Darwin’s Sad Legacy (evolution invented to give death and suffering a positive explanation?)

AiG ^ | April 14, 2009 | Dr. Tommy Mitchell

[GodGunsGuts]

The common thread throughout Darwin’s life was his continual struggle with the issue of death and suffering. He was never able to reconcile the existence of death, disease, and struggle with the character of a loving God:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[1]

Darwin was unable to understand why a loving Creator God would allow the horrible things he witnessed in nature and everyday life. Animals fed on one another; creatures ripped each other apart; women died in childbirth, etc. The world seemed heartless and cruel. Darwin’s eventual expansion of the concept of evolution seemed to provide a somewhat positive purpose for the suffering and death he could not explain.

Two of Darwin’s biographers went so far as to imply that...

[Filo]

But since you are not, you have no way to know what I have or haven't seen.

You should learn some of the different uses of the pronoun.

One of your primary errors is in believing that you have not made any.

Cute, but still untrue.

But religion does not hinder scientific advancement?

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

Yes, in general, religion definitely hinders scientific advancement.

Sure the church sponsored science at one point, but that time is long gone. . .

Thats tageline material...

It is indeed. Maybe I'll switch someday. . .

Naturalism is known drivel.

But only to folks whose credentials are decidedly sparse.

BTW, you didn't answer my question about Popper.

That's 'cause I don't care. . .

Cheers!

[Fichori]

One of your primary errors is in believing that you have not made any.

“Cute, but still untrue.” [excerpt]

You appear to have placed an almost religious faith in your infallibility.

But religion does not hinder scientific advancement?

“Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

Yes, in general, religion definitely hinders scientific advancement.

Sure the church sponsored science at one point, but that time is long gone. . . ” [excerpt]

The reason I asked is because there are a number of great scientist who were religious and yet they made great discoveries.

Naturalism is known drivel.

“But only to folks whose credentials are decidedly sparse.” [excerpt]

Popper rejected the naturalistic view.

Are your credentials better than his?

BTW, you didn't answer my question about Popper.

“That's 'cause I don't care. . .” [excerpt]

I noticed that you ignored a few other points I've made, too.

[nanetteclaret]

Your conclusion was based on reason? That is a “pile of poo.” You made a judgement based on your your pre-conclusions. You thought it was “religious” therefore you rejected it out-of-hand.

***”The fact that I was able to determine the uselessness of the work from excerpts is a testament to my reasoning skills.”*** What a laugh! Better minds than yours, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have sought the answers to these questions. The fact that you need not read the whole argument to determine your final thoughts on the subject is evidence that you are as narrow-minded as those you ridicule.

[GourmetDan]

"ROFLMAO."

Uh oh, now what will you speak with?

"What a self-serving, steaming pile of contrived and utterly worthless BS."

No, that would be YA that you just L'dO.

"If that's the alternative I'm sticking with the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

There is just as much evidence for the FSM as there is for philosophical naturalism. Unless you engage in logical fallacy, that is.

[Filo]

You appear to have placed an almost religious faith in your infallibility.

Working from knowledge has that effect on people.

The reason I asked is because there are a number of great scientist who were religious and yet they made great discoveries.

Which has nothing to do with what I said which is that science on the whole would advance farther and faster without religion.

I admit that there were religious scientists and that the church advanced science at times, but the overall impact is to thwart it. One step forwards, two steps back.

Popper rejected the naturalistic view.

Are your credentials better than his?

Clearly, since I'm right and he's wrong.

I noticed that you ignored a few other points I've made, too.

Absolutely. There's only so much I can do. Eventually you and the rest of the noise machine are going to have to engage your own brains.

[Filo]

Your conclusion was based on reason? That is a “pile of poo.” You made a judgement based on your your pre-conclusions. You thought it was “religious” therefore you rejected it out-of-hand.

Incorrect. I reject it because it's clearly self-serving religious nonsense.

There is a difference.

Better minds than yours, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have sought the answers to these questions.

That is one of the many places you are mistaken.

These people you so admire did nothing to seek answers. They had the answers they desired in hand and they went about seeking ways to manipulate reality to fit within their limited framework.

That is, ultimately, what religion is all about.

That is certainly what Thomas Aquinas' efforts were all about. The fact that you need not read the whole argument to determine your final thoughts on the subject is evidence that you are as narrow-minded as those you ridicule.

Incorrect again.

As I said, I can draw conclusions from more limited information. The "arguments" Aquinas presents discredit themselves fairly quickly.

Pursuing them at length is pointless.

You can't polish a turd.

[Filo]

There is just as much evidence for the FSM as there is for philosophical naturalism.



And yet there is more evidence for the FSM than there is for God*.

We know, at least, that Spaghetti exists. . .

[GourmetDan]

"And yet there is more evidence for the FSM than there is for God*. We know, at least, that Spaghetti exists. . ."

Wrong again. Man was created in the image of God. We know, at least, that man exists.

The FSM was created in the image of a food product created by man. It's going the opposite (and wrong) way. Less evidence any way you look at it.

As for philosophical naturalism, there is still as much evidence for the FSM as there is for philosophical naturalism.

[Filo]

Wrong again. Man was created in the image of God. We know, at least, that man exists.

Yeah, and there's just tons of evidence for that baloney.

[metmom]

Can you describe the naturalistic process that resulted in the creation of the laws of physics by which nature operates?

Clearly some great sky being waved his hands and created them.

Duh!

(May you be touched by his Noodly Appendage)

If we're asking stupid origins questions how about this one: Who created God*?

***********************************************************

What a total COP-OUT of an answer!!!!

As my daughter likes to say..... EPIC FAIL.

That is not a *stupid origins* question. Evos like to pretend that they have all the answers, but when someone asks them something they can't answer, they resort to this, the usual disparagement and mockery and subject changing strawman.

Science depends on those laws. Without them science would not exist. Evos claim that everything has naturalistic explanations. So explain.

For that matter, thank you for admitting that the *Who created God* comeback is stupid. We always thought so. You've confirmed it.

[metmom]

That pattern appears to be one of the naturalistic laws of the universe. The stupid rely on faith while the intelligent seek proof.

There is no proof in science according to your compatriots. Evos rely on faith as much as anyone, it's just a matter of what you're putting your faith in.

Some put their faith in God, others in other men and the systems they have established- such as the scientific method and peer review.

You've called everyone on the planet stupid, yourself included.

[metmom]

Are you saying that religious people are stupid and unlearned?

Absolutely he is.

[count-your-change]

“Clearly some great sky being waved his hands and created them.”

If The Temple of Darwinism can’t do science it can do sarcasm.

[tpanther]

That is not a *stupid origins* question. Evos like to pretend that they have all the answers, but when someone asks them something they can't answer, they resort to this, the usual disparagement and mockery and subject changing strawman.

Well metmom, you do have to remember you're dealing with people that truly consider themselves soulless great apes.

[GourmetDan]

"Yeah, and there's just tons of evidence for that baloney."

Once again, you were the one who claimed that the existence of spaghetti constituted more evidence for the FSM than the existence for God.

I simply used your own logic to show that the existence of man who was created in the image of God is better evidence for God than the existence of a food product that man created was as evidence for the FSM.

Both spaghetti and the FSM can be shown to be creations of men. OTOH, the existence of man cannot be shown to be the creation of man.

[tpanther]

What a self-serving, steaming pile of contrived and utterly worthless BS.

If that's the alternative I'm sticking with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But but but...I thought it was the PURPLE flying spaghetti monster!

P-U-R-P-L-E !!!!!!!!

I'm truly disappointed! My faith in evolution has been shaken once again today! You need to confer with your liberal ilk and straighten this out! STAT!!!! If you don't watch out, we'll have red, orange, perhaps fuscia flying spaghetti monsters competing with your purple version ... and walking or swimming is next! And don't we ALL know we need to have only ONE version of a flying spaghetti monster taught, or none taught at all!

[tpanther]

If we're asking stupid origins questions how about this one: Who created God*?

Are you referrring to the God of all, or your god: Darwin?

[do the dhue]

Who created God*?

Maybe it was a bigger bang. If a big bang can create a universe, then why can't a bigger bang create a God?

[Filo]

What a total COP-OUT of an answer!!!!

My point exactly. Whenever you invoke some imaginary creator you aren't really answering anything.

That is not a *stupid origins* question.

Yes, it very much is.

Evos like to pretend that they have all the answers, but when someone asks them something they can't answer, they resort to this, the usual disparagement and mockery and subject changing strawman.

You are, as usual, confused.

Nobody is saying they have all of the answers except for the 'thumpers.

Of course, they only really have one answer, but that's besides the point.

As usual, however, they twist logic and suppress intelligence to infer that the inability to answer one question invalidates the entirety of science.

That's stupid beyond belief.

Science depends on those laws.

So?

Without them science would not exist. Evos claim that everything has naturalistic explanations. So explain.

As has been explained - there is a naturalistic explanation, but we don't know it yet.

For that matter, thank you for admitting that the *Who created God* comeback is stupid. We always thought so. You've confirmed it.

Actually it's not a stupid question at all. It's the same as your stupid question, really. It's asked because there isn't an answer and without an answer obviously your whole argument falls apart, right?

[Filo]

There is no proof in science according to your compatriots.

That is a self-serving misrepresentation.

Evos rely on faith as much as anyone, it's just a matter of what you're putting your faith in.

A common mistaken belief, but understandable from one who cannot escape faith themselves.

Some put their faith in God, others in other men and the systems they have established- such as the scientific method and peer review.

Except that those relying on the latter have some intelligent backing and healthy skepticism for their "faith" which means that it's not really faith at all.

You've called everyone on the planet stupid, yourself included.

No I haven't, but you'd have to understand what I say in order to understand that. . .