Darwin, Evolution and His Critics - Part 2 Darwin's Escape from God

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute ^ | Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon

[gobucks]

Long read. But worth it.

[gobucks]

many many things here that are quite interesting about the fellow.

Didn't know how much of this either of you knew, but a ping for you all nonetheless. Betty, you might want to ping your list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the interesting biography!

[mitch5501]

"The real issue is the nature of God...(snip)...evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible.

How long will it take for an evolutionist to post that he believes in the God of the Bible...and thus show that the above statement is false?

The real issue is not the "nature of God" rather it is what the word 'believe' actually means.

God bless

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

How long will it take for an evolutionist to post that he believes in the God of the Bible...and thus show that the above statement is false?

Indeed. In the interest of peace, I've tried (unsuccessfully) to persuade posters to separate the theological debate from the science debate. Oh well...

[Alacarte]

People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons.

Since when did science become a multiple choice piece of information? You don't choose to 'believe' in how the natural world works. Either you understand, or you don't, period.

To steal a quip from Bill Maher. "The author isn't so sure about gravity either, he thinks it may be a plot by jews to get people to drop spare change."

[Alacarte]

It is worthy to note that Dr. Thompson penned the above words nearly 50 years ago. In subsequent years, recent developments and discoveries throughout the sciences have made belief in evolution more and more difficult. So much so that some scientists have now abandoned the theory while others, although continuing to exercise faith that evolution is true, concede that convincing evidence for it may never be forthcoming.

Of all the blatant lies that get distributed here about evolution, this is one of the worst. This assertion holds absolutely no credibility. The past 50 years has seen a medical revolution thanks to DNA, which is the best proof for evolution. Darwin knew there was some mechanism that allowed the transmission of data from one generation to the next, but he did not know what it was. DNA fits his theory PERFECTLY.

In recent years, the scientific community has gone to unprecedented lengths, to not only publicly support evolution, but denounce ID and creationism as pseudoscience.

If this ridiculous assertion that the scientific community is abandoning evolution is not just a blatant lie, then I challenge anyone here to post a reference to an ACTUAL scientific institution or organization that questions evolution. DISCOVERY INSTITUTE is NOT a science institution! A science institution is a place where actual research is done, a place that actually contributes to science. Links to a peer reviewed publication in the scientific literature will do just as well.

This entire article is a distortion of history and science. EVERY new hypothesis has mistakes and errors when it begins, what does pointing out Darwin's errors prove, other than the way science works? Science evolves and corrects and improves itself all the time. Eventually evolution was so well proven and accepted that it became a theory. Even today evolution is changing with new data, expanding and correcting any errors that may arise.

Evolutionary science is not just an 'idea.' It is used everyday by medical researchers, ecologists, zoologists... If it were not real science, they would notice, cause nothing would work right!

You all act as if the scientific community is some invisible, abstract entity to be quoted when it suits you, and ignored otherwise. No, the scientific community, as well as the literature (not that technical biology papers make any sense to non-biologists, but you can search for papers disputing evolution) are easy to find. Go to the journal websites, or major science institution websites like the Royal Society, or the NAS, and read for yourself what the scientific community says about evolution, you'll find it's much different from what the religious community says.

[betty boop]

...many many things here that are quite interesting about the fellow.

Indeed, gobucks. Yet the article is silent about what may have been the cause of Darwin's loss of faith in God. Early in his career, he spoke of creatures taking their beginning from God, Who "breathed life" into them. This, he assumed, is how life got started. If the theory associated with his name never deals with the issue of the nature or emergence of life per se, perhaps that's because Darwin admitted a divine creator who functioned at the very beginning of the universe, creating everything including the physical laws; and then "withdrawing" -- which is rather a deist notion.

The article points out that early in life Darwin had considered entering into religious orders; but apparently decided he hadn't the calling to do it. The point is, in his early life, Darwin was a Christian. And it is obvious that somewhere along the line he lost his faith. Why?

It has been suggested that the death of his young daughter from a long, wasting illness in which she suffered horribly is what destroyed his faith.

Whatever the case may be -- and I'm not sure that a "psychobiography" of Darwin can prove anything -- the fact remains that Darwin became a positivist:

Darwin’s master accomplishment was to convince the scientific world that it was unscientific to believe in supernatural causation. His purpose was to "ungod" the universe. Darwin was a positivist. This is the philosophy that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge; no other type of knowledge is legitimate. Obviously, to accept that premise means to reject any form of divine revelation. Darwin accomplished one of the greatest feats of salesmanship in the history of the world. He convinced scientists that it was unscientific to deal with God or creation in any way. To be scientific, they must study the world as if God did not exist....

In all of this, it is important to realize that Darwin was not an atheist. He did not exterminate God. He just evicted God from the universe which God had created. All that God was allowed to do was to create the "natural laws" at the beginning. From then on, nature was on its own. With God out of the picture, evolution fell into place rather easily, since evolution seemed to be the only viable alternative to Special Creation....

And so, I gather that Darwin, more than anyone else (aided and abetted by T. Huxley, of course) is to be credited (or blamed) for the (to me) utterly astonishing view that, in order to "be scientific," people "must study the world as if God did not exist."

But this is to popularize an ideology -- a philosophic, not a scientific view.

Thanks so much for the interesting post, gobucks!

p.s.: I've pinged my list, which I've just gotten organized. If anyone's name is on it that shouldn't be there, just let me know. If anybody would like to be added, just let me know.... thanks!

[js1138]

Perhaps, while we are engaged in character assassination, I could post a biography of the Moonie acolyte, Jonathan Wells.

Seriously, this is not amusing.

But you ask a serious question:

The article points out that early in life Darwin had considered entering into religious orders; but apparently decided he hadn't the calling to do it. The point is, in his early life, Darwin was a Christian. And it is obvious that somewhere along the line he lost his faith. Why?

A reasonable hypothesis, based on his own writings, is that he was in grief over the loss of his favorite daughter, age eight.

[xzins]

in order to "be scientific," people "must study the world as if God did not exist

This assumption is hurtful in that the evidence should determine the directions taken.

Likewise, if a "theist" insists on a doctrinaire understanding of a particular inquiry, it the same a priori fault. The evidence should determine the directions taken.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Have you considered addressing the authors of the post which contains such inanities as: "People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons. As we will see later, one reason is so they can reject the Christian faith."?

Anagolously one could argue: "People believe in Christianity for a variety of reasons. As we will see later, one reason is so they can reject scientific inquiry."

All (recent, and certaily on FR) objections to evolutionary theory have come from a small, essentially homogenous group with similar religious views. As the objections to science are religion-based, it is difficult to discuss things without religion being injected in the first couple of sentences (as in the posted article.)

[betty boop]

A reasonable hypothesis, based on his own writings, is that he was in grief over the loss of his favorite daughter, age eight.

That is my conjecture, js1138. FWIW

[betty boop]

This assumption is hurtful in that the evidence should determine the directions taken. ... Likewise, if a "theist" insists on a doctrinaire understanding of a particular inquiry, it the same a priori fault. The evidence should determine the directions taken.

I totally agree, xzins! Thanks so much for writing!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent post!

And so, I gather that Darwin, more than anyone else (aided and abetted by T. Huxley, of course) is to be credited (or blamed) for the (to me) utterly astonishing view that, in order to "be scientific," people "must study the world as if God did not exist." But this is to popularize an ideology -- a philosophic, not a scientific view.

Indeed and it creates a political imbalance favoring atheism as follows:

With the notable exceptions of Lewontin, Pinker and gang - science does not speak for or against God. But metaphysical naturalists (www.infidels.org) take that omission as authentication for their religion - the presumption being that since science does not speak of God ipso facto God does not exist.

[StJacques]

"The real issue is the nature of God...(snip)...evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible."

This is absolutely false and a blatant instance of religious bigotry as it attaches the label of "disbeliever" to anyone who calls themselves a Christian and finds the Theory of Evolution credible. Among others who fall into the category described in the above quote are Pope John Paul II and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Roman Catholic Church.

But if we are to take the opening article of this thread as legitimate the Pope, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and millions of others who call themselves Christian but find the Theory of Evolution credible reject the God of the Bible.

It is bigotry to make such a claim. Pure and simple bigotry. And as a practicing Roman Catholic I am offended.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Have you considered addressing the authors of the post which contains such inanities as: "People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons. As we will see later, one reason is so they can reject the Christian faith."?

Indeed. I considered it and did precisely that long ago on a theological thread where I challenged everyone to bring their theories of Scriptures and Origins to the table. (Freeper Views on Origins).

I reworked and posted the body article (my own musings) to my own webpage.

In the various doctrines of Christianity, there are some (as in the above article) who sincerely believe that if one does not embrace a certain doctrine then therefore he is in mortal spiritual error. If you think the flames get bad on evolution threads, you should see the religion threads. Jeepers!

To these I always mention that all of the apostles had different personalities, John was nothing like Peter, Paul or Thomas. If Christ wanted all of them to be of the same type, He certainly could have made it so. Likewise, the churches in Revelation are each quite different from one another but all accepted with certain commendations and rebukes.

Personally, I eschew the doctrine and traditions of men altogether whether Calvin, Arminius, the Pope, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham. My "doctrine" is described in this article

At the end of that article, I mention the following set of passages – the interpretation of which creates this great difficulty among Christians and between Young Earth Creationists and Evolutionists:

Personal interpretation of Scriptures and sadly, the reliance on the counsel of other men, leads to sincere contention among Christians. One such example is the origin of Adam, whose fall from grace is the need for Christ's propitiation. One side insists that Adam was the first mortal man, the other that he was the first man given a soul - either as fact or as metaphor:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. - Romans 5:12-14

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. - I Corinthians 15:42-48

A belief that Adam was the first mortal man leads to the conclusion of young earth creationism. A belief that he was the first soulful man is compatible with intelligent design and theistic evolution.

In either case, the understanding itself may become part of the Christian's worldview and, if so, it will constitute a firm boundary which cannot be broached by any non-Spiritual argument to the contrary. In the Christian man's worldview, a core belief is more important than mortal life.

That is the rub – under that particular doctrine, the interpretation that Adam was the first mortal man is Truth and therefore will be argued as if one’s life depends on it – because, in that doctrine, it does.

And Truth always trumps facts – so trying to argue with a Young Earth Creationist using science is a complete waste of time. Hence the thread I authored so long ago – it allowed everyone to get their competing theological views of origins on the table so that everyone could draw their own conclusions.

All (recent, and certaily on FR) objections to evolutionary theory have come from a small, essentially homogenous group with similar religious views. As the objections to science are religion-based, it is difficult to discuss things without religion being injected in the first couple of sentences (as in the posted article.)

Indeed. Perhaps it is time to do another theological thread on the subject of origins? If that is the consensus in y'alls response, I shall be glad to do it again unless someone else would like to give a go.

Truly, I wish that all the science minded posters would simply quit trying to reason with Young Earth Creationists – ignore them because the only possible result is indignation all around.

In sum, the YEC objection falls in the domain of theology and is best argued by the ministers, teachers, theologians who post here.

[StJacques]

". . . It is worthy to note that Dr. Thompson penned the above words nearly 50 years ago. In subsequent years, recent developments and discoveries throughout the sciences have made belief in evolution more and more difficult. So much so that some scientists have now abandoned the theory while others, although continuing to exercise faith that evolution is true, concede that convincing evidence for it may never be forthcoming. . . ."

This is the most ridiculous claim imaginable because the truth is just the opposite. The evidence for evolution is now so overwhelming that evolution itself approaches facticity. There are real debates about the engine of evolutionary change in science, but there is no debate about evolution itself, because no evidence has been brought forth to challenge it. There are just repeated claims from anti-evolution mutual support groups that such evidence has been provided, but these groups and their members never answer the most basic questions put to them about that evidence and they deny proven scientific facts, such as radiometric dating, observed instances of speciation, and much more.

I'll put up the same challenge here that I have posted at least three other times on other threads. To anyone who wants to charge that the scientific evidence for evolution has been discredited in recent years, please explain how oil companies search for oil using the evidence of the fossil record to establish the geologic age of rock formations whose potential for holding oil deposits they assess based upon the taxonomy of fossil remains. No anti-evolutionist has ever answered this challenge on this board because doing so will make clear that the assertion that science has produced evidence that calls evolution into question is blatantly false. Every day geologists use the evidence of evolution to find oil and with each passing year they have become better at finding it.

So come on you opponents of evolution, explain to me and the rest of the board how geologists find oil. And after you explain it, try to post that idiotic claim that the evidence for evolution has been discredited by new scientific discoveries. I would just love to see you tell it to a Petroleum Geologist.

[PatrickHenry]

So come on you opponents of evolution, explain to me and the rest of the board how geologists find oil.

Similar challenge: Why doesn't the profit-driven (and thus not ideological) biotech industry employ the principles of "creation science" or hire creationists to conduct biological research?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I would ignore YEC's except that they intrude directly on work sometimes. I likewise prefer to ignore Raelians, PETA, Act-Up, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and others. Unfortunately YEC's also destroy the credibility of the rest of the conservative agenda (and I do support some parts thereof.)

It is difficult to talk about things about "tax reduction" or "social security reform" or "war on terror" when the reply is "but that is just supported by people who are anti-science." Many people I know feel that if someone is hostile to scientific reasoning, they cannot be trusted in other fields. (To be fair, PETA, Act-Up, the Raelians, etc. are likewise disliked by many people I talk with; most also voted against Gore because he was scientifically illiterate too.)

[StJacques]

So come on you opponents of evolution, explain to me and the rest of the board how geologists find oil.

"Similar challenge: Why doesn't the profit-driven (and thus not ideological) biotech industry employ the principles of "creation science" or hire creationists to conduct biological research?"

Yeah, no kidding Patrick. To listen to the Creationists Evolution is just some anti-religious conspiracy whose true nature is just now being revealed by scientific advances that are being "ignored or rejected." What bull___t that is!

Every day highly-trained scientific specialists working in the private sector in Petroleum Geology, Bio-Technology, Botany (this includes Agronomy), and more apply the findings of research into the Theory of Evolution in their daily work and they succeed to the economic benefit of millions of investors, creating and sustaining trillions of dollars of capital investment.

And in contrast, the Creationists say that this is all a hoax and that "evolutionists" are denying real evidence. So long as they refuse to account for what is taking place in these industries that claim is pure idiocy.