Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On the Myths about Charles Darwin
Oct. 31, 2009 | Natural Law

Posted on 10/31/2009 3:25:50 PM PDT by Natural Law

Much has been made of the piety, or rather the lack thereof, of Charles Darwin. He has repeatedly been characterized on FR as an atheist, a fool, a demon, an agent of devil, and one on a vendetta to drive believers away from God. Some go so far as to declare him a false God and the science he suggested to be a false religion. Those that profess this are either grossly ignorant or intentionally deceiving so as to reinforce their personal beliefs and conclusions. Diminishing the messenger is often easier than diminishing the message.

The Myth that Darwin was an atheist. Charles Darwin was a religious man, educated in Anglican schools and taught by Catholics priests at the university level. He was active in his parish and shared long term friendships with members of the clergy. After many years of abuse at the hands of clergy and religious institutions for offering his treatise on the origin of species he turned away from organized religion, but not from God. In a letter to the skeptic John Fordyce, Darwin wrote (7 May 1879):

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God”

In his Autobiography, Darwin put forward plenty of other reasons for abandoning his belief in conventional Christianity and on several occasions stated that he saw no incompatibility between evolution and religion.

The Myth that Darwin believed in spontaneous generation or that life emerged from nothing. Darwin never addressed initial creation or suggested any answers to the origin of life. His work dealt with the variations of life and the adaptations to specific environments. In his autobiography Darwin stated; “the conclusion was strong in my mind” [that] “I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist”. He further stated; “I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”

Here Agnostic does not mean doubtful of the existence of God. Darwin chose his words carefully. It simply means is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims are unknown or, unknowable. It is not a religious declaration as an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.

The Myth that Darwin blamed God and lost his Christian faith because of the death of his daughter Annie. There is no direct documentary evidence for this in anything Darwin or his contemporaries wrote. Darwin certainly never said anything about it. It is a hypothesis formulated by Darwin biographer Jim Moore. However, anyone who has ever suffered the loss of a child can justifiably question the mercy of God.


TOPICS: Activism; History; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; creationism; darwin; evolution

1 posted on 10/31/2009 3:25:53 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

A great scientist who actually understood the difference between theory, fact, and faith.


2 posted on 10/31/2009 3:28:20 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

And, almost as important, he understood the difference between hypothesis and theory; a distinction lost an many even here on FR.


3 posted on 10/31/2009 3:33:55 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama: The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Poster child for the religion of humanism.


4 posted on 10/31/2009 3:40:30 PM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Good point. I seldom make that distinction myself.


5 posted on 10/31/2009 3:46:24 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan
"What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapagos Islands?" philosopher of science David Hull asked in a 1991 essay in the journal Nature. "The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror," he noted. Citing the findings of Galapagos finches researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant as prime evidence against any but a sado-masochist's natural theology, Hull protested. "The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical."

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/4225/Default.aspx

Ideas have consequences. For a theist, what one believes about evolution says something about what you believe about the character and nature of God. Sure, evolution is compatible with 'religion' because it is _foundational_ to most of the world's (man-made) religions. But that doesn't make it nice, or true. That's why its defenders are so, hmm, emotional - because it is their foundational religious beliefs that are threatened by science.

6 posted on 10/31/2009 3:49:40 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Excellent article, but unless you can do it five times a day, every day, quality be damned, you’ll never match the Professor of Ignorance.


7 posted on 10/31/2009 3:55:51 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Damn shame really, Not too many people know that Newton was a very religious man. It was his followers that eliminated God from his writings.

Like Newton, I figure it was the followers of Darwin responsible for this bad rap.


8 posted on 10/31/2009 3:57:35 PM PDT by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan
Anyone who thinks Darwin was a "Poster child for the religion of humanism" is him/herself a poster child for brick-wall mentality. No mention of Alfred Russell Wallace, I notice. Remember him?

"Survival of the fittest" was a snappy way of encapsulating the observed phenomenon pioneered by such naturalists as Wallace and Darwin of animals adapting to environmental changes through natural selection in offspring resulting in overall survival of the lifeform.

Pride-blinded brick-wall people whose faith in God and Jesus is weak have stupidly and willfully misinterpreted it to mean "Ruthlessness is the key to survival," which of course goes against Judeo-Christian teachings.

Adapt or perish -- it holds true on both our worldly plane and our spiritual plane. The natural world is dog-eat-dog -- animals that adapt survive and those that don't, perish. Our spiritual world, even as revealed in the Bible, is equally dog-eat-dog; God in His Wisdom has given us a handbook and instruction manual of how we humans, made in His image, can adapt in our behaviors to survive both spiritually and physically under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Civilizations that defy God's laws perish. Those that adapt to them, survive. The bible lays down laws that will ensure human survival and thriving anyplace, anytime.

God is everywhere, and His love is key. Civilizations perish when they become ruthless; those who equate "adapt or perish" with "you must be ruthless to survive" are dunderheaded idiots of weak insight and weaker confidence in God's wisdom.

9 posted on 10/31/2009 4:06:08 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Good article.

As a theist, I am perfectly comfortable with the Theory of Evolution. I am not much of a science person—I won’t pretend to be an expert on evolution, or that the theory as it stands is infallible, but I find the slow, intricate, never-ending development of species a much more impressive statement about the scope of God’s power, the vastness of His plans, and His constant involvement in Creation than some split-second hocus-pocus. The Creator is ever creating.


10 posted on 10/31/2009 4:23:10 PM PDT by Julia H. (Freedom of speech and freedom from criticism are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“The Myth that Darwin believed in spontaneous generation or that life emerged from nothing. Darwin never addressed initial creation or suggested any answers to the origin of life.”

Really?

“Science News
Charles Darwin Really Did Have Advanced Ideas About The Origin Of Life
ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 2009)
A comment in a notebook dating back to 1837, in which Darwin explains that “the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable,” gave the researchers their clue...........
In another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy.”


11 posted on 10/31/2009 4:29:04 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Darwin was little more than a second rate “scientist”, not a god, not a devil.


12 posted on 10/31/2009 4:51:51 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (There are only two REAL conservatives in America - myself, and my chosen Presidential candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"In another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker"

Famous? So famous no one has heard of it, except those who sift through his waste basket looking for incriminations. Exploring a line of thought in a private letter in a rhetorical posing and expecting a thoughtful response hardly professing the musing as fact.

13 posted on 10/31/2009 5:31:47 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“Darwin never addressed initial creation or suggested any answers to the origin of life.”

It seems you are wrong. Just do a bit research before posting and it will help reduce such obvious mistakes. As for the inability to recognize your error, I don’t know what you can do about that, it’s not my concern.


14 posted on 10/31/2009 6:42:30 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God: The Convergence Of Scientific And Biblical Wisdom
15 posted on 10/31/2009 7:04:07 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
"The Science Of God: The Convergence Of Scientific And Biblical Wisdom"

A definite read for those who are open to exploring both sides of the evolution vs creation debate. I'm not completely comfortable with either the science or theology in the book, but I can relate.

16 posted on 10/31/2009 7:14:16 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"It seems you are wrong."

"Seems"? I included my sources to substantiate my positions. If you want to refute them cite your material or remain at the kiddie table while the grown-ups speak.

17 posted on 10/31/2009 7:16:48 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Francis S Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
18 posted on 10/31/2009 7:24:06 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
The only thing you cited was CD’s Autobiography on his religious beliefs of lack of them.

I guess my choice of words could have been better; You are definitely and obviously wrong. And attacking the messenger with ridicule won't diminish either.

19 posted on 10/31/2009 7:37:33 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: Natural Law; All

MyMyMy, such language! But since your reference was not on the origin of life but on First Cause it means nothing.

And it wasn’t what I was convinced of but what the researchers in the article I referenced.

More: “According to the researchers, all Darwin’s opinions on the origin of life can be found in his private correspondence and in his notebooks. The exception is a review of a book on foraminiferous microorganisms published in 1863 in the London social club Athenaeum, where Darwin “lets his opinion on the spontaneous generation be known”.
The international team, comprising Spanish, US and Mexican scientists, has not only examined in detail the phrases, texts and paragraphs of the letters, but has also put into context all Darwin’s opinions on the origins of life, available online and in the original manuscripts.
Journal reference:
Pereto, Juli; Bada, Jeffrey L.; Lazcano, Antonio. Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, 39(5): 395-406 October 2009”

Thank You!


21 posted on 10/31/2009 8:25:15 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
Damn shame really, Not too many people know that Newton was a very religious man. It was his followers that eliminated God from his writings.

Certainly anyone with a passing interest in Newton has some notion of his religiosity. The opening sentence of the Wikipedia article on Newton identifies him as "... an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian ..."

The idea that "his followers" "eliminated God from his writings" is a gross distortion. He wrote voluminously on e.g. ancient chronology, and it's true that these writings are not widely disseminated, and even considered an embarrassment by some, but Newton himself never sought to disseminate these ideas, and was famously reluctant to publish even his scientific writings.

There is a widely known profession of his religious belief in the General Scholium of the Principia, and it is a ringing statement of theism, ( "We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes;" ... etc. ) Many prefer to ignore this short discourse, but it is duly included in all the available editions of the Principia that I know of.

Also please note that Newton's beliefs were unitarian in principle, and he was protected by friends from having to recite a profession of Anglican faith, which he would have refused to do in conscience, and would have thereby sacrificed his entire professional and social standing.

22 posted on 10/31/2009 8:38:32 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Did you miss this too?

“Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.”


23 posted on 10/31/2009 8:40:36 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: count-your-change
“Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.”

No, I didn't miss it "too", but you did. My advice is that you should adhere to it.

25 posted on 10/31/2009 8:50:32 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.


26 posted on 10/31/2009 8:57:03 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
"Do not use potty language"

Ican't recall using any "potty language". What exactly is "potty language"? Is there an official or unofficial list? Is it limited to human bodily functions or scatological references in general?

27 posted on 10/31/2009 9:01:51 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Darwin was useless, as were his poorly developed, full-of-holes theories, and all of the unfounded conjectures that grew out of them and into the modern scourge of godless humanism.

The “missing link” will never be found, for excellent reason. None exists.

There is no link between chordates and inchordates, no link between primates and homo sapiens, no explanation for the fact that man posses both a thalamus and a hypothalamus, while none of the primates (nor any other species)do...

No explanation (other than fraud) for Peking man, Java man, and 2 - 3 others which turned out to be nothing but boxes of misidentified or deliberately wrongly-categorized remnants...

No explanation but arrogant men seeking a way to worship themselves instead of acknowledging the sovereign G_d.


28 posted on 10/31/2009 9:14:58 PM PDT by AmericanArchConservative (Armour on, Lances high, Swords out, Bows drawn, Shields front ... Eagles UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I believe it was in reference to myself but maybe not. If I understand the rules correctly for this particular forum simply saying someone is wrong is acceptable but much more than that is not nice. And no matter what others have done or do, I don’t/haven’t called anyone insulting names for....it must be hours by now.
29 posted on 10/31/2009 9:15:22 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"I don’t/haven’t called anyone insulting names..."

You have demonstrated the ability to be insulting without resorting to name calling. Anything I might have said would have to have been untrue to have crossed the line.

30 posted on 10/31/2009 9:29:38 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AmericanArchConservative
"Darwin was useless, as were his poorly developed, full-of-holes theories, and all of the unfounded conjectures that grew out of them and into the modern scourge of godless humanism."

Attacking the man for the theory he put forward does not substantiate your positioninopposition to his theory.

The “missing link” will never be found, for excellent reason."

Absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence. The data set is still incomplete and the Origin of Species remains a theory. Perhaps you could demonstrate your open mindedness by letting us know what standard of proof you require.

31 posted on 10/31/2009 9:39:07 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God”

What is the first commandment? Thou shalt have no other gods before ME. Even the atheist has a 'god' or 'gods'. And Darwin did not, regardless who trained him, believe in the LORD thy God that brought the children out of the house of bondage. NO as a matter of fact this nation collectively turned their backs on their own Heavenly Father and this past election voted to go back into bondage. And the majority of Americans that voted, voted to install over them one who is in the practice of that higher doctrine, called 'scientific methodology'...

The more things change the more they remain the same. IF evolution were the methodology the Heavenly Father put in motion all those eons ago there sure ought to be mass utopia around this globe.

32 posted on 10/31/2009 9:41:54 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"And Darwin did not, regardless who trained him, believe in the LORD thy God that brought the children out of the house of bondage."

How did you arrive at that conclusion? What works by and about him have your critically read to be able to pass judgment about his belief system? And what does his level of belief have to do with the validity of his observations?I would prefer to keep this discussion grounded in the scientific method.

In 1877 Charles Peirce outlined four methods for the settlement of doubt, graded from least to most, by their success in achieving a sound fixation of belief:

1) The method of tenacity — persisting in that which one is inclined to think.

2) The method of authority — conformity to a source of ready-made beliefs.

3) The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or “what is agreeable to reason” — leading to argumentation that gets finally nowhere.

4) The scientific method — whereby inquiry actually tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

33 posted on 10/31/2009 9:53:44 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Please, no more e-mails, I won't answer them and responding even to the first was not a good idea. If you can't post it to me, don't mail it to me.
34 posted on 10/31/2009 10:03:38 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AmericanArchConservative
“... no explanation for the fact that man posses both a thalamus and a hypothalamus, while none of the primates (nor any other species)do...”

I believe the explanation goes something like this: once upon a time long ago a human ancestor, that was non-human, had a random mutation that generated new information in the DNA of one of its sex cells that resulted in a little bud of a thalamus in one of the offspring, though not really yet a thalamus, just maybe one one-thousanths on its way to becoming a fully functioning thalamus. But the environment was such that this bud of a thalamus, which was not a thalamus or anywhere close to a functioning thalamus, somehow benefited the offspring to such an extent that he/she was better able to survive and pass on this mutated gene. The other poor non-humans, not having the one one-thousandths of a thalamus were at such a large disadvantage that they died off. Then over eons of time the same thing happened over and over and over again until, hey, we now have a fully functional thalamus and all the species who had an incomplete thalamus, anywhere from the initial bud of a thalamus up until almost a complete thalamus died off and became extinct. Why there aren't creatures surviving with an “almost thalamus,” I don't know, but there you have it. See?

35 posted on 10/31/2009 10:09:20 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
How did you arrive at that conclusion? What works by and about him have your critically read to be able to pass judgment about his belief system? And what does his level of belief have to do with the validity of his observations?I would prefer to keep this discussion grounded in the scientific method. In 1877 Charles Peirce outlined four methods for the settlement of doubt, graded from least to most, by their success in achieving a sound fixation of belief: 1) The method of tenacity — persisting in that which one is inclined to think. 2) The method of authority — conformity to a source of ready-made beliefs. 3) The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or “what is agreeable to reason” — leading to argumentation that gets finally nowhere. 4) The scientific method — whereby inquiry actually tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

Darwin apparently had NO clue why this flesh age was set in motion. Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages. And in Genesis where Moses records the creation account Moses does not say the soul/spirit was created, but that the the flesh being was not alive until the breath of life which means soul was breathed into the nostril of the Adam.

Christ Himself tells Nicodemus that "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born *from above*, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Now for whatever reason(s) most translations wrongly put the word *again* in place of *from above* and some will even make the word again a religion. However, in verse 13 Christ leaves no doubt about which word He used. 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven.

Darwin's whole theory is that the Heavenly Father did not create the creatures of this flesh age like He had Moses pen in Genesis. And Peter tells us how long a day with the Lord is so there is no reason to question how long a day is in the account Moses penned. Either one believes the Heavenly Father did what is recorded or they do not and according to Darwin he did not believe.

36 posted on 10/31/2009 10:19:51 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Darwin's whole theory is that the Heavenly Father did not create the creatures of this flesh age like He had Moses pen in Genesis."

I take from your response that you have not read anything by or about Darwin except the excerpts in the Religion forum on FR or in your church bulletin. I also see that you prefer to advance your case in the method of authority. I would prefer to stay in the realm of science.

Charles Darwin shared some of the same thoughts on the compatibility of science and faith, evolution and creation, that have recently been expressed by Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Catholic Church. I hold the same belief. For some here on FR that will be further evidence that Rome is somewhere in the southwest corner of hell and that Benedict XVI is an "evo-atheist". I contend that Darwin's works only serve to further reveal the beauty of God's work.

37 posted on 10/31/2009 10:34:40 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

[Absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence.]

And a turn of a mildly relevant cliche does not constitute an adequate argument, nor a summary dismissal of an opposition argument.

Dismissing Darwin as useless is about the mildest thing his many detractors (myself included) have to say.

Many of Darwin’s followers have proven themselves to be made of significantly lesser “stuff” than old Charley...

For examplewith the volume of fossils recovered, it is a challenge to a reasonable intellect to believe that, although NONE of the fossils yet located support ANY link, one may still steadfastly assert that it is only because the links haven’t been uncovered.

If we arbitrarily say that there have been - oh, perhaps a million identifiable fossil samples unearthed (there are far more, I believe), and thus far ZERO of them from ANY dig, on ANY continent, representative of ANY geologic era which support the modern Darwinian “model”...

You want to know what standard of proof I require? LM**O!

I require that a minimum of 5% of all fossils provide substantive evidence of links connecting: reptiles to amphibians, vertebrates to invertebrates, chordates to inchordates, and primates to homo sapiens.

Out of an example volume of only one million, that would only require fifty thousand, right?

A significant number of archaeological artifacts relating to OT and NT Biblical events and locations have been uncovered, age-dated and otherwise verified as augmenting/clarifying the related biblical accounts, generally tending to lend credence overall, yet the mainstream media and the non-Christian/Jewish world continues to hold it at arm’s length - insisting upon further evidence, a higher standard of proof.

The tumbled walls of Jericho have been unearthed and other evidence cutting across a wide range of biblical eras as well. Still, the world at large defaults to an argument of “Wel, you have no ‘Noah’s Ark’, no Holy Grail, no Ark of the Covenant - so we have a right to remain highly skeptical...”

And though it may ultimately prove foolish on their part, indeed they do have that right. The point is just that there exists a clear double standard, and they seem to reserve the right to raise the bar after the fact.

It is worth noting that you at least have the candor to reference the Origin of Species as a theory. Most today - especially those in academia (public schools and universities) regard it as “holy writ”, while they dismiss real Holy Writ as fairy tales, convenient but unsubstantiated stories, the invention of man for the purpose of controlling other men, ad infinitum, ad nauseum

I will also note here that it was not you, but me who introduced the elements of the conflicts between the religious and secular worlds into the periphery of the discussion - not as a means of distraction or deflection, but as a point of reference - a baseline of sorts for contrasting opposition arguments which occur on essentially a similar “playing field”

I have “demonstrated my openmindedness” as you suggested.

I have no faith whatever that even five thousand fossils will be located that adequately substantiate the Origin of Species theory.

A fair question to ask would be: How long must one hold out “hope”, and contend as a matter of course that a data set must be held open and considered incomplete?

Must we wait for five million fossils without any substantiation...or fifty, or one hundred?

Must we wait for ten more years, or fifty, or a hundred, or...?

How long must patent frauds like the Peking man or Java man farces be perpetrated..Or similar frauds that are well known but little publicized surrounding supposed dinosaur fossil remnants. There have been literally scores of such hoaxes which have gone unreported by mainstream media.

The “Tasaday” tribe comes to mind readily, as does the story of a moth which supposedly took on biologically generated dark speckling of its wings as an adaptive and protective survival technique in an area where tree trunks that the moth was found on were covered with such mottling from the extensive and widespread burning of coal. Turned out that Darwinist “scientists” were later discovered to have fabricated evidence, journals, reports...all to prop up something that they had no other means of supporting.

To resort to a sports metaphor, it is as if one team has been losing fifty games a year, and getting shut out in the process - for more than a hundred years. Worse than that, they have been discovered cheating at several junctures all along the way...

And yet there remains a stubborn insistence that they need to keep playing because they are ultimately going to win, once and for all, and that it will negate all previous victories by their opposites...

Astonishing, IMHO.

I am not making this a personal attack against you, nor indelibly identifying you as countenancing such cheating - I am noting that those things have occurred and that they should rightly be considered as impacting the overall validity/credibility of that side of the argument.

A.A.C.


38 posted on 10/31/2009 11:02:49 PM PDT by AmericanArchConservative (Armour on, Lances high, Swords out, Bows drawn, Shields front ... Eagles UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I take from your response that you have not read anything by or about Darwin except the excerpts in the Religion forum on FR or in your church bulletin. I also see that you prefer to advance your case in the method of authority. I would prefer to stay in the realm of science.

What I will proffer to you up front is that I have Catholic in-laws who vote for liberals. And I like most of them most of the time and love some of them all the time. And I am quite familiar with the practice. Now you proffered in your post that

The Myth that Darwin was an atheist. Charles Darwin was a religious man, educated in Anglican schools and taught by Catholics priests at the university level. He was active in his parish and shared long term friendships with members of the clergy. After many years of abuse at the hands of clergy and religious institutions for offering his treatise on the origin of species he turned away from organized religion, but not from God. In a letter to the skeptic John Fordyce, Darwin wrote (7 May 1879):

with authority.

I will also tell you that I believe with my whole being that each and every 'soul/spirit' coming through this flesh age has the God given right to believe whatever they choose.

I have NO doubt this earth is very very very old. I read in Genesis 1:2 there was a flood, which Peter describes as well, and some like to claim Peter was talking about Noah's flood but the flood Peter speaks of took place as Peter says in the age that was.

It was not until I read for myself Genesis line by line that I realize there was much or better said majority of what is Written, the majority of churches ignore. And then when DNA was discovered and demonstrated to be a method of identification of family members there was NO way that all peoples could have come through only two people. And Genesis describes two different day time periods wherein there were more than only two peoples created in the beginning of this flesh age.

And this was foretold would be the case that the majority of the peoples on this earth would build their own way and as Jeremiah penned 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known ME; they are *sottish* children, and they have non understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

And then Jeremiah describes what took place that Moses points to in Genesis 1:2 wherein this earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

I do know that the Heavenly Father judges based upon the heart and mind knowing that only He can know, but He is not happy with the preacher/priest class that mislead His children.

Charles Darwin shared some of the same thoughts on the compatibility of science and faith, evolution and creation, that have recently been expressed by Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Catholic Church. I hold the same belief. For some here on FR that will be further evidence that Rome is somewhere in the southwest corner of hell and that Benedict XVI is an "evo-atheist". I contend that Darwin's works only serve to further reveal the beauty of God's work.

I do not put my faith or trust in any flesh being. Christ said I have foretold you all things and that was before one jot or tittle of the new was ever put to writing.

Peter points to words which were spoken before by the 'holy' prophets put to writing I have been told is considered allegory and is NOT believed to be a literal account. But yet Paul says that "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whome the ends of the world (age) are come."

That is not what Catholics are taught or believe.

Evolution has not been kept under the religious doctrine of the Catholic Church, but it was given 'authority' by our Supreme court as being the only education allowed by public education, which I by law am required to fund. I have no problem if the theory were to have been left by itself in Catholic private education.

39 posted on 10/31/2009 11:18:51 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I’ve never read that Darwin was taught by Catholics in university do you have a link or reference for that? He was certainly a fundamentalist protestant when he boarded the Beagle but one who might also have been influenced by Catholicism through Erasmus Darwin.

I don’t believe the loss of his daughter had anything to do with his loss of faith either. That seemed to have happened early on around the time of his marriage and is referred to in a letter to his wife.


40 posted on 11/02/2009 5:06:05 AM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson