- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
Charles Darwin should have a stage of his own. He gave hope to men that other factors may have been involved in creation apart from God and they cling to every word of his theory.From wikipedia
“Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist. After becoming eminent among scientists for his field work and inquiries into geology, he proposed and provided scientific evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors through the process of natural selection.[1] The fact that evolution occurs became accepted by the scientific community and the general public in his lifetime, while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1] and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory. In modified form, Darwin’s scientific discovery remains the foundation of biology, as it provides a unifying logical explanation for the diversity of life.[2]Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine at Edinburgh University, then theology at Cambridge.[3] His five-year voyage on the Beagle established him as a geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian ideas, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author. Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838. Having seen others attacked as heretics for such ideas, he confided only in his closest friends and continued extensive research to meet anticipated objections.[4] His research was still in progress in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described a similar theory, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.[5]
His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. He examined human evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.[6]
In recognition of Darwin’s pre-eminence, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.”[7]
Note he did not propose that LIFE itself came about as a result of pure chance.
That is true. He didn't say that there wasn't a God.
But many of Darwin's followers say that there is no God because the theory of Evolution has proven that he doesn't exist.
So some stretch the imagination even further by saying that there is no God because Evolution demands such a conclusion.
Hi,
From the Origin of Species
“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. “It is good to see Charles Darwin discussed dispassionately here.
Quote He didn't say that there wasn't a God.
Darwin identified as agnostic, and he appears to have tempered his disbelief for the sake of his family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….sticism
Darwin agreed that Christianity was “not supported by the evidence”, but he had reached this conclusion only slowly: “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.”Quote But many of Darwin's followers say that there is no God because the theory of Evolution has proven that he doesn't exist. So some stretch the imagination even further by saying that there is no God because Evolution demands such a conclusion.
There is no honesty in making such a conclusion. Evolutionary theory has nothing at all to say about gods. Darwin did make it possible to be an intellectually credible atheist. He removed design as a catch-all argument for the existence of gods.Stuart
Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed
This last bit is a quaint turn of phrase. It has allegorical and poetic value, it’s even whimsical in the manner of Stephen Hawking. I suspect also that Darwin may have thought to appease his religious detractors by leaving open a gap for their god to exist in, that of our ignorance of abiogenesis.Quote Note he did not propose that LIFE itself came about as a result of pure chance.
He really indicates here what is true of all of us. We just don’t know for sure exactly how the first organism came to be.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 04 2008,19:13) There is no honesty in making such a conclusion. Evolutionary theory has nothing at all to say about gods. Darwin did make it possible to be an intellectually credible atheist. He removed design as a catch-all argument for the existence of gods.
So are you saying that the Theory of Evolution has no play in your disbelief of God?Read my quote again.
Quote But many of Darwin's followers say that there is no God because the theory of Evolution has proven that he doesn't exist. So some stretch the imagination even further by saying that there is no God because Evolution demands such a conclusion. What part is not true?
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 04 2008,19:20) He really indicates here what is true of all of us. We just don’t know for sure exactly how the first organism came to be. Stuart
There it is.You don't know.
Yet you somehow and mysteriously know that there is no creator.
I don't expect you to see the double standard, but I am sure that some can.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 04 2008,11:57) Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. “
Interesting use of words.Breathe means spirit.
t8
Do you make a strawman of every person you meet online? Stop before you post t8. Have a quiet think, and consider what else I have posted. Then make an intelligent, considered post that adds to the discussion and does not take us right back to the discussion about the limits of science that we had months ago. Read about Bertrand Russell's teapot.
Stuart
Stu you cannot even answer where you stand regarding the source of all things.
A) Nothing
B) Something
C) Someone
D) Don't knowThen you condemn one of the choices straight off the bat with no proof or option to defend.
So how can I take you seriously?
I mean it. If you cannot satisfy this simple inquiry, then your condemnation of one of the options is just plain ridiculous and your smaller arguments have no value because you are arguing about the trees while ignoring the forest.
Evolution is a theory, an attempt to describe how species (not life itself) originated. It was based on observations in nature and remains of the past. It never was an attempt to prove or disprove God or justify any human social engineering. As a theory it is well respected by most in the scientific circle. Many of us find no problem in thinking that external forces have led certain species to change and adapt to those stresses as part of life and nature. As far as I know it only becomes a problem when we look at humanity and the idea that man may have come from another species rather then being created directly by the creator, as per a literal reading of Genesis. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. ” Thus if we believe this as written and the time frame for this was instantaneous and not figuratively over eons, then the theory of evolution does not apply to mankind. At the same time it is this literal view that others find so incredulous that they throw out the whole idea of divine action as myth. I think this is the true crux of the argument, for if there is no literal view of creation then evolution and faith are not necessarily opposed; one (evolution) could be a mechanism of the other (God).
Hi,
Charles did not set out to disprove God or creation. He never proposed it as the source of life. But his ideas of adaptation to circumstances opened the door for thoughts that all we see now is the result of that adaptation process. It soon became so popular in it's extreme form that it has become compulsory to be taught it in some countries.However the beginning of it all remains for them a mystery as also is the male/female problem and the remarkably successful progress of the adaptations so that every niche is filled with no guiding Force allowable to explain these things.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 05 2008,22:00) Stu you cannot even answer where you stand regarding the source of all things. A) Nothing
B) Something
C) Someone
D) Don't knowThen you condemn one of the choices straight off the bat with no proof or option to defend.
So how can I take you seriously?
I mean it. If you cannot satisfy this simple inquiry, then your condemnation of one of the options is just plain ridiculous and your smaller arguments have no value because you are arguing about the trees while ignoring the forest.
I think I see an off-topic reference to space-time expansion, and a restatement of the Victorian argument from design, which was demonstrated to be wrong 150 years ago.If you actually made a valid point in this post, can you please highlight it for me.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 06 2008,05:41) Hi,
Charles did not set out to disprove God or creation. He never proposed it as the source of life. But his ideas of adaptation to circumstances opened the door for thoughts that all we see now is the result of that adaptation process. It soon became so popular in it's extreme form that it has become compulsory to be taught it in some countries.However the beginning of it all remains for them a mystery as also is the male/female problem and the remarkably successful progress of the adaptations so that every niche is filled with no guiding Force allowable to explain these things.
It is unusual to watch someone build a strawman then tell everyone that it is a strawman. Of course Darwin did not set out to disprove god. Did you ever think he did? Did some preacher tell you that too? The world is more interesting when not interpreted by illusionists!What do you mean 'by its extreme form'? There is only one version, it is not like christianity where you can be half-hearted about it or a full-on raver. It's just the theory of evolution, and it just seeks to explain what we observe.
Darwin unquestionably damaged fundamentalist belief. If Alfred Wallace had published first, he would have been the focus of fundamentalist hang-ups. There were many contemporaries of Darwin considering evolution. We celebrate the achievement of one remarkable scientist to articulate the central idea in biology, but he was simply uncovering the truth fr us all to see.
The female/male issue is not nearly as difficult as abiogenesis to explain. Ignorance of aspects of history does not imply a god. Can you explain why there has to be a 'guiding force'? We observe natural selection in situations where we are the guiding force, but we know the mechanism is not dependent on our guiding; natural selection is the guiding force, but it is blind. Read Richard Dawkin's 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
I don't think you follow the realities of ecology. The pattern of occupying niches is almost too obviously advantageous, and I am surprised that it surprises you. Evolution is almost too obviously a truthful explanation, I just wonder how some here think that a convoluted and variable creation myth with no power to explain anythng has any value.
Stuart
Quote (Cato @ Feb. 06 2008,03:01) Evolution is a theory, an attempt to describe how species (not life itself) originated. It was based on observations in nature and remains of the past. It never was an attempt to prove or disprove God or justify any human social engineering. As a theory it is well respected by most in the scientific circle. Many of us find no problem in thinking that external forces have led certain species to change and adapt to those stresses as part of life and nature. As far as I know it only becomes a problem when we look at humanity and the idea that man may have come from another species rather then being created directly by the creator, as per a literal reading of Genesis. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. ” Thus if we believe this as written and the time frame for this was instantaneous and not figuratively over eons, then the theory of evolution does not apply to mankind. At the same time it is this literal view that others find so incredulous that they throw out the whole idea of divine action as myth. I think this is the true crux of the argument, for if there is no literal view of creation then evolution and faith are not necessarily opposed; one (evolution) could be a mechanism of the other (God).
Once again, you articulate an intelligent view of the situation. It looks to me like this thread was started with an interest in demolishing the strawman that Darwin disproves god. It is true that Darwin did cause some people to question the only reason for their belief, the argument from design. By providing a detailed and coherent explanation for the diversity of live he made it posible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, with no big, nagging design mystery to wonder about. Darwin killed many gods-of-the-gaps. He cannot disprove god, just as he cannot disprove Odin.Stuart
Hi Stu,
Sometimes you forget your need to be scientific saying things like” Evolution is almost too obviously a truthful explanation, “
That is not a scientific approach.Did Darwin teach you that you derive from an Ape or have you added this?
Quote Sometimes you forget your need to be scientific saying things like ” Evolution is almost too obviously a truthful explanation, “That is not a scientific approach.
You’re right that the word ‘obviously’ does not constitute a scientific argument. It is an opinion, and in making it I would not want to belittle the efforts of those who make a serious attempt to understand the principles of evolution by natural selection. There was a time when it was not obvious to me, but the concepts involved are actually pretty straightforward.Quote Did Darwin teach you that you derive from an Ape or have you added this?
Darwin described our common ancestry with all other living things, our most recent ancestors being in common with the other great apes. Every new thing we learn is entirely consistent with this. He deserves the credit because he released his theory on a world antagonistic to it, one that expected everything to be neat and unchanging and consistent with the KJV.Stuart
Everyone likes to hit on Stuart about man coming from apes, perhaps in jest because of his avatar.
Yet, think about this, is it any worse to come from other primates, then dust from the ground, as per Genesis? If we believe we are made in God's image (which can be open to widely varying interpretations) I think we can assume this applies to the final product rather then either the raw materials or previous prototypes.Personally I am not offended either way, and any being sufficiently powerful to create the universe could create man in any manner from any material, he wished.
Hi cato,
There is a wide gulf between believers and unbelievers.
Faith is a gift and it comes from hearing whereas those of the intellect prefer the door of the eyes.
We are not made in the image of God according to the flesh but according to the inner man from the breath of God[Gen 2.7]Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 07 2008,08:47) Hi cato,
There is a wide gulf between believers and unbelievers.
Faith is a gift and it comes from hearing whereas those of the intellect prefer the door of the eyes.
We are not made in the image of God according to the flesh but according to the inner man from the breath of God[Gen 2.7]
The ancestry you claim for yourself is a biological impossibility, unless mutation rates and natural selection have been working on us at millions of times the speed we observe today.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
