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...

[GodGunsGuts]

I have ready plenty of books purporting to demonstrate the validity of neo-Darwoodian ToE. In the end, all of them unwittingly provided yet more evidence for Creation/ID. You can’t be too careful if you’re a Darwinist. But again, let’s see your evidence in favor of Charlie’s fanciful creation myth. If the NDToE is so overwhelming, it shouldn’t be too much trouble.

[Filo]

I have ready plenty of books purporting to demonstrate the validity of neo-Darwoodian ToE. In the end, all of them unwittingly provided yet more evidence for Creation/ID. You can’t be too careful if you’re a Darwinist. But again, let’s see your evidence in favor of Charlie’s fanciful creation myth. If the NDToE is so overwhelming, it shouldn’t be too much trouble

Read but failed to understand. I see.

There isn't much trouble involved but whatever effort I make would be wasted.

Your "mind" is made up and your mental barriers to knowledge and evidence are readily apparent.

[GodGunsGuts]

Except my mind is backed up by evidence, whereas your mind is made up in favor of an increasingly discredited “theory” based on a “dearth” of evidence, that has only gotten worse for Darwood’s fanciful creation myth (not better!) with the passage of time.

[Filo]

Except my mind is backed up by evidence

You have exactly none and you know it.

whereas your mind is made up in favor of an increasingly discredited “theory” based on a “dearth” of evidence, that has only gotten worse for Darwood’s fanciful creation myth (not better!) with the passage of time.

Incorrect on all counts but it does showcase your ignorance and self-delusion nicely.

The "dearth" of evidence was Darwin's alone and it was still sufficient to allow him to reach the correct conclusion.

Subsequent evidence, and there is tons of it, has only served to reinforce the basic concepts of Evolution while further refining our understanding of some of the intricacies.

Evolution is a categorical fact and cannot be rationally disputed.

As I've said, some can debate the finer points of specific aspects that fall outside of Evolution itself (as in which species was the ancestor to what) but none of that is anything but in the noise.

And none of it suggests anything about some fanciful creator.

[Cedric]

There is no evidence supporting evolution.

None.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Consider someone finding a diary that purports to be a record of the movements of the Continental Army by a soldier in it during the Revolution. Would you consider using it to interpret archaeological field data to be a "religious" exercise? Of course not.

But if said diary described marching from Baltimore to Boston in 2 days and described camping on the Potomac along the way, I might reconsider its value as a geography book. And if I insisted that it must be correct so therefore the Potomac must have been north of Baltimore at the time, it wouldn't exactly be a scientific approach.

[DevNet]

If you are Christian you really should not be spreading such falsehoods.

[Cedric]

Not a scintilla.

[Cedric]

Lame.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Deep.

[Cedric]

Pithy.

[Buck W.]

Actually, Filo is quite right. Only a small band of Christians hold to the YEC view of things, and that’s probably more for the purpose of retaining social status within their churches.

[Cedric]

That's a moronic statement for which you have no proof......in keeping with evo tradition.

[DevNet]

Define what you mean by evolution and I will prove evidence.

[Cedric]

You go first.

[DevNet]

You made a claim now either support it or retract your original statement.

[Cedric]

No, you evos made the claim(s).

I rejected them.

Now, shut up and go find some fossils.

[DevNet]

I will ignore your rude and disrespectful behavior but what sort of fossils would you like me to find?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Actually, Filo is quite right. Only a small band of Christians hold to the YEC view of things, and that’s probably more for the purpose of retaining social status within their churches.

Why am I not surprised that neither one of you know what the heck you're talking about? The following is a NATIONWIDE POLL, conducted over the course of two and a half decades. As you can see, YECers represent the largest group. And this number would go WAY UP if you just counted regular church attenders!

GALLOP POLL: Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

	Man developed, with God guiding	Man developed, but God had no part in process	God created man in present form	Other/ No opinion
	%	%	%	%
2008 May 8-11	36	14	44	5
2007 May 10-13	38	14	43	4
2006 May 8-11	36	13	46	5
2004 Nov 7-10	38	13	45	4
2001 Feb 19-21	37	12	45	5
1999 Aug 24-26	40	9	47	4
1997 Nov 6-9	39	10	44	7
1993 Jun	35	11	47	7
1982	38	9	44	9

[DevNet]

The majority of people support pre-martial sex - does that mean we should say it is OK?

What about Obama? He won the election - does that mean we have to support him?