Posted on 11/25/2008 6:10:27 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
From Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought (1888, Appleton & Co.) The first paragraph is taken from ppg 257-258. The rest, from ppg 279--285. Joseph Le Conte was a professor of geology and natural history at U of California. His work was cited by Darwinians as evidence that Darwinians have no evil designs against peoples' faith in God (eg, by H.H. Newman, of Scopes trial fame.) You judge.
Joseph Le Conte
From what has preceded, the reader will perceive that we regard the law of evolution as thoroughly established. In its most general sense, i. e., as a law of continuity, it is a necessary condition of rational thought. In this sense it is naught else than the universal law of necessary causation applied to forms instead of phenomena. It is not only as certain as - it is far more certain than--the law of gravitation, for it is not a contingent, but a necessary truth like the axioms of geometry. It is only necessary to conceive it clearly, to accept it unhesitatingly. The consensus of scientific and philosophical opinion is already well-nigh, if not wholly complete. If there are still lingering cases of dissent among thinking men, it is only because such do not yet conceive it clearly--they confound it with some special form of explanation of evolution which they, perhaps justly, think not yet fully established. We have sometimes in the preceding pages used the words evolutionist or derivationist; they ought not to be used any longer. The day is past when evolution might be regarded as a school of thought. We might as well talk of gravitationist as of evolutionist.[1]
WE have already said that evolution does not differ essentially from other laws of Nature in its hearing on religious helief. It only reiterates and enforces with additional emphasis what Science, in all its departments, has heen saying all along. The difficulties in the way of certain traditional views have pressed with ever increasing force upon the thoughtful mind ever since the birth of modern science. All along, an issue has been gathering, but put off from time to time by compromise, until now, at last, the issue is forced upon us and compromise is exhausted. The issue (let us look it squarely in th e face) is: Either God is far more closely related with Nature, and operates it in a more direct way than we have recently been accustomed to think, or else (mark the alternative) Nature operates itself and needs no God at all. There is no middle ground tenable.
Let us trace rapidly the growth of this issue. The old idea and the most natural to the religious mind was the direct agency of God in every event and phenomenon of Nature. This view is nobly expressed in the noblest literature in the world--in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures: "He looketh on the earth and it trembleth. He toucheth the hills and they smoke." "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth his rain on the just and on the unjust." But now comes Science and explains all these phenomena by natural laws and resident forces, and we all accept her explanation. Thus, one by one the phenomena of Nature are explained by the operation of resident forces according to natural laws, until the whole course of Nature, as we now know it, has been, or will be, or conceivably may be, thus explained.
Thus has gradually grown up, without our confessing it, a kind of scientific polytheism--one great Jehovah, perhaps, but with many agents or sub-gods, each independent, efficient, and doing all the real work in his own domain. The names of these, our gods, are gravity, light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, etc., and we are practically saying: " These be your gods, Israel, which brought you out of the land of Egyptian darkness and ignorance. These be the only gods ye need fear, and serve, and studv the ways of."
What, then, is practically the notion which most people seem to have of the relation of Deity to Nature? It is that of a great master-mechanic far away above us and beyond our reach, who once upon a time, long ago, and once for all, worked, created matter, endowed it with necessary properties and powers, constructed at once out of hand this wonderful cosmos with its numberless wheels within wheels, endowed it with forces, put springs in it, wound it up, set it a-going, and then--rested. The thing has continued to go of itself ever since. He might have not only rested but slept, and the thing would have gone of itself. He might not only have slept but died, and still the thing would have continued to go of itself. But, no, I forget. He must not sleep or die, for the work is not absolutely perfect. There are some things too hard even for Him to do in this masterful, god-like way. There are some things which even He can not do except in a 'prentice-like, man-like way. The hand must be introduced from time to time to repair, to rectify, to improve, especially to introduce new parts, such as new organic forms.
Such was the state of the compromise until twenty-five years ago. Nature is sufficient of itself for its course and continuance, but not for origins of at least some new parts. Such was the state of the compromise until Darwin and the theory of evolution. But, now, even this poor privilege of occasional interference is taken away. Now, origins, as well as courses, are reduced to resident forces and natural law. Now, Nature is sufficient of itself, not only for sustentation, but also for creation. Thus, Science has seemed to push Him farther and farther away from us, until now, at last, if this view be true, evolution finishes the matter by pushing Him entirely out of the universe and dispensing with Him altogether. This, of course, is materialism. But this is no new view now brought forward for the first time by evolution. On the contrary, evolution only finishes what science has been doing all along.
See, then, how the issue is forced. Either Nature is sufficient of itself and wants no God at all, or else this whole idea, the history of which we have been tracing, is radically false. "We have here given by science either a demonstration of materialism or else a reductio ad absurdum. Which is it? I do not hesitate a moment to say it is a reductio ad absurdum. And I believe that evolution has conferred an inestimable benefit on philosophy and on religion by forcing this issue and compelling us to take a more rational view.
What, then, is the alternative view? It is the utter rejection with Berkeley and with Swedenborg of the independent existence of matter and the real efficient agency of natural forces. It is the frank return to the old idea of direct divine agency, but in a new, more rational, less anthropomorphic form. It is the bringing together and complete reconciliation of the two apparently antagonistic and mutually excluding views of direct agency and natural law. Such reconciliation we have already seen is the true test of a rational philosophy. It is the belief in a God not far away beyond our reach, who once long ago enacted laws and created forces which continue of themselves to run the machine we call Nature, but a God immanent, a God resident in Nature, at all times and in all places directing every event and determining every phenomena--a God in whom in the most literal sense not only we but all things have their being, in whom all things consist, through whom all things exist, and without whom there would be and could be nothing. According to this view the phenomena of Nature are naught else than objectified modes of divine thought, the forces of Nature naught else than different forms of one omnipresent divine energy or will, the laws of Nature naught else than the regular modes of operation of that divine will, invariable because He is unchangeable. According to this view the law of gravitation is naught else than the mode of operation of the divine energy in sustaining the cosmos--the divine method of sustentation; the law of evolution naught else than the mode of operation of the same divine energy in originating and developing the cosmos--the divine method of creation; and Science is the systematic knowledge of these divine thoughts and ways--a rational system of natural theology. In a word, according to this view, there is no real efficient force but spirit, and no real independent existence but God.
But some will object that this is pure Idealism. Yes, but far different from what usually goes under that name. The ideal philosophy as usually understood regards the external world as having no real objective ex- istence outside of ourselves--as objectified mental states of the observer--as literally such stuff as dreams are made of--as a mere phantasmagoria of trooping shadows having no real existence but in the mind of the dreamer, and each dreamer makes his own world. Not so in the idealism above presented. According to this the external world is the objectified mides, not of tlie mind of the observer, but of the mind of God. According to this, the external world is not a mere unsubstantial fig- ment or dream, but for us a very substantial objective reality surrounding us and conditioning us on every side.
Again, it will be objected that this is pure Pantheism. Again, we answer "yes." Call it so if you like, but far different from what goes under that name, far different from the pantheism which sublimates the personality of the Deity into all-pervading unconscious force, and thereby dissipates all our hopes of personal relation with him. Properly understood, we believe this view completely reconciles the two antagonistic and mutually excluding views of impersonal pantheism and anthropomorphic personalism, and is therefore more rational than either. The discussion of this most important point can only come up after the next chapter, because the argument for the personality of Deity is derived, not from without by the study of Nature, but from within in our own consciousness. We therefore put off its discussion for the present.
But, finally, some will object, "We can not live and work effectively under such a theory unless, indeed, we escape through pantheism." It may, alas! be true that this view brings us too near Him in our sense of spiritual nakedness and shortcoming. It may, indeed, be that we can not live and work in the continual realized presence of the Infinite. It may, indeed, be that we must still wear the veil of a practical materialism on our hearts and minds. It may, indeed, be that in our practical life and scientific work we must still continue to think of natural forces as efficient agents. But, if so, let us at least remember that this attitude of mind must be regarded only as our ordinary work-clothes--necessary work-clothes it may be of our outer lower life--to be put aside when we return home to our inner higher life, religious and philosophical.
note:
[1] this paragraph appears after a lengthy section where Le Conte puts forward proofs and evidences for evolution. Evidence includes fake science about recapitulation, embryology, and 'fish stages' of development.
Ummm..., where’s the reference link??
ping
Couldn’t evolution be God’s plan. Do evolution and God have to be mutually exclusive?
No.
Yes.
Of course. Why would they be?
Good question. This was Asa Gray's position. But Darwin emphatically denied that evolution could be God's plan. Most are not aware he maintained this position contra Asa Gray. This is from Darwin's Variation, volume 2:
In accordance with the views maintained by me in this work and elsewhere, not only the various domestic races, but the most distinct genera and orders within the same great class — for instance, mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes — are all the descendants of one common progenitor, and we must admit that the whole vast amount of difference between these forms has primarily arisen from simple variability. To consider the subject under this point of view is enough to strike one dumb with amazement. But our amazement ought to be lessened when we reflect that beings almost infinite in number, during an almost infinite lapse of time, have often had their whole organisation rendered in some degree plastic, and that each slight modification of structure which was in any way beneficial under excessively complex conditions of life has been preserved, whilst each which was in any way injurious has been rigorously destroyed. And the long-continued accumulation of beneficial variations will infallibly have led to structures as diversified, as beautifully adapted for various purposes and as excellently co-ordinated, as we see in the animals and plants around us. Hence I have spoken of selection as the paramount power, whether applied by man to the formation of domestic breeds, or by nature to the production of species. I may recur to the metaphor given in a former chapter: if an architect were to rear a noble and commodious edifice, without the use of cut stone, by selecting from the fragments at the base of a precipice wedge-formed stones for his arches, elongated stones for his lintels, and flat stones for his roof, we should admire his skill and regard him as the paramount power. Now, the fragments of stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to the edifice built by him the same relation which the fluctuating variations of organic beings bear to the varied and admirable structures ultimately acquired by their modified descendants.Some authors have declared that natural selection explains nothing, unless the precise cause of each slight individual difference be made clear. If it were explained to a savage utterly ignorant of the art of building, how the edifice had been raised stone upon stone, and why wedge-formed fragments were used for the arches, flat stones for the roof, &c.; and if the use of each part and of the whole building were pointed out, it would be unreasonable if he declared that nothing had been made clear to him, because the precise cause of the shape of each, fragment could not be told. But this is a nearly parallel case with the objection that selection explains nothing, because we know not the cause of each individual difference in the structure of each being.
The shape of the fragments of stone at the base of our precipice may be called accidental, but this is not strictly correct; for the shape of each depends on a long sequence of events, all obeying natural laws; on the nature of the rock, on the lines of deposition or cleavage, on the form of the mountain, which depends on its upheaval and subsequent denudation, and lastly on the storm or earthquake which throws down the fragments. But in regard to the use to which the fragments may be put, their shape may be strictly said to be accidental. And here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him. But can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predetermined for the builder's sake, can it be maintained with any greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants; — many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures themselves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case, — if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,— no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, wliicli have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wi«h it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief "that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines," like a stream "along definite and useful lines of irrigation." If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination.
Both your answers are in error.
Because God said so.
God reveals himself to us through nature AND the living word of the Bible. God NEVER contradicts himself.
Therefore, if science seems to contradict the Word then there are two possibilities:
A. You are misinterpreting the Bible
B. The science is wrong
My faith is strong enough to embrace either possibility in reference to evolution.
B.
If somehow you were convinced that the science was correct would that ruin your faith?
My faith is strong enough to embrace either possibility in reference to evolution.
That's nice, but what of the countless evolutionary writers who reassure us over and over again that Christianity and evolution are incompatible? Do you not think that maybe they have a point and are trying to tell us something? LeConte is saying that yes indeed, you can believe in God, as long as your religion is Monism and your God is the monistic God. If you are a Christian you are out of luck though.
Your faith and mine are irrelevant to this topic.
The only relevant issue is truth.
Your single statement is in error.
http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/csehovind.html
It's a massive collection of Hovind's - if you're familiar with Creationism and/or ID, I'm sure you know of him - videos.
Seminars, Series, Debates, "college level course videos", something called "Creation Boot Camp", and a series of shows called "Answering The Critics".
Haven't been able to check all of the links, but the handful I've tested seem to work.
Have fun. Hope someone enjoys the material.
Yes, I'm still an atheist. :P
bookmark for later reading
Also, since God is “ever-existing” outside of our concept of time and dimension,
He is unchanging. “Change” requires the concept of time to apply to the entity that is changing (different at this time than at that time).
Therefore, the Word is consistent, accurate, and unchanging. Science and man’s “wisdom” changes over time, not the truth.
Sign outside a Unitarian Church: “No one has the real truth”.
Is that statement true?
but what of the countless evolutionary writers who reassure us over and over again that Christianity and evolution are incompatible?
Or maybe they understand evolution better than you do.
That is simply a preposterous claim.
You said — “If somehow you were convinced that the science was correct would that ruin your faith?”
That’s why God included in the Bible, the reasoning and rationale of Satan in deceiving Eve, in the Garden of Eden and causing both the Adam and Eve to sin and disobey God.
That’s essentially what Satan is saying, in that perhaps what you’ve heard from God isn’t really true as you think it to be.
The *result* was that sin entered the world, and all are condemned because of that sin which continues generation to generation from Adam and Eve to the present — and that God handed down His judgement, as a result, which was death and decay and eternal separation from God.
At the very same time, God announced that a way was coming to save mankind from that permanent and eternal judgement by the way of the promised Messiah, which was expanded upon, throughout the coming centuries, through Scripture, but starting right there, at that judgement, in the Garden of Eden.
So, this “line of thinking” (in that “what if God is wrong about this...” — as we are reading the Word of God on the matter) — is actually the same line of thinking from the beginning.
That’s pretty much why God gave us that account, right at the beginning, to explain what the problem was — from the beginning.
—
Also, it was just before this, and the *very first items* related to us — being the *creation of the universe*. The account of that is directly opposed to the Theory of Evolution in that all life comes from an initial spark of life (or even, perhaps, multiple instances of it) and progresses over millions of years into further and further species, from this kind of beginning. The Word of God is totally against this, in its own words.
You really have to take one or the other as the truth of the matter...
Therefore, the Word is consistent, accurate, and unchanging. Science and man’s “wisdom” changes over time, not the truth.
Do you see any value in studying nature?
So, this “line of thinking” (in that “what if God is wrong about this...”
No.
Dear Creationists:
Thank you for helping ensure we will keep winning elections for the foreseeable future.
Best regards,
The Democratic National Committee
Christianity and evolution are, indeed, incompatible.
Evolution holds that death came into the world before sin, which is a heresy according to Christian doctrine and the bible.
It is preposterous that they could be wrong?
See #29.
Human death came into the world with sin. The Bible the doesn’t speak to God’s plan for animals beyond giving man dominion over them.
Interesting. A while back, an evolutionist on FR offered the following insightful explanation why Christianity and evolution are incompatible. It has little to do (contrary to most expectations) with 6-day creation and so on, but is actually much deeper...
"Christianity is based upon the notion that Jesus died for the sins of man, and that personal salvation and eternal life is obtained through acceptance of Jesus as the savior. Central to this belief is the story of the creation of man/woman in Genesis, which describes how the naughty Adam and Eve ticked off God, the result of which was “original sin” as Christians call it. Jesus provided all of man with salvation from the “original sin” of Adam... Thus Christianity is premised upon the link between Adam and Jesus... Without Adam’s fall from grace, there is no reason for a Savior. Granted, Christians who do not believe that the Bible is literally true can rationalize that the creation of man described in Genesis is metaphor... but that doesn’t... explain original sin and a need for a Savior... even Christians who see the six-day creation story, the Garden of Eden story, the flood and Noah, and other fables in Genesis as allegory have the problem with the well-entrenched link between Adam and Jesus. Take away Adam and his pivotal fall from grace/original sin, and you cut out the very heart of the Jesus as Redeemer concept. Non-literalists have to somehow relate a non-existent, merely symbolic, fallen Adam to the claim of a real flesh-and-blood Jesus. The Bible doesn’t give much room for that symbolism, as there are Scriptural allusions to the important link between Adam and Jesus."
All studies of science and nature are the studies of Creation, which is the “general revelation” of God.
So YES, there is HUGE value in studying nature.
It becomes obvious that He wants us to do so by examining where He placed the earth and set up the rules of existance. (Privileged Planet [Gonzales])
Adam sinned but so do we. We need a redeemer just as much as Adam.
And eating them, of course... :)
Gen 9:3
I've never seen that theory espoused before.
I agree. We need to follow where the evidence takes us, in faith. Sometimes when the evidence seems to be contradicting the Bible it means we need to adjust our interpretation of the Bible.
He created man from the dust of the Earth. Animals are the dust of the Earth.
Not so certain of this part... evidence is interpreted as well, you know.
Perhaps waiting, studying, and researching further to find out why our interpretation of the evidence is in contradiction would be more fitting.
Dust ingeniously arranged, but dust none the less.
If man evolved then death came before sin. This is heresy.
You should contemplate His creation prayerfully, as you would contemplate the Bible.
That gives a sort of “mind-set” into why you find that it’s “Bible-believing” Christians who find that the grand theory of Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, while more “liberal-minded” Christians (in terms of how they “understand” the Bible) are far more accommodating of this grand theory of Evolution...
The more liberal-minded Christians (again, in terms of theological understandings) have a “grand disconnect” of the Gospel of Salvation with *reality*. Their salvation is something that stands “out in space on nothing” — absent anything in the “real world”. It’s allegory to them, and “salvation” itself almost progresses to the level of allegory...
The Gospel of Salvation is linked to the real world that we live in and the real world that was created by our Creator God, in the manner that He told us.
Who was Adam? Was he an ape-man? Was his father an ape-man?
Man didn’t evolve. It is not heresy to imagine that God took an animal and made it Man. Animals are made of elements just like any mud or rocks or sand.
The Bible doesn’t tell us this.
Gen 9:3
Yes, after the Fall.
God’s plan was that a human embryo evolves into a human baby who grows up.........to be human. Liberals fight night and day for the power to kill those innocent embryos.
We are made in the likeness and image of God. I will contemplate that not some inane claim we evolved from a fish into a human. There is NO proof anywhere in all the years we have tried to find it that anything evolved into anything else. It is a fool’s journey to spend their life trying to prove evolution. It is manmade theory, nothing more.
And now I will sign off FR for the day thus avoiding the flame war aimed at me. ;-)
The Bible says Man could eat anything in the garden except the fruit of the Tree of Life. Doesn’t say don’t eat the animals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.