Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl

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.


2 posted on 02/01/2005 7:13:56 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: gobucks

Thank you so much for the interesting biography!


3 posted on 02/01/2005 9:04:37 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: gobucks; Alamo-Girl; marron; mitch5501; PatrickHenry; cornelis; StJacques; ckilmer; ...
...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!

8 posted on 02/02/2005 9:49:31 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson