[Alamo-Girl]

I've discovered that there are people both on the streed and here at Free Republic who simply will not accept that. There appears to be more to it than simple misperception.

Seems to me it always comes down to "Who do you believe?"

That is a vital Spiritual point among Christians and the root of many theological disputes.

Personally, I eschew all the doctrines and traditions of men across the board and lean instead on the words of God and the leading of the indwelling Spirit (Romans 8, John 15, I Cor 2):

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:27

I love God. I believe Him. I trust Him.

Likewise it comes down to "Who do you believe?" in the crevo wars. And this issue stands as a good example of it.

A person may have been told by someone he believes or trusts - or determined by his own reasoning - that Darwin said something else, perhaps somewhere else, perhaps submitting to sinister influences or associations, that there was a subtext, a hidden agenda, perhaps even to "kill" faith in God as if that were possible.

And if he believes those sources, your efforts to reason with him citing the absence of evidence in Darwin's theory will be futile.

However, there would have been evidence if Darwin had disclosed upfront in his theory of the origin of species - as an axiom or postulate - that he takes life as a "given" offering neither a definition of what life "is" nor an explanation of its origin.

It would be much easier to point to that evidence and say that whatever else he might have written or how anyone might have used the theory to advance their sinister theological or political agendas etc. is therefore irrelevant to the theory itself.

He omitted to mention his presuppositions.

And with so many issues in the crevo wars, the absence of evidence keeps the flames burning.

[tacticalogic]

And if he believes those sources, your efforts to reason with him citing the absence of evidence in Darwin's theory will be futile.

However, there would have been evidence if Darwin had disclosed upfront in his theory of the origin of species - as an axiom or postulate - that he takes life as a "given" offering neither a definition of what life "is" nor an explanation of its origin.

It would be much easier to point to that evidence and say that whatever else he might have written or how anyone might have used the theory to advance their sinister theological or political agendas etc. is therefore irrelevant to the theory itself.

If they chose to believe other sources rather than do the research and find out for themselves, I don't see how it would matther what Darwin wrote.

If the people they choose to believe tell them "Darwin said 'A'", and I tell them "No, Darwin said 'B'" they are going to believe that Darwin said 'A', whether he really did or not.