Aaaah, no!
You might as well blame kale, or broccoli for all the world's evils, that would make just as much sense.
"Darwinism" (whatever that means) is not the "root" of all evil, it's misuse is merely symptomatic of what evil minded people can do with any idea, whether scientific, philosophical, religious or whatever.
Indeed Darwin's ideas on evolution are simply the natural outcome of scientific assumptions and physical evidence.
No other theories meeting those basic criteria explain the evidence so well.
Of course the religious problem here is that scientific ideas which can well be used to explain "how God did it" instead are often assumed to claim, "no God is necessary or exists".
But those are religious or philosophical claims, not scientific, and neither Darwin nor any other scientist could make such claims scientifically.
So the enemy of Christianity is not science, or scientists per se, but rather atheists who proclaim their atheism masquerading as science.
Again, "Darwinism" strictly defined is simply a natural explanation for what the Bible tells us God created.
.
Joe, you haven’t the faintest idea what science is.
.
“”Darwinism” (whatever that means)”
==
Here ya go
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/darwinism
“”Darwinism” strictly defined is”
==
See above. Yer welcome
“No other theories meeting those basic criteria explain the evidence so well.”
You can make that kind of statement only when you have total knowledge of all things relative to science. It will never occur. As one of my professors use to tell us, mankind is only in the infancy of its knowledge.
I agree with most of that, but we still have to remember no one has ever seen anything actually evolve, it is supposedly too gradual and takes to long. You would need time travel of some sort. I guess it’s always only going to be a theory until we can observe it happening. The left doesn’t treat it like a theory, they declare it dogma and become micro-aggressed if someone doesn’t buy it.
Freegards
You are in for a mega surprise... Darwin was ticked off at God and Darwin devised his own explanation for what he saw. Darwin was spiritually blind as a bat. There is nothing in the Written Word that supports Darwin's notions. Evolution ignores the 'soul/spirit intellect', because the soul/spirit intellect is not testable...
One never hears much about the primordial hot bowl of soup, these days, wherein a single cell got all hot and bothered and reproduced itself... Noooo, the primordial hot bowl of soup days get shoved off to the dark side, and the pretense is that it is separate from the 'scientific method'.
For evolution to have been God's method of operation, then there would not be any particular or specific species.
The Word does not date the 'In the beginning', but there is an abundance of evidence that this earth is very very old. As it is Written what has been will be again.. Flesh bodies came about because the serpent rebelled and was judged to death... As Solomon penned in Ecclesiastes 1
9 That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which it may be said, “See, this is new”? It has already been in ancient times before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things, Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come By those who will come after.
Flesh bodies were initially formed/created to be the vessel wherein each willing soul/intellect would pass through this flesh journey. There are a numbered souls/intellect, also called fallen angels that refused to take this flesh journey. They like the devil have already been judged to death.
No Darwinist can pin point a date wherein the souls/spirit intellect were created. And the souls/spirit intellect are not flesh and were not spawned in a hot bowl of primordial soup. At every 'conception' a willing soul/spirit intellect is place in utero... and passed the first requirement to 'see' the kingdom of God. Darwin's notions simply are not capable of explaining the purpose of the flesh age.
I wish that were true, but I don't think it is. Darwinism presents a world ruled by fang and claw (in which power, not right, prevail). My sympathies are with those who'd like to regard the world and nature itself as being guided by a benevolent God, and explained in an understandable way in the Bible. Alas, my own view is that there isn't a reasonable basis for religion either in Darwinism or in reliance on the inconsistent texts of the Bible.
I believe the only possible basis for religion lies in religious "experience" itself -- actual experience of something that transcends the natural (the natural -- examined closely -- is evil in many respects, by almost any standard accepted by decent human beings). By religious experience I mean something like what William James describes in The Varieties of Religious Experience, or what others claim to experience in mystical feelings of union with God or just in ordinary prayer.
Those experiences may be illusory, but in my opinion claims of religious experiences that transcend the natural world have a better chance of being true than far-fetched attempts to reconcile the claims of religion with what we see in the natural world.