Darwin's arguments against God

CMI ^ | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin’s arguments against God

How Darwin rejected the doctrines of Christianity

by Russell Grigg

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.¹ Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology”.² I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’³

Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence...

[metmom]

Anyhow - if you have to ask you probably will not be able to understand.

What a cop out. Do you think that we can't see that as avoiding answering a question that you can't answer?

[Buck W.]

“Chicken bones from some China mans last diner?”

A racist creationist mis-speller! I’m sure they were on the ark, too.

[atlaw]

Sad that countless millions have been led to Hell by his subsequent rejection of God. We forget how Satan really knows what he’s doing. This attest the importance of a local church in earnestly contending with error as soon as it occurs, before it takes on a life of it’s own and millions are damned.

Just to be clear, if a person accepts the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for biological development and diversification, they're going to burn in hell for eternity. Right?

[demshateGod]

If a person dies in their sin, without accepting the sacrifice Christ made for their sin as the only way to pay for their sin, they spend eternity in their sin. Darwin gave folks who loved their sin ammunition to fight Holy Spirit conviction and cover to continue in their fallen state.

[demshateGod]

What I find amazing is everywhere I go, every national park, they tell me there was once a great inland sea that covered the region, from Rocky Mountain National Park to Death Valley, but then they tell me there was no global flood.

[tacticalogic]

If a person dies in their sin, without accepting the sacrifice Christ made for their sin as the only way to pay for their sin, they spend eternity in their sin. Darwin gave folks who loved their sin ammunition to fight Holy Spirit conviction and cover to continue in their fallen state.

Accepting the sacrifice Christ made and accepting the theory of evolution do not appear to be mutually exclusive.

[tacticalogic]

What I find amazing is everywhere I go, every national park, they tell me there was once a great inland sea that covered the region, from Rocky Mountain National Park to Death Valley, but then they tell me there was no global flood.

Did they tell you that all of those places were all under water at the same time?

[demshateGod]

....they just told me it was imaginary 100 million years or something.

[demshateGod]

Actually they are. If we evolved from so slime, we’re not accountable for our sin and death is a wonderful thing because it perfects our species. JimRob did a great job logically debunking the fallacy that evo and Christianity are compatible.

[atlaw]

Ok. But that wasn’t the question. The question was, if a person accepts the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for biological development and diversification, are they going to burn in hell for eternity?

[tacticalogic]

Actually they are. If we evolved from so slime, we’re not accountable for our sin and death is a wonderful thing because it perfects our species. JimRob did a great job logically debunking the fallacy that evo and Christianity are compatible.

Then you're telling people that if evolution happened, there is no God.

[tacticalogic]

....they just told me it was imaginary 100 million years or something.

Did they really tell you it was "imaginary", or you jut just lie to me about what they told you?

[demshateGod]

No, you just don’t understand English. They told me a number the number was imaginary. Actually I probably read the number on a plaque, which is still true.

[demshateGod]

If evolution happened, the God of the Bible is not real.

[demshateGod]

The question assumes too much.

[tacticalogic]

No, you just don’t understand English. They told me a number the number was imaginary. Actually I probably read the number on a plaque, which is still true.

I understand English, and I understand sophistry.

[tacticalogic]

If evolution happened, the God of the Bible is not real.

Is there any other God?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Is it not true that Darwin himself regretted his own beliefs on his death bed? That he denounced his life work for the damage it had done while he lay dying.

No, it's not true.

[Soothesayer]

“Wrong, Charles. Natural selection is the culling of the ‘unfit’ individuals of a population. This can uncover previously unseen combinations of genes that have always been there since Creation and remain unchanged. However, it can act only on existing genetic information, and cannot produce anything new. It has nothing to do with design.”

Darwin did not know anything about genetics but we later discovered that new genes can come from mutation, genetic drift.

[Soothesayer]

The species concept has changed considerably over the centuries. We now classify species according to phylogeny (genetic relationships) and not so much the morphology. It is a verifiable fact that genes are involved directly in protein synthesis.

If it is possible to argue that the God of Genesis could have worked at the genetic level rather than only the phenotype level, there may be a way to reconcile evolution and Genesis. Still seems like a pretty hopeless match up.