming abstinence program.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 12:57 pm
parados wrote-

Quote:
You have managed to make edgar's statement almost prescient concerning anything else you would post here.


Ed's statement meant nothing except maybe that he was grumpy this morning. But how one might be "almost prescient" must be a bit like almost smelling a rat.

I think, with the context-

Quote:
Which truth is that Ed?

How about a world of exclusive evolutionism being unworkable.


the second sentence is obviously a question but it would have been better with the ? I agree.

To read it otherwise seems stretching it. It was a bad typo. It is a truth in other eyes though. I gave the animal husbandry example without the details for reasons of decency. I presumed that most people would have a good idea what I meant. Evolution theory is based on animals because relevant human history is too short for the timescales being used by that theory and human behaviour is partially controlled by moralities of one sort or another whilst animal and plant behaviour isn't. Hence my example is relevant to a society with only strategies, both individual and group based and without an agreed morality.

I may not know what I write but you just don't write at all.

You have said nothing about Kenya nor the delicate balance I referred to.
And that's the topic I believe. Would, for example, Christianity being destroyed in Kenya leave a vacuum which Islam would rush to fill.

Neither have you identified the "we" which you used despite being asked. My missed ? being handy enough for futile distraction.

You have also omitted to show where I have said that I had proposed " we fix the teaching of evolution by including ID?" Not a peep. You just made it up.

You have said nothing about Joe's quote nor my comments about it.

I don't necessarily think that a society based on secular materialism is unworkable. It can't possibly be anything you would approve of assuming your quasi-Christian socialisation is still operative as it is for most. I meant "workable" in the accepted sense we have now. But the growing serial monogamy could with development reach the different partner every night stage without the need for any startling leaps just as the continual interference of government agencies in children's upbringing is moving towards lower age ranges and such a trend equally developed results in state rearing. Put the two together and the male/female barracks awaits. All of which might well "work" if one wishes to be pedantic about it.

You also refrained from commenting on the nepotism idea which is not an unimportant factor.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 01:39 pm
I don't want to argue evolution in another thread. I just think it sucks that somebody would hide all the evidence because they know said evidence is sufficient in itself to open the eyes to the fact of evolution. Then teach the kids as if the bones had never been found. Defending that action is indeed stupid.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 02:08 pm
Surely not Ed if the Kenyan authorities perceive a danger to their fragile societyfrom the evidence of evolution being available to all and sundry.

One might suggest changing the authorities I suppose but Kenya is not an easy place to manage that until which time the authorities are what they've got and if they perceive such a danger, or some of them do, one of the main tribes say, they have to decide on where the balance is. One hopes you are not naive enough to think they haven't heard your argument ad nauseam. Kenya is not an abstract concept for bored minds to toy with after a hearty breakfast or between shots on the golf course.

What do you think might be contained in those parts of the Vatican and British Museum collections which one needs to show good reason to access and have to be approved of.

Those are hidden. Why not campaign to open those up. They are in our backyard after all. Are they "stupid" too.

You are using Kenya and the off chance of Walt posting as toys to amuse yourself with.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 02:30 pm
Horse hockey. Permitting the truth about evolution is not going to destroy a society any more than Elvis shaking his hips destroyed America.

Keeping knowledge hidden is wrong, no matter where it is.

Plus, pretending those bones don't show concrete evidence of evolution is an excercise in futility.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 03:29 pm
I didn't say that permitting the truth about evolution is going to destroy a society. What I said was that an influential section, possibly linked to one of the two sides in the last civil war, thinks so, and that they have a degree of authority which has to be recognised. If everybody of significance in Kenya agreed on this matter there wouldn't be a news story. That's the truth. Not some sodding old bones. Giving them a God and then snatching Him away to satisfy people living thousands of miles away in a totally different environment! It's not a one issue fad of the day for the chattering classes to patronise in demeaning tones.

Elvis ended up tweeting the nervous systems of bourgesoise ladies of a certain age and perished from eating I gather in an unseemly position.

Quote:
Keeping knowledge hidden is wrong, no matter where it is.


That's too easy to say. Suppose there is knowledge that is a threat to society. You think the Vatican and the British Museum are wrong then do you? Your judges can order files to be hidden I read. Is this all to no purpose. They are wrong for no reason are they?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 04:19 pm
I doubt the people in the museums are proselytizing the populace. They are most probably tending to the business of science and leaving that sort of thing alone.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kenya bishop leads anti-evolution fight
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/05/2022 at 08:37:51