Darwin, Evolution and His Critics - Part 2 Darwin's Escape from God

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute ^ | Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon

[gobucks]

People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons. As we will see later, one reason is so they can reject the Christian faith. And, as we also observe later, the theory of evolution bears great responsibility for people’s loss of faith, intentional or not.

Like most people during his era, Charles Darwin was raised in a Christian environment. At one point he made half-hearted attempts toward a call to the ministry and becoming a clergyman.1 Eventually, however, he lost whatever "faith" he had, concluding that, "The Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic]" and "I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."2 As he stated in Life and Letters, Vol. 1, pp. 277-278, "Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress."3 In fact, it seems Darwin was determined not to believe; for example, to rationalize his unbelief he continued to raise the level of evidence required to sustain faith.4

Unfortunately, Darwin’s loss of faith had more serious repercussions than he was willing to admit.5

It seems that Darwin could not live with God but neither could Darwin escape God. The battle endured throughout his life and it not only made him physically ill, it also cost him, to some degree, his mental health. Most biographers of Darwin acknowledge his rejection of Christian faith. What they don’t usually do is reveal the consequences. James Moore’s definitive biography: Charles Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist is a notable exception as well as the volume by Clark and Bales (Why Scientists Accept Evolution) and that of Sunderland (Darwin’s Enigma).

Dr. Robert E. D. Clark (Ph.D., Cambridge) shows how tortured Darwin’s life was because of his rejection of God. Darwin even referred to his theory as "the devil’s gospel." T. H. Huxley was Darwin’s most committed and vocal supporter. On August 8, 1860 in a letter to Huxley, Darwin referred to him as "my good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel—i.e., the devil’s gospel."6

In Darwin: Before and After Dr. Clark points out that it was from the beginnings of Darwin’s unbelief that the first important instances of physical illness began. Fitting a typical pattern, as his faith in God faded, his consecration to science became almost religious. Nothing was physically wrong with Darwin, "but his illnesses became worse and worse"7 in spite of his "normal" health.

Yet he was a chronic invalid. Unfavorable reviews of his books gave him continuous headaches; even half an hour’s discussion with a fellow naturalist about scientific matters would render him incapable of work for hours. If he met people in society, anxiety afflicted him. "My health almost always suffered from the excitement, violent shivering and vomiting being thus brought on," he wrote. His constant preoccupation became one of protecting himself from anticipations and conflicts while his chronic anxiety brought on the usual digestive and nutritional troubles.

In addition, Charles Darwin was morbid and self critical to an extreme. His letters abound with the typical language associated with a feeling of guilt. A letter "was vilely written and is now vilely expressed," his manuscript was a "foul copy," [etc.]; "Psychologically there can be little doubt as to the meaning of these symptoms. Charles Darwin was suffering from a feeling of guilt. But what was worrying him?"8

What concerned Darwin was not the initial critical response to his Origin of Species. Even after the battle was won and his reputation assured, his psychological suffering and physical symptoms continued. In other words, Darwin was dealing with a much deeper and fundamental feeling of guilt. As far as the Christian faith was concerned, he had not only banished God from his own life, but, it seemed, the entire universe as well.

Darwin’s real problem lay with the suppression of his religious needs: "His life was one long attempt to escape from Paley [i.e., his Natural Theology], to escape from the church, to escape from God. It is this that explains so much that would otherwise be incongruous in his life and character."9

It is clear both scripturally and psychologically that those who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18) will pay the price. God tells everyone, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows he will reap" (Gal. 6:7). The truth about God is evident to all men through the creation because God Himself made it evident:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20)

We documented this perceptual and intuitive knowledge of God in some detail in our Knowing the Truth About Salvation: Is Jesus the Only Way to God? (Harvest House, 1996).

To suppress this truth is to live in unreality and this is never psychologically or physically healthy. As noted existentialist psychologist Rollo May pointed out in The Art of Counseling, unbelief does have its consequences: "I had been startled by the fact that practically every genuine atheist with whom I have dealt has exhibited unmistakable neurotic tendencies. How [do we] account for this curious fact?"10

Thus, whatever else it may be, even Darwin’s prized theory of natural selection appears to be an emotional tool to comfort his unbelief. Dr. Clark explains that Darwin went to great pains to prove to the world that he had discovered the truth of natural selection only after two decades involving a painful collection of facts that was carefully analyzed over and over. Darwin thus presented himself as a defender of truth and truth alone; it was only his passionate desire for truth that now compelled him to make his theories public. But in fact:

That is what Darwin wished the outer world to believe. No one today accepts his story. He had thought of natural selection 20 years before and had long since made up his mind on the subject. Moreover, the evidence shows that Charles was not primarily interested in the truth or otherwise of natural selection at all, but he was very much interested in the possibilities of using it to avoid the force of Paley’s Natural Theology.11

As Francisco Ayala of the University of California says natural selection "exclude[s] God as the explanation accounting for the obvious design of organisms."12

In essence, natural selection became a kind of substitute for God.13 Darwin did his level best to escape God, but God was uncooperative:

For year after year, Darwin carried on a discussion with various friends on the subject of design in nature. Throughout he showed the same vacillation. One moment he thought he could do without design; the next, his reason told him that the evidence for design by a personal God was overwhelming. He was forever seeking an escape from theology but never able to find it.14

This is exactly what Romans 1 teaches. Thus, despite his faith in evolution, in other moments, Darwin was

…deeply conscious of his ignorance. Indeed, he did not really know anything about the origins of things, and certainly made no pretense of having discovered how species had come into existence. He very much regretted his misleading title, the Origin of Species: if only he had been more thoughtful at the time he would have chosen a different title, but now it was too late. In revising the Origin he felt he had gone too far in his rejection of theology and more than once he added the telling words "by the Creator" when referring to the original creation of the first forms of life. But again, he could not make up his mind.15

At one point in Darwin’s life, a letter from botanist J. D. Hooker brought the force of Paley’s Natural Theology back upon him. Darwin realized that Paley could not be disposed of so easily:

No wonder Darwin was disturbed. He had sought to escape from God: now he found his old enemy waiting for him in a new hiding place. His confusion can scarcely be exaggerated. In letter after letter he made the lamest excuses for his inability to think clearly. Intellectually, he said, he was in "thick mud."16

Darwin’s own reasoning processes became increasingly strained because "Darwin was determined to escape from design and a personal God at all costs."17 Not surprisingly, Darwin’s letters "exhibit a resolution not to follow his thoughts to their logical conclusion."18 Of course, there were exceptions. For example, he spoke of the "impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity."19 But then, because his mind was really descended from lower life forms and more kin to a monkey’s mind, how could its reasoning processes really be trusted? Darwin wondered, "But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ...Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"20

As Clark and Bales observe:

Reason led Darwin to God, so Darwin killed reason. He trusted his mind when reasoning about evolution, but not about God? What a warning from the author to the reader this discrediting of reason would have made as a preface to the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man! …[But] How [then] could he trust his mind when it thought on the theory of evolution? As Arnold Lunn put it: "A clear thinker would never have been guilty of such inconsistent reasoning. If Darwin was not prepared to trust his mind when it drew the ‘grand conclusion’ that God existed, why was he prepared to trust it when it drew the depressing conclusion that a mind of such bestial origin could not be trusted to draw any conclusion at all?"21

In other words, it would appear that Darwin rejected God not from reason, but "because of some violent prejudice" against God22—itself an unreasonable reaction. In the end, "Darwin’s determination not to believe cost him his mind."23

It also cost him good science.

Having adopted logical positivism with its exclusion of the metaphysical, Darwin was hardly unbiased in his scientific methodology. Robert Kofahl, Ph.D., argues that Darwin’s particular philosophy of science was intended to invoke naturalism and accomplish something heretofore unthinkable—to remove the concept of divine intervention from the category of scientific endeavors—a feat that if successful would have profound consequences:

It is this author’s opinion that Charles Darwin had a hidden agenda for science. There is much evidence for this in his writings. Neal Gillespie (1979) of Georgia State University in his important book, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, established the fact that Darwin espoused logical positivism as his philosophy of science. His hidden agenda, then, was to remove from the thinking of all scientists any concepts of special creation, divine intervention, or divine teleology in the natural world. That this agenda has been achieved with almost total global success in the spheres of science, education and scholarly disciplines is obvious to any informed observer.24

Professor Marvin L. Lubenow comments on this issue are important enough to cite in detail:

Not only was Darwin’s contribution primarily philosophical, it was a philosophy bent on a specific mission: to show that creation is unscientific. The most extensive research into Darwin’s religious attitudes and motivations has been done by historian Neal C. Gillespie (Georgia State University). He begins his book with this comment: "On reading the Origin of Species, I, like many others, became curious about why Darwin spent so much time attacking the idea of divine creation."

Gillespie goes on to demonstrate that Darwin’s purpose was not just to establish the concept of evolution. Darwin was wise enough not to stop there. Darwin went for the jugular vein. Darwin’s master accomplishment was to convince the scientific world that it was unscientific to believe in supernatural causation. His purpose was to "ungod" the universe. Darwin was a positivist. This is the philosophy that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge; no other type of knowledge is legitimate. Obviously, to accept that premise means to reject any form of divine revelation. Darwin accomplished one of the greatest feats of salesmanship in the history of the world. He convinced scientists that it was unscientific to deal with God or creation in any way. To be scientific, they must study the world as if God did not exist....

In all of this, it is important to realize that Darwin was not an atheist. He did not exterminate God. He just evicted God from the universe which God had created. All that God was allowed to do was to create the "natural laws" at the beginning. From then on, nature was on its own. With God out of the picture, evolution fell into place rather easily, since evolution seemed to be the only viable alternative to Special Creation....

We are now getting down to basics. The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, sustainer, Savior and judge. All are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable.

Evolution was originally designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and it remains so to this day. While Christian Theistic Evolutionists seem blind to this fact, the secular world sees it very clearly.25

Darwin further had the "notorious habit of jumping to conclusions without adequate evidence" and "of stubbornly maintaining his theories regardless of the valid arguments and evidence that could be brought against them."26

Historian Jacques Barzun, Provost and Dean of the Graduate Faculties at Columbia University, further observes that the common view of Darwin as an intellectual and a lover of truth needs qualification.

The phrase "Newton of biology" now appears as a very loose description indeed. Darwin was not a thinker and he did not originate the ideas that he used. He vacillated, added, retracted, and confused his own traces. As soon as he crossed the dividing line between the realm of events and the realm of theory, he became "metaphysical" in the bad sense. His power of drawing out the implications of his theories was at no time very remarkable, but when it came to the moral order it disappeared altogether, as that penetrating Evolutionist, Nietsche, observed with some disdain.27

Darwin himself appeared to have serious doubts about how distinctive his theory of evolution was; in at least 45 instances between 1869 and the final edition of the Origin, Darwin deleted the word "my" before the word "theory." As noted earlier, Darwin hardly invented the idea of evolution, he merely systematized a certain amount of data allegedly in favor of it.28 Regardless:

To the end of his life, the old warfare continued in Darwin’s mind. Try as he would, he could not escape from God. Gradually his emotional life atrophied under the strain of the battle. Religious feeling disappeared and with it much else beside. Shakespeare was "intolerably dull." He no longer took pleasure in pictures, in poetry, or even in music. The beauty of nature no longer thrilled him. The world became cold and dead. As we have already seen, even his reasoning powers became distorted when he dwelt upon subjects even remotely concerned with his conflict. Finally the time came for Charles Darwin to die with the conflict still unresolved.29

In the end, Darwin had simply got a taste of his own medicine. He had deprived the universe of meaning and paid the price. As Leslie Paul observes in The Annihilation of Man (New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1945, p. 154), "The final result of the application of the theory of The Origin of Species to the whole material universe is to deprive it completely of meaning." Cambridge scholar John Burrow observes in his introduction to The Origin of Species: "Nature, according to Darwin, was a product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance. To some the sense of loss was irrevocable; it was as if an umbilical cord had been cut, and men found themselves part of ‘a cold passionless universe.’"30 What Darwin had wrought for modern man is, in the eyes of many, hardly worth the meager scientific validation it has encountered.

Darwin’s Origin is today much less convincing. As an illustration, we may cite the esteemed entomologist, W. R. Thompson, who penned the introduction to the Origin of Species for the "Every Man Library" No. 811 edition (1956). Thompson reveals not only severe problems with Darwin’s basic thesis, especially descent by natural selection, he also shows how the manner in which Darwin argued appeared to give his theory more credibility than it deserved.

But in a manner of this kind a great deal depends on the manner in which the arguments are presented. Darwin considered that the doctrine of the origin of living things by descent with modification, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was, for him, of absolute major importance. Since he had at the time the Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments. The argumentation used by evolutionists, said de Quatrefages, makes the discussion of their ideas extremely difficult. Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory. As an example, de Quatrefages cites Darwin’s explanation of the manner in which the tit mouse might become transformed into the nutcracker, by the accumulation of small changes in structure and instinct owing to the effect of natural selection; and then proceeded to show that it is just as easy to transform the nutcracker into the tit mouse. The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation has been given. This is the more appealing because of the extreme fundamental simplicity of the Darwinian explanation. The reader may be completely ignorant of biological processes yet he feels that he really understands and in a sense dominates the machinery by which the marvelous variety of living forms has been produced.

This was certainly a major reason for the success of the Origin. Another is the elusive character of the Darwinian argument…. The plausibility of the argument eliminates the need for proof and its very nature gives it a kind of immunity to disproof. Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others. But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.31

It is worthy to note that Dr. Thompson penned the above words nearly 50 years ago. In subsequent years, recent developments and discoveries throughout the sciences have made belief in evolution more and more difficult. So much so that some scientists have now abandoned the theory while others, although continuing to exercise faith that evolution is true, concede that convincing evidence for it may never be forthcoming.

In the end, Darwin also continued to exercise faith in evolution because he had little choice. He found the theory an emotional necessity and had convinced himself as to its plausibility, despite innumerable problems.

Darwin may have succeeded in convincing himself about evolution, but as we will see in Part 3, it was another story entirely for the scientific community.

[gobucks]

Long read. But worth it.

[gobucks]

many many things here that are quite interesting about the fellow.

Didn't know how much of this either of you knew, but a ping for you all nonetheless. Betty, you might want to ping your list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the interesting biography!

[mitch5501]

"The real issue is the nature of God...(snip)...evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible.

How long will it take for an evolutionist to post that he believes in the God of the Bible...and thus show that the above statement is false?

The real issue is not the "nature of God" rather it is what the word 'believe' actually means.

God bless

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

How long will it take for an evolutionist to post that he believes in the God of the Bible...and thus show that the above statement is false?

Indeed. In the interest of peace, I've tried (unsuccessfully) to persuade posters to separate the theological debate from the science debate. Oh well...

[Alacarte]

People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons.

Since when did science become a multiple choice piece of information? You don't choose to 'believe' in how the natural world works. Either you understand, or you don't, period.

To steal a quip from Bill Maher. "The author isn't so sure about gravity either, he thinks it may be a plot by jews to get people to drop spare change."

[Alacarte]

It is worthy to note that Dr. Thompson penned the above words nearly 50 years ago. In subsequent years, recent developments and discoveries throughout the sciences have made belief in evolution more and more difficult. So much so that some scientists have now abandoned the theory while others, although continuing to exercise faith that evolution is true, concede that convincing evidence for it may never be forthcoming.

Of all the blatant lies that get distributed here about evolution, this is one of the worst. This assertion holds absolutely no credibility. The past 50 years has seen a medical revolution thanks to DNA, which is the best proof for evolution. Darwin knew there was some mechanism that allowed the transmission of data from one generation to the next, but he did not know what it was. DNA fits his theory PERFECTLY.

In recent years, the scientific community has gone to unprecedented lengths, to not only publicly support evolution, but denounce ID and creationism as pseudoscience.

If this ridiculous assertion that the scientific community is abandoning evolution is not just a blatant lie, then I challenge anyone here to post a reference to an ACTUAL scientific institution or organization that questions evolution. DISCOVERY INSTITUTE is NOT a science institution! A science institution is a place where actual research is done, a place that actually contributes to science. Links to a peer reviewed publication in the scientific literature will do just as well.

This entire article is a distortion of history and science. EVERY new hypothesis has mistakes and errors when it begins, what does pointing out Darwin's errors prove, other than the way science works? Science evolves and corrects and improves itself all the time. Eventually evolution was so well proven and accepted that it became a theory. Even today evolution is changing with new data, expanding and correcting any errors that may arise.

Evolutionary science is not just an 'idea.' It is used everyday by medical researchers, ecologists, zoologists... If it were not real science, they would notice, cause nothing would work right!

You all act as if the scientific community is some invisible, abstract entity to be quoted when it suits you, and ignored otherwise. No, the scientific community, as well as the literature (not that technical biology papers make any sense to non-biologists, but you can search for papers disputing evolution) are easy to find. Go to the journal websites, or major science institution websites like the Royal Society, or the NAS, and read for yourself what the scientific community says about evolution, you'll find it's much different from what the religious community says.

[betty boop]

...many many things here that are quite interesting about the fellow.

Indeed, gobucks. Yet the article is silent about what may have been the cause of Darwin's loss of faith in God. Early in his career, he spoke of creatures taking their beginning from God, Who "breathed life" into them. This, he assumed, is how life got started. If the theory associated with his name never deals with the issue of the nature or emergence of life per se, perhaps that's because Darwin admitted a divine creator who functioned at the very beginning of the universe, creating everything including the physical laws; and then "withdrawing" -- which is rather a deist notion.

The article points out that early in life Darwin had considered entering into religious orders; but apparently decided he hadn't the calling to do it. The point is, in his early life, Darwin was a Christian. And it is obvious that somewhere along the line he lost his faith. Why?

It has been suggested that the death of his young daughter from a long, wasting illness in which she suffered horribly is what destroyed his faith.

Whatever the case may be -- and I'm not sure that a "psychobiography" of Darwin can prove anything -- the fact remains that Darwin became a positivist:

Darwin’s master accomplishment was to convince the scientific world that it was unscientific to believe in supernatural causation. His purpose was to "ungod" the universe. Darwin was a positivist. This is the philosophy that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge; no other type of knowledge is legitimate. Obviously, to accept that premise means to reject any form of divine revelation. Darwin accomplished one of the greatest feats of salesmanship in the history of the world. He convinced scientists that it was unscientific to deal with God or creation in any way. To be scientific, they must study the world as if God did not exist....

In all of this, it is important to realize that Darwin was not an atheist. He did not exterminate God. He just evicted God from the universe which God had created. All that God was allowed to do was to create the "natural laws" at the beginning. From then on, nature was on its own. With God out of the picture, evolution fell into place rather easily, since evolution seemed to be the only viable alternative to Special Creation....

And so, I gather that Darwin, more than anyone else (aided and abetted by T. Huxley, of course) is to be credited (or blamed) for the (to me) utterly astonishing view that, in order to "be scientific," people "must study the world as if God did not exist."

But this is to popularize an ideology -- a philosophic, not a scientific view.

Thanks so much for the interesting post, gobucks!

p.s.: I've pinged my list, which I've just gotten organized. If anyone's name is on it that shouldn't be there, just let me know. If anybody would like to be added, just let me know.... thanks!

[js1138]

Perhaps, while we are engaged in character assassination, I could post a biography of the Moonie acolyte, Jonathan Wells.

Seriously, this is not amusing.

But you ask a serious question:

The article points out that early in life Darwin had considered entering into religious orders; but apparently decided he hadn't the calling to do it. The point is, in his early life, Darwin was a Christian. And it is obvious that somewhere along the line he lost his faith. Why?

A reasonable hypothesis, based on his own writings, is that he was in grief over the loss of his favorite daughter, age eight.

[xzins]

in order to "be scientific," people "must study the world as if God did not exist

This assumption is hurtful in that the evidence should determine the directions taken.

Likewise, if a "theist" insists on a doctrinaire understanding of a particular inquiry, it the same a priori fault. The evidence should determine the directions taken.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Have you considered addressing the authors of the post which contains such inanities as: "People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons. As we will see later, one reason is so they can reject the Christian faith."?

Anagolously one could argue: "People believe in Christianity for a variety of reasons. As we will see later, one reason is so they can reject scientific inquiry."

All (recent, and certaily on FR) objections to evolutionary theory have come from a small, essentially homogenous group with similar religious views. As the objections to science are religion-based, it is difficult to discuss things without religion being injected in the first couple of sentences (as in the posted article.)

[betty boop]

A reasonable hypothesis, based on his own writings, is that he was in grief over the loss of his favorite daughter, age eight.

That is my conjecture, js1138. FWIW

[betty boop]

This assumption is hurtful in that the evidence should determine the directions taken. ... Likewise, if a "theist" insists on a doctrinaire understanding of a particular inquiry, it the same a priori fault. The evidence should determine the directions taken.

I totally agree, xzins! Thanks so much for writing!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent post!

And so, I gather that Darwin, more than anyone else (aided and abetted by T. Huxley, of course) is to be credited (or blamed) for the (to me) utterly astonishing view that, in order to "be scientific," people "must study the world as if God did not exist." But this is to popularize an ideology -- a philosophic, not a scientific view.

Indeed and it creates a political imbalance favoring atheism as follows:

With the notable exceptions of Lewontin, Pinker and gang - science does not speak for or against God. But metaphysical naturalists (www.infidels.org) take that omission as authentication for their religion - the presumption being that since science does not speak of God ipso facto God does not exist.

[StJacques]

"The real issue is the nature of God...(snip)...evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible."

This is absolutely false and a blatant instance of religious bigotry as it attaches the label of "disbeliever" to anyone who calls themselves a Christian and finds the Theory of Evolution credible. Among others who fall into the category described in the above quote are Pope John Paul II and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Roman Catholic Church.

But if we are to take the opening article of this thread as legitimate the Pope, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and millions of others who call themselves Christian but find the Theory of Evolution credible reject the God of the Bible.

It is bigotry to make such a claim. Pure and simple bigotry. And as a practicing Roman Catholic I am offended.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Have you considered addressing the authors of the post which contains such inanities as: "People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons. As we will see later, one reason is so they can reject the Christian faith."?

Indeed. I considered it and did precisely that long ago on a theological thread where I challenged everyone to bring their theories of Scriptures and Origins to the table. (Freeper Views on Origins).

I reworked and posted the body article (my own musings) to my own webpage.

In the various doctrines of Christianity, there are some (as in the above article) who sincerely believe that if one does not embrace a certain doctrine then therefore he is in mortal spiritual error. If you think the flames get bad on evolution threads, you should see the religion threads. Jeepers!

To these I always mention that all of the apostles had different personalities, John was nothing like Peter, Paul or Thomas. If Christ wanted all of them to be of the same type, He certainly could have made it so. Likewise, the churches in Revelation are each quite different from one another but all accepted with certain commendations and rebukes.

Personally, I eschew the doctrine and traditions of men altogether whether Calvin, Arminius, the Pope, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham. My "doctrine" is described in this article

At the end of that article, I mention the following set of passages – the interpretation of which creates this great difficulty among Christians and between Young Earth Creationists and Evolutionists:

Personal interpretation of Scriptures and sadly, the reliance on the counsel of other men, leads to sincere contention among Christians. One such example is the origin of Adam, whose fall from grace is the need for Christ's propitiation. One side insists that Adam was the first mortal man, the other that he was the first man given a soul - either as fact or as metaphor:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. - Romans 5:12-14

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. - I Corinthians 15:42-48

A belief that Adam was the first mortal man leads to the conclusion of young earth creationism. A belief that he was the first soulful man is compatible with intelligent design and theistic evolution.

In either case, the understanding itself may become part of the Christian's worldview and, if so, it will constitute a firm boundary which cannot be broached by any non-Spiritual argument to the contrary. In the Christian man's worldview, a core belief is more important than mortal life.

That is the rub – under that particular doctrine, the interpretation that Adam was the first mortal man is Truth and therefore will be argued as if one’s life depends on it – because, in that doctrine, it does.

And Truth always trumps facts – so trying to argue with a Young Earth Creationist using science is a complete waste of time. Hence the thread I authored so long ago – it allowed everyone to get their competing theological views of origins on the table so that everyone could draw their own conclusions.

All (recent, and certaily on FR) objections to evolutionary theory have come from a small, essentially homogenous group with similar religious views. As the objections to science are religion-based, it is difficult to discuss things without religion being injected in the first couple of sentences (as in the posted article.)

Indeed. Perhaps it is time to do another theological thread on the subject of origins? If that is the consensus in y'alls response, I shall be glad to do it again unless someone else would like to give a go.

Truly, I wish that all the science minded posters would simply quit trying to reason with Young Earth Creationists – ignore them because the only possible result is indignation all around.

In sum, the YEC objection falls in the domain of theology and is best argued by the ministers, teachers, theologians who post here.

[StJacques]

". . . It is worthy to note that Dr. Thompson penned the above words nearly 50 years ago. In subsequent years, recent developments and discoveries throughout the sciences have made belief in evolution more and more difficult. So much so that some scientists have now abandoned the theory while others, although continuing to exercise faith that evolution is true, concede that convincing evidence for it may never be forthcoming. . . ."

This is the most ridiculous claim imaginable because the truth is just the opposite. The evidence for evolution is now so overwhelming that evolution itself approaches facticity. There are real debates about the engine of evolutionary change in science, but there is no debate about evolution itself, because no evidence has been brought forth to challenge it. There are just repeated claims from anti-evolution mutual support groups that such evidence has been provided, but these groups and their members never answer the most basic questions put to them about that evidence and they deny proven scientific facts, such as radiometric dating, observed instances of speciation, and much more.

I'll put up the same challenge here that I have posted at least three other times on other threads. To anyone who wants to charge that the scientific evidence for evolution has been discredited in recent years, please explain how oil companies search for oil using the evidence of the fossil record to establish the geologic age of rock formations whose potential for holding oil deposits they assess based upon the taxonomy of fossil remains. No anti-evolutionist has ever answered this challenge on this board because doing so will make clear that the assertion that science has produced evidence that calls evolution into question is blatantly false. Every day geologists use the evidence of evolution to find oil and with each passing year they have become better at finding it.

So come on you opponents of evolution, explain to me and the rest of the board how geologists find oil. And after you explain it, try to post that idiotic claim that the evidence for evolution has been discredited by new scientific discoveries. I would just love to see you tell it to a Petroleum Geologist.

[PatrickHenry]

So come on you opponents of evolution, explain to me and the rest of the board how geologists find oil.

Similar challenge: Why doesn't the profit-driven (and thus not ideological) biotech industry employ the principles of "creation science" or hire creationists to conduct biological research?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I would ignore YEC's except that they intrude directly on work sometimes. I likewise prefer to ignore Raelians, PETA, Act-Up, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and others. Unfortunately YEC's also destroy the credibility of the rest of the conservative agenda (and I do support some parts thereof.)

It is difficult to talk about things about "tax reduction" or "social security reform" or "war on terror" when the reply is "but that is just supported by people who are anti-science." Many people I know feel that if someone is hostile to scientific reasoning, they cannot be trusted in other fields. (To be fair, PETA, Act-Up, the Raelians, etc. are likewise disliked by many people I talk with; most also voted against Gore because he was scientifically illiterate too.)

[StJacques]

So come on you opponents of evolution, explain to me and the rest of the board how geologists find oil.

"Similar challenge: Why doesn't the profit-driven (and thus not ideological) biotech industry employ the principles of "creation science" or hire creationists to conduct biological research?"

Yeah, no kidding Patrick. To listen to the Creationists Evolution is just some anti-religious conspiracy whose true nature is just now being revealed by scientific advances that are being "ignored or rejected." What bull___t that is!

Every day highly-trained scientific specialists working in the private sector in Petroleum Geology, Bio-Technology, Botany (this includes Agronomy), and more apply the findings of research into the Theory of Evolution in their daily work and they succeed to the economic benefit of millions of investors, creating and sustaining trillions of dollars of capital investment.

And in contrast, the Creationists say that this is all a hoax and that "evolutionists" are denying real evidence. So long as they refuse to account for what is taking place in these industries that claim is pure idiocy.