Posted on 10/31/2009 3:25:50 PM PDT by Natural Law
A great scientist who actually understood the difference between theory, fact, and faith.
And, almost as important, he understood the difference between hypothesis and theory; a distinction lost an many even here on FR.
Poster child for the religion of humanism.
Good point. I seldom make that distinction myself.
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.
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.
Like Newton, I figure it was the followers of Darwin responsible for this bad rap.
"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.
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.
“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.”
Darwin was little more than a second rate “scientist”, not a god, not a devil.
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.
“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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.