Science and reason are the anthitisis to Darwinism. Evolution and thus Naturalism were only created because science found that Materialim (the belief that the earth just was- no end and no beginning) was impossible by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (matter is in a constant state of disinigration and decay- thus our bodies break down and our cars rust). So those who refused to subscribe to a Theistic belief worked to create a theory that did not have a transcendent Creator (historians even recoginze that Darwin was first committed to the philosophy of naturalism and worked to create a theory that furthered his world view). Even Darwin's experiments did not point to an evolutionary cause and effect but back to a transcendent Creator.
Never heard of such an account of science or evolutionists believing that earth had no end or beginning. The whole statement seems nonsensical.
More interesting, by far, is the story of Darwin's daughter, Emma. The role of her life, and death at a very young age, in the formation of the natural selection part of Darwin's theory is little discussed.
In school, little Emma wasn't worthy of discussion when I was young. Little wonder why ...
Ping for stupid 2nd law argument.
Uh, no they don't. Not any historian familiar with the record, in any case. Although Darwin was exposed to some "free thought" type influences in his youth, he remained religiously orthodox into his early adulthood. He didn't begin to become dubious about Christianity until years after he had begun his work on species, and he only finally abandoned Christianity in the wake of his daughter Annie's death in 1851, nearly a decade after his views on evolution were fully formed and elaborated (although not yet published).
Even Darwin's experiments did not point to an evolutionary cause and effect but back to a transcendent Creator.
Uh, come again? What the heck are you even trying to say with this?! Darwin's experiments, although extensive, were almost always focused on highly specific questions i.e. of morphological variation within and among species, variation in wild versus domestic animals (pigeons, barnacles); distribution, migration and colonization of species (survival of seeds in saltwater); matters of physiology (feeding in insectivorous plants, growth in climbing plants, reproduction in orchids). Darwin actually used to joke with friends about his propensity to perform "fools experiments". That is ones that were so obvious and trivial that most would assume the result and not bother.
None of his experiments focused on anything remotely "transcendent".
"Evolution and thus Naturalism were only created because science found that Materialim (the belief that the earth just was- no end and no beginning) was impossible by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (matter is in a constant state of disinigration and decay- thus our bodies break down and our cars rust). "
That is such embarassing hooey. As a mechanical engineer who is into thermodynamics I can tell you the second law precludes nothing, as long as there is a free energy gradient to drive it. That is, if there is a Sun (energy source) and a sink (the low temperature of the universe), evolution is quite possible and is even favored because it promotes the disorder of the global universe by promoting local order.
Take some thermodynamics classes (pleeeez!) before you spout such baloney, find out what the difference is between a closed system, and an open system. You sound like Jeremy Rifkin, the guy behind the gibberish in Al Gore's "Earth In The Balance". Now Rifkin is a real atheist wingnut you can relate your theories to, he believes computers hasten the entropy degradation of the earth and should be banned because of the law of entropy. In fact, read his book called Entropy and you can see a mirror image of your crapola. The Luddite envirowackos believe in the same theory you do.