Intellectuals Who Doubt Darwin

The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/2004 | Hunter Baker

[VadeRetro]

You nailed it. And with a link!

One can do no more than you have done, considering that the issue is what Darwin actually did say. Somehow, I don't know how, you'll get a naysaying reply if you get one at all.

[PatrickHenry]

Won't be any reply. Not this thread. Next thread, same BS.

[StJacques]

"Those who cling to it blindly normally do so as it affords them the luxury of viewing themselves as merely animals, acting instinctively, without the consequence or judgement of a Creator."

No one "clings to evolution blindly," there is scientific evidence -- the fossil record, observed mutations, scientific dating of evidence, and more.

There is no "luxury of viewing" oneself as "merely an animal. Life without spiritual purpose can be bleak indeed and many who find the Theory of Evolution to be the best explanation given for the origin of species, like myself, have very well-formed religious views. The problem is that Creationists deny that our views even exist, much less than the possibility that they could be valid, because we are "evolutionists" and therefore damned to hell.

And I have no doubt that there is a Creator. Neither did Einstein, de Chardin, Niebuhr, and many other great thinkers of the past decades who also found the Theory of Evolution to be acceptable and not incompatible with belief in a creator. Einstein borrowed Newton's theory of the "First Cause" and applied it to the "Big Bang" theory of the universe's origins as evidence of an act of creation.

You Creationists keep insisting that everyone who believes in the Theory of Evolution denies God, the Bible, Christ, and all the rest. We don't. And what is so aggravating to those of us who see no incompatibility between evolution and religious belief and who practice their religion is that you tell us we don't. But we do. Your arrogance is that you blatantly deny that we have faith and say that we do not worship at all when in fact we do not worship in the way you do.

It is fine for you to hold to your religious beliefs. We respect that. But do not deny our own lest you attempt to stand in judgement of us and cast the first stone.

[VadeRetro]

He titled a whole chapter "On the Limitations of the Geologic Record."

Working from memory. As everyone must realize by now--curse PH and his links!--it's "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."

[PatrickHenry]

It's quite amusing to see the creationoids attempting to use Darwin as an authority against Darwin. It's a strange kind of appeal to authority.

[VadeRetro]

It's quite amusing to see the creationoids attempting to use Darwin as an authority against Darwin. It's a strange kind of appeal to authority.

The funniest thing is that at this late date it doesn't matter to science what anyone finds out about Darwin. They really don't know that. They think Darwin is the Jesus of evolution.

[hellinahandcart]

read later

[Broker]

We are made in the image of God, endowed with unique individual character. Thankfully we are not the product of privative soup. As you commune with monkeys and squirrels ask them the purpose of their lives. Let me glorify our great Creator with scientific tools and truly wonder at his works.

[Lurking2Long]

It is fine for you to hold to your religious beliefs. We respect that. But do not deny our own lest you attempt to stand in judgement of us and cast the first stone.

I'm not one of your "passive Christians" who is going to scream and go, "Oh, he just used Scripture against me...I guess I'll just quit!"

I will deny your viewpoint because it is flat out WRONG! I will stand on the Word of God which is what really judges you because it clearly says EXACTLY how HE created the world and mankind.

And I WILL throw the "first stone" because you and your kind have been throwing stones at me and my kind since Cain murdered Able.

If you don't believe in the truths of the Bible, you can have all the "well-formed religious views" in the world and it will not get you any closer to anything meaningful than will a pack of explosives around his middle get a suicide bomber 72 virgins.

This "sheep" ROARS!

[StJacques]

". . . As you commune with monkeys and squirrels ask them the purpose of their lives. . . ."

One stone cast. Pray to Jesus for forgiveness.

[Hoplite]

Being the inquisitive sort, I decided to ask Darwin myself, after seeing if in fact it was capable of responding to questions.

Last login: Wed Nov 24 16:14:45 on console
Welcome to Darwin!

[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Why did the chicken cross the road?
tcsh: Why: No match.
[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Was it a smoking chicken?
tcsh: Was: No match.
[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Does evolution equate to good science?
tcsh: Does: No match.
[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Can you say anything without adding "No match."?
tcsh: Can: No match.
[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Fine. Go to hell, stupid computer.
tcsh: Fine.: Command not found.

The conversation went downhill from there, I'm sorry to report, but at least we have a definitive answer as to Darwin's opinion of evolution.

[bray]

I don't have enough Faith to believe in evolution. How did life start??

Pray for W and Our Troops

[StJacques]

". . . If you don't believe in the truths of the Bible, you can have all the "well-formed religious views" in the world and it will not get you any closer to anything meaningful than will a pack of explosives around his middle get a suicide bomber 72 virgins. . . ."

Wow, now those of us who think the Theory of Evolution is correct are on a par with Islamo-fascists.

I do believe in the "truths of the Bible." I do not believe that all biblical text is meant to be taken literally, and there is an extremely large body of Christian theological doctrine that backs this up, going back for over a thousand years in fact. You are welcome to your viewpoint that the Bible is to be taken literally. But you still stand in judgement of other Christians who believe differently than you when you state that they will not approach salvation because they do not practice Christianity the way that you do. If I were to do that, I would believe that I had committed a mortal sin that would have eternal consequences for my soul if I did not address it and make a meaningful attempt to return to grace.

[Trinity_Tx]

Very, very well said.

[Lurking2Long]

To quote Reagan, "There he goes again..."

I did NOT compare you to Islamo-Fascists.

Again, I will not let you try to box me into the "judging Christian" trap you want to shove me into.

The Word of God judges what you say.

God does not want to be taken literally?!

Give me a break!

He has to practically scream to get most people's attention in this "enlightened" world. Do you think He put His very heart into writing so we could all guess about what he really means.

You are a humanist, no matter what other clothing you seek to wrap yourself in.

I think you and other evolutionists need to ask yourself whether you are closer to Christians or to Pharisees.

[Stultis]

This "sheep" ROARS!

Whatever. Although you are probably blithely unaware that you are also "roaring" at Behe, Dembski, and other of the evolution critics discussed in the article. Many of them accept substantial evolution, including the evolution of man from apes. Behe seems to have little problem with the evolution of whole phyla. He just insists that certain crucial subcomponents of living things, mostly molecular machines, had to have been "intelligently designed".

In fact the differences in implied scenarios of earth and biological history between a typical progressive creationist and a young-earth creationist are as great as those between either and a typical evolutionist. So if you believe that you know "EXACTLY" how God created the world and mankind, that puts you at odds with a solid plurality, if not a majority, of creationists, and never mind us evolutionists.

[Lurking2Long]

So if you believe that you know "EXACTLY" how God created the world and mankind, that puts you at odds with a solid plurality, if not a majority, of creationists, and never mind us evolutionists.

The Bible is full of underdogs who only won out because the Lord was on their side.

I'll side with Him against your pitiful "plurality" and/or "majority" of anything.

[StJacques]

"You are a humanist, no matter what other clothing you seek to wrap yourself in. . . .

I think you and other evolutionists need to ask yourself whether you are closer to Christians or to Pharisees."

All three of the big code words are here; "humanist" -- didn't you really mean to write "secular humanist"? -- "evolutionist," and "Pharisee." This is a great work of symbolic communication that touches an expected reaction among other Creationists, but it insists that I accept your judgement of my religious beliefs as wrongful and leading me to damnation. This I will not do.

There are many Christians like myself who are schooled in what is termed the "moral theology" which teaches that, while there are absolutes in morals and rightful and wrongful interpretations of religious truth, it is important that an individual Christian avoid asserting or even implying that, beyond the profession of faith, others who do not hold to these moral absolutes or particular interpretations as he or she understands them are to be judged as sinful. You will never see me pronounce another practicing Christian's soul as damned, nor will you see me insist that any other individual adopt my beliefs as their own, though I am prepared to speak my beliefs. I have seen you insist that your belief that the literal truth of biblical text is an absolute and you view with ridicule anyone who argues to the contrary. Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Thomas More and many others pointed to the use of rhetorical flourish, allegory, and more in biblical texts. Do you damn them as humanists too? These were some of the top religious theologians of their day, Augustine may in fact be the most important Christian theologian since Saint Paul.

Not all Christianity is practiced in the way you do Lurking. Be careful about damning others who observe their beliefs differently.

[G Larry]

What cracks me up is that "evolutionists" have resorted to redefining "species" to make their case.
Thus, any adaptation WITHIN a species, becomes an evoluition to a new species.

[Lurking2Long]

It's not me whom you need to worry about being damned by...