Skip to comments.When and Why Anti-Darwinism First Arose
Posted on 06/03/2009 8:22:21 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
When and Why Anti-Darwinism First Arose
I'm a big fan of Rod Dreher. His Crunchy Con blog rarely fails to enlighten me, so I've been looking forward to his reflections on faith and science, generated by his current visit to Cambridge University as a Cambridge-Templeton fellow. Rod blogged today in response to a lecture and discussion in which evolution came up. He writes that "Darwinism wasn't initially opposed by Christians" and credits William Jennings Bryan with rallying the faithful against evolution. This is worth some further elaboration. How soon did opposition to Darwinism develop? Among whom, and why?...
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Mendel proved Darwin wrong almost immediately.
And so it is today.
Really? I’m not a trained biologist or anything, but I’d still love to see a source backing up this claim.
A Temple of Darwin tent meeting where the Darwin-drones relive their evolutionary heritage with American Indians?
I am a trained biologist and I would love to see a source for that claim as well.
You can't handle the truth!
The doctor will be investigating the source of that claim as soon as he puts on his rubber glove and changes the batteries in his little flashlight.
==So, basically, the anti-evolution argument boils down to: You can’t handle the truth!
You might be onto something there!:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism....It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
—Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist and Temple of Darwin devotee
“Enough is enough! I’ve had it with these muthacrunchycon snakes in muthacrunchycon church!”
A ding dang diddly darned mad Ned Flanders
I would recommend these sources as to historical surveys on the Christian church’s and Protestant teaching on creation.
THE GREAT TURNING POINT by Terry Mortenson
Protestant Reformed Journal, Volume XXXVI, November 2002,
“In the Space of Six Days,” by Mark L. Shane (an excellent historical survey of the church’s teaching on creation and how reformed denominations came under the influence of Darwinism) The article is continued in the April, 2003 and November, 2003 issues.
There are also several historical essays in the newly published: COMING TO GRIPS WITH GENESIS: BIBLICAL AUTHORITY AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH edited by Terry Mortenson PhD. and Thane H. Ury PhD.
WOW. Science Fiction and Junk Science quote of the day!
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism....It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist and Temple of Darwin devotee
That is exactly how most people feel about Darwood’s Evo-religious creation myth.
Your explanation make so much more sense.
“Do you hear that faint noise?”
“No sir, I don’t hear a thing.”
“Oh, I hear it now.”
“And now its gone.”
“I wonder what that was.”
“Sir, we have just learned that we ran over the HMS Beagle.”
the Darwinian process may be described as a chapter of accidents. As such, it seems simple, because you do not at first realize all that it involves. But when its significance dawns on you, your heart sinks into a heap of sand within you. There is a hideous fatalism about it, a ghastly and damnable reduction of beauty and intelligence, of strength and purpose, of honor and aspiration, to such casually picturesque changes as an avalanche may make in a mountain landscape, or a railway accident in a human figure. To call this Natural Selection is a blasphemy, possible to many for whom Nature is nothing but a casual aggregation of inert and dead matter, but eternally impossible to the spirits and souls of the righteous. If it be no blasphemy, but a truth of science, then the stars of heaven, the showers and dew, the winter and summer, the fire and heat, the mountains and hills, may no longer be called to exhaust the Lord with us by praise: their work is to modify all things by blindly starving and murdering everything that is not lucky enough to survive the eternal struggle for hogwash.
- George Bernard Shaw Back to Methuselah
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you wont find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Objective intelligence is to evolutionary biology what poison is to life.
Darwin, Darwoin, Darwood, Derwood...see, it’s evolution in action!
It began with the Roman author, Pliny the Elder, who believed that fossil shark teeth fell from the sky.
I assume Beck would reKant his statement seeing the refusal of many believers in these days to believe in macro-evolution.
Brian's populism, fundamentalism, and isolationism was a result of the US economy shifting from agrarian to industrial.
Today, the same forces are at work because the US economy is shifting from industrial to information.
Bryan was no fundamentalist. For instance, he believed that the days of creation were periods of time rather than actual earth days.
Prosecuting Scopes makes him a fundamentalist
Wow, now you're the majority as well as the Chosen Prophet on the Falsity of Darwinism ?
LOL...Somehow I don’t think you are aware of what Jennings et al were objecting to. If you did, you might find yourself agreeing with them.
Somehow I don’t think you realize the congruity between Brian’s power base and today’s GOP power base.
You have no clue what you’re talking about. Tell me, do you agree with the textbooks Br(y)an et al were objecting to???
Any and everyone can look at your threads and know that you are dumber than a door knob.
The only way that could possibly makes sense is if you were looking in the mirror when you said that. Next time you are looking in the mirror, be sure to add copout to the description.
I am almost 99% sure that if you had 30 creation threads daily, every high school in the US would begin teaching creation
It is clear you lack the intestinal fortitude to back up your Evo-position. Do you know what Bryan (not Brian) et al were objecting to in the Evo-textbooks at the time or not? If you do know, are you in agreement with Bryan et al’s objection to the same or not? Given your rather fragile and fidgety nature, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for your answers.
PS And now that you mention it, I will be starting another creation thread. Thanks for the reminder.
That is being ground out each and every day.
That's your problem. You think reality is determined by what is posted here.
Your little simile tag-line is saying that ID destroys evolution akin to how socialism destroys free markets, YES?
Now let me ask you a simple question, do you believe that human consciousness ultimately came from mindlessness?
What do you think?
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.