Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: bondserv
"This relates to this thread because we believe that Darwin's theory was the final straw that enabled intelligent people to 'logically' reject the concept of God."

Could you explain this? To test your statement, I tried to create an argument that would enable intelligent people to "logically" reject the concept of God. Below are a couple of my unsuccessful attempts:
The genetic makeup of a population changes over time, therefore there is no God?
Random mutations may sometimes result in greater fitness, therefore there is no God?
1,078 posted on 01/26/2003 5:04:23 PM PST by Voice in your head (Nuke Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1064 | View Replies ]


To: Voice in your head
It's nothing more profound than the simple idea that simple people look for simple explanations that fit their simple predispositions. The idiotic responses of "simple" people, like Phaedrus and Kevin Curry, who refuse to participate in any real discussions but show up occasionally to metaphorically p!ss on the thread from time to time just reinforces their desparation.
1,079 posted on 01/26/2003 6:18:41 PM PST by balrog666 (If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1078 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head
Could you explain this?

No, he can't, considering how long atheism has been around. History of atheism.

1,080 posted on 01/26/2003 6:20:10 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Creationists agree that PH is a really great guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1078 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head; bondserv
Er, if I may offer some information in your discussion, i.e. the influence of Darwin's theory. In this case, with regard to Marxism. From their website:

Dialectical Materialism

Marxism and Darwinism

Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal lords. This was an entirely different struggle from the struggle now waged by the proletarians. The bourgeoisie was not an exploited class striving to abolish exploitation. Oh no. What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way. The bourgeoisie themselves wanted to rule, basing their demands upon the fact that they were the most important class, the leaders of industry. What argument could the old class, the class that became nothing but useless parasites, bring forth against them? They leaned on tradition, on their ancient divine rights. These were their pillars. With the aid of religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to oppose the demands of the bourgeoisie.

It was therefore for their own interests that the bourgeoisie were in duty bound to undermine the “divinity” right of rulers. Natural science became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought. If the new discoveries could prove that what the priests were teaching was false, the “divine” authority of these priests would crumble and the “divine rights” enjoyed by the feudal class would be destroyed. Of course the feudal class was not conquered by this only, as material power can only be overthrown by material power, but mental weapons become material tools. It is for this reason that the bourgeoisie relied so much upon material science.

Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin’ s theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal.

This was not the case in England. Here we again see how important the class struggle was for the spreading of Darwin’ s theory. In England the bourgeoisie had already ruled a few centuries, and as a mass they had no interest to attack or destroy religion. It is for this reason that although this theory was widely read in England, it did not stir anybody; it merely remained a scientific theory without great practical importance. Darwin himself considered it as such, and for fear that his theory might shock the religious prejudices prevailing, he purposely avoided applying it immediately to men. It was only after numerous postponements and after others had done it before him, that he decided to make this step. In a letter to Haeckel he deplored the fact that his theory must hit upon so many prejudices and so much indifference that he did not expect to live long enough to see it break through these obstacles.

But in Germany things were entirely different, and Haeckel correctly answered Darwin that in Germany the Darwinian theory met with an enthusiastic reception. It so happened that when Darwin’ s theory made its appearance, the bourgeoisie was preparing to carry on a new attack on absolutism and junkerism. The liberal bourgeoisie was headed by the intellectuals. Ernest Haeckel, a great scientist, and of still greater daring, immediately drew in his book, “Natural Creation,” most daring conclusions against religion. So, while Darwinism met with the most enthusiastic reception by the progressive bourgeoisie, it was also bitterly opposed by the reactionists.

The same struggle also took place in other European countries. Everywhere the progressive liberal bourgeoisie had to struggle against reactionary powers. These reactionists possessed, or were trying to obtain through religious followers, the power coveted. Under these circumstances, even the scientific discussions were carried on with the zeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings that appeared pro and con on Darwin have therefore the character of social polemics, despite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors. Litany of Haeckel’ s popular writings, when looked at from a scientific standpoint, are very superficial, while the arguments and remonstrances of his opponents show unbelievable foolishness that can only be met in the arguments used against Marx.


1,082 posted on 01/26/2003 8:59:59 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1078 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head
Do evolutionists believe in Intelligent Design because of Darwin’s theory? It seems a vast majority of evolutionists believe their theory eliminates the necessity for God. There may be some exceptions, but they are few.

There are however many "New Age" believers who think that they themselves are God. Or that nature is God. Or that God is the force that is in everything alive. But these people clearly have different theories than most evolutionists.

A majority of Intelligent Design and Creationists proponents believe in the God of the Old and New Testament Bible. And also draw a clear dividing line between Man and animals. If man has micro evolved, it had nothing to do with other animal genetics. Similar code used in similar material with a wide gulf between the two results.(man and other life)

We believe the evident distinction between man and the rest of creation is our creative intelligence. Genetics and mutation evolution, by all of the evidence I have ever studied, seem to ignore this obvious fact.
1,084 posted on 01/26/2003 11:52:06 PM PST by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1078 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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