Turkish Forum

Category: UK

  • God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

    God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

    From Times Online
    September 17, 2008

    Ten surprising things Darwin said about religious faith

    Nick Spencer

    Next year is the big Darwin anniversary. Two hundred years after his birth and 150 after the publication of On the Origin of the Species, millions will celebrate the life and work of Charles Darwin, one of the most brilliant scientists in history, and a man who was thoroughly decent, honourable and likeable.

    Unfortunately, he has become caught up in the crossfire of a battle in which Darwin exhibited little personal interest. On one side of this cartoonish debate are the creationists. Their precise numbers, in the UK, are uncertain, although the major survey Theos /ComRes are conducting into the public’s beliefs about Darwinism, creationism and ID, which will be published next year, should help us find out more. Numbers aside, the point is that creationists dislike Darwin and regularly criticise him for supposedly undermining their religious beliefs.

    In the other trench lie the militant Godless who – bizarrely – wholly agree with the creationists. Darwinism, they proclaim, does indeed undermine religious belief and a good thing too. Darwin is their icon and they frantically genuflect before his image, in a way brilliantly parodied by the satirical magazine The Onion.

    The truth is, as ever, more complex. Darwin was too interesting, too careful a thinker to be caricatured in these ways. He was a Christian and yes, he did lose his faith. But he was never an atheist. He engaged in religious debate with friends but confessed to being in a hopeless “muddle”. He agonised over whether the exquisite beauty of life on earth was worth the pain of natural selection. He hated religious controversy and was deeply respectful of others’ views. He took upon himself the duties of a country parson whilst living at Downe and contributed to the South American Missionary Society. And, to top it all, he often doubted whether, his mind being evolved, he could even trust it in such matters. All in all, he was too complex, too subtle a man to be left to the polemicists.

    So, in the interests, of rescuing him from the no-man’s-land in which he has become trapped, here are 10 Darwin quotations, from his later years, which you are unlikely to hear from the mouths of either creationists or atheists in 2009.

    1. “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.” (Autobiography)

    2. “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

    3. “I hardly see how religion & science can be kept as distinct as [Edward Pusey] desires… But I most wholly agree… that there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness.” (Letter to J. Brodie Innes, November 27 1878)

    4. “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

    5. “I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

    6. “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.” (Letter to Frederick McDermott, November 24 1880)

    7. [In conversation with the atheist Edward Aveling, 1881] “Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?” (Edward Aveling, The religious views of Charles Darwin, 1883)

    8. “Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Letter to Graham William, July 3 1881)

    9. “My theology is a simple muddle: I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent Design.” (Letter to Joseph Hooker, July 12 1870)

    10. “I can never make up my mind how far an inward conviction that there must be some Creator or First Cause is really trustworthy evidence.” (Letter to Francis Abbot, September 6 1871)

    Nick Spencer is director of studies at the public theology think-tank Theos which is conducting, in partnership with the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion a project on evolution, faith and Charles Darwin. Mr Spencer’s book, Darwin and God, will be published in 2009 by SPCK.

    Source: The Times, September 17, 2008

  • Creationist Adnan Oktar wins ban on Richard Dawkins site

    Creationist Adnan Oktar wins ban on Richard Dawkins site

    From The Times
    September 20, 2008

    Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

    A Muslim creationist has succeeded in having Richard Dawkins’s website banned in Turkey, after complaining that its atheist content was blasphemous.

    The country’s internet users are now subject to a court order imposed on Turk Telecom that prohibits them from accessing richarddawkins.net.

    The court in Istanbul issued its judgment after Adnan Oktar claimed that his book Atlas of Creation, which contests the arguments for evolution, had been defamed on Dawkins’s website.

    In July Professor Dawkins wrote on his site: “I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the breath-taking inanity of the content.”

    Earlier this year Mr Oktar, who uses the pen name Harun Yahya, tried to have Dawkins’s book The God Delusion banned in Turkey but failed. He is also appealing against a three-year prison sentence for creating an illegal organisation for personal gain.

    Source: The Times, September 20, 2008

  • Royal Society’s Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

    Royal Society’s Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

    From The Times
    September 17, 2008

    Lewis Smith and Mark Henderson

    The resignation of Michael Reiss has divided scientists

    The Royal Society’s embattled director of education resigned last night, days after causing uproar among scientists by appearing to endorse the teaching of creationism.

    Michael Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England clergyman, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments had damaged its reputation.

    His resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss’s suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”.

    Sir Richard Roberts, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1993, described such views as outrageous, and organised a letter to the society’s president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, demanding that Professor Reiss be sacked. Phil Willis MP, the chairman of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, was due to meet Royal Society officers today to demand an explanation of Professor Reiss’s comments.

    The Royal Society stood by the scientist initially, insisting that he had not departed from its official policy and that his remarks had been misinterpreted. Many senior figures, however, felt that Professor Reiss had been naive, at best, to make statements that could easily be seen to back teaching creationism as if it were science, and should not have done so while speaking in his Royal Society role.

    The society said in a statement: “Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s director of education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education — a part-time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full-time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.”

    The resignation has divided scientists and administrators. While some welcomed the move, others felt that Professor Reiss had raised an important point and should have been supported. Lord Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College, London, who is not a Royal Society Fellow, said: “I fear that the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science — something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

    Mr Willis said: “It is appropriate for the Royal Society to have dealt with this problem swiftly and effectively, rather than provoking continued debate. I hope the society will now stop burying its head and start taking on creationism.”

    The furore came after a speech given by Professor Reiss to the British Association for the Advancement of Science last week, in which he said that teachers should accept that they were unlikely to change the minds of pupils with creationist beliefs.

    “My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science,” he said.

    “I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson . . . There is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have — hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching — and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion.”

    The Royal Society said that “creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.”

    Chris Higgins, Vice-Chancellor of Durham University, said: “While I have no doubt that Michael Reiss’s comments have been misinterpreted by parts of the media, I think that the fact that he has generously stood down allows the Royal Society to clarify the robust position on this issue. There should be no room for doubt that creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory.”

    Professor Reiss was not available for comment.

    Source: The Times, September 17, 2008

  • Terror inquiry proves a nice little earner

    Terror inquiry proves a nice little earner

    Police claim £5 million in overtime bonanza

    Britain’s biggest anti-terrorist investigation was a £5 million overtime bonanza seized on by police as the chance to pay for Caribbean holidays, plasma televisions and nights at The Savoy.

    The Times has seen e-mails circulated to officers across Thames Valley Police offering “premium rates” of pay to those “with a raging credit card habit”. Volunteers were told that night shifts, believed to be paid at £300 each, would give them time to “read a good book, take up botany or ornithology, study for your sergeant’s exam [or] work out the compound interest on a rest day’s pay”.

    One message, which was marked “108 shopping days to Christmas”, sought officers for Saturday shifts and said that the payments “could buy the joy and admiration of your children on Christmas morning . . . is that not priceless?”

    The internal e-mails were sent to officers across the force at the height of a big search in King’s Wood and Fennels Wood near High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. The work was part of Operation Overt, the inquiry into an alleged terrorist plot to blow up transatlantic airliners

    Thames Valley Police said yesterday that the e-mails were “in poor taste” and that its involvement in the operation cost the force £8 million, including £4.9 million in overtime.

    After the end of the airline plot trial last week, Andy Hayman, the former Scotland Yard officer in charge of special operations, disclosed in The Times that he had resisted pressure from Thames Valley Police Authority to stop the searches, which it said were too expensive.

    While specialist teams searched the woodland, uniformed Thames Valley officers were required to stand guard. The e-mails seeking volunteers were sent by Sergeant David Bald to colleagues in Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Wolverton and Newport Pagnell.

    Mr Bald, who signed off as “Miracle Worker” in an e-mail of August 24, 2006, added: “So there you have it. Not only would you be insuring [sic] the integrity of evidence in the most important terrorist trial in the UK for 30 years (and that is reward in itself, not to mention a great PDR [personal development record] entry) but you could also afford one of the above rewards which would give you great enjoyment and satisfaction.”

    The next day he wrote: “If you’re available then please ping me an e-mail – it’ll pay off the credit card.”

    Another message was circulated on September 6 and said: “For all officers (especially those scared of the dark) I now have a significant number of day shifts available on premium rates.”

    On September 8 he said that the duties required “little effort, no paper-work and a restful time away from the stresses and strains of everyday life”.

    The disclosure comes as the police service is increasingly concerned about its image. Ian Johnston, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, issued a warning this week that the public was losing confidence in officers.

    Home Office assessments ranked Thames Valley last year as the third-worst performing police force in Britain. A report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary said that the diversion of Thames Valley’s resources to Operation Overt had “significantly depleted its operational capacity”.

    A spokesman for the force said: “The e-mails were unacceptable but do not reflect the attitude of police officers as a whole. They were misguided and written in poor taste and recalled as soon as senior officers became aware of them.”

    Hundreds of Thames Valley officers took part in Operation Overt over a six-month period. The spokesman said: “We deployed officers from their usual Thames Valley postings for 5,184 working days, at an opportunity cost of £1.4 million. This put a strain on the policing of local communities and therefore overtime at a cost of £4.9 million was used, as well as assistance from other forces at a cost of £1.9 million.”

    Sean O’Neill, Crime Editor

    The Times

    Source:

  • Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

    Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

    Abul Taher

    ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

    The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
    Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
    Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
    It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
    Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
    Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
    Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
    The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
    In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
    In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
    It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
    Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
    Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes.. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
    Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
    Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
    Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
    There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
    Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
    The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
    In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
    In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
    Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
    Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
    Additional reporting: Helen Brooks
    Source: The Sunday Times, September 14, 2008
  • Holidaymakers stranded in Turkey

    Holidaymakers stranded in Turkey

    Up to 150 people have been left stranded in Turkey after the collapse of a north London-based tour operator.

    K&S Travel, which also trades under the name Travel Turkey, organises package tours to the country through flights chartered with Onur Air.

    A K&S Travel spokesman said the firm would organise flights for those abroad when their holidays were completed.

    It is thought more than 85,000 people have been left stranded abroad after Friday’s collapse of XL Leisure Group.

    XL is the UK’s third largest tour operator.

    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said the holidaymakers were covered by the Atol protection scheme and will be entitled to a full refund.

    The CAA is understood to be rechartering planes from Onur to ensure the return of K&S passengers, most of whom are in the resort of Bodrum.

    But 460 people who have future holidays booked through K&S Travel will have their travel plans cancelled.

    BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Holidaymakers stranded in Turkey