Replies

Without question, Charles Darwin would be among the most prominent biologists in history even if he hadn't written The Origin of Species in 1859. But he would not have been deified in the campaign to "enlighten" humanity. The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

This is eloquent? This is ignorance. Darwin spent no time advocating atheism. He cited and tied together the already voluminous evidence known in his day, presenting the inescapable conclusion that the organisms of Earth are related by common descent and have varied from each other by the operation of variation and natural selection.

This favorable evidence has only exploded in volume since the 19th century. To try to refute the theory by the logical fallacy of arguing from motive (while citing no evidence even for said motive) is ridiculous.

Without question, Charles Darwin would be among the most prominent biologists in history even if he hadn't written The Origin of Species in 1859. But he would not have been deified in the campaign to "enlighten" humanity. The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

This is eloquent? This is ignorance. Darwin spent no time advocating atheism.

And just where does it say that Darwin was advocating atheism? I don't believe the "militant atheists" mentioned by the article were referring to Darwin himself.

So, your dismissal of the entire article based on the above paragraph is curious.

Also, I noticed that you didn't mention any of the "favorable evidence" that has "exploded in volume". Shall I just take your word for it?

Darwin spent no time advocating atheism.

The author of this article makes no such assertion.

It was not as if they merely were asked to accept that life had evolved--many theologians had long taken that for granted. What the Darwinians demanded was that religionists agree to the untrue and unscientific claim that Darwin had proved that God played no role in the process.

VR, you wrote: "Darwin spent no time advocating atheism." Even if he had wanted to (which is dubious), he didn't have to: He had Thomas Huxley -- a thorough-going atheist who was first among his popularizers -- to do that for him. Huxley obviously had an ax to grind against "Rome" (we can come to this reasonable conclusion on the basis of his own statements) and it seems that his critique of Darwin was largely a polemical appeal to the masses, for the purpose of freeing them of the backward superstitions and putative persecutions of religious fanatics who stand athwart science yelling STOP! because (supposedly) the theory of evolution is a threat to Genesis....

A thoughtful Christian is unlikely to see evolution as a threat to Genesis. Certainly I don't.

Nonetheless, Huxley gins up his straw man. I gather he conceived of his project as human liberation of some sort ... once God's out of the way, you see, man is completely free to do whatever he likes -- to make a better, more perfect world, for instance; or simply to indulge his own viciousness, "guilt-free," should he prefer that. In short, T. Huxley -- and later on, grandson J. Huxley -- was just another tom-tom beater for the "God is dead" movement, and his use (misuse? abuse?) of Darwin's "theory" well served his purpose.

The author of this fine article has not imputed motives to Darwin, and I won't do that either. I'm sure the Darwin thought he was doing science, and was in fact doing science. But he himself seems to have been aware of certain weaknesses in his theory.

Huxley, on the other hand, obviously did have a motive. That meretricious motive continues to inspire the likes of Richard Dawkins, who also seems to prefer dishonest polemics to good science.