[_ Old Earth _] Darwinism

[Pearly Gator]

Charles Darwin published his work, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life†in 1859. Darwin quickly persuaded, by his theories being taught in public schools and universities, a few notable Christians to leave their faith and embrace his philosophy. Notably Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin. Statistically, seventy percent of young Christians leave their faith after attending public college or universities. Such was the case with the aforementioned duo.

Since Darwin’s theory of evolution is something that cannot be proven or duplicated in the science laboratory, it is a belief system. Ergo “Darwinismâ€Â. It is something that it’s proponent maintains faith in, believing that it is truth. Yes, Loretta, it’s a religion; An adherence to a system of beliefs, pursued with zeal and devotion.

Robert N. Proctor (Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis [1988]) observed: "Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on the single creation of Adam and Eve. Darwin 's theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions. The impact of Darwin's theory was enormous."

"But let the destruction of the adults be ever so heavy, if the number which can exist in any district be not wholly kept down by such causes, - or again let the destruction of eggs or seeds be so great that only a hundredth or a thousandth part are developed, - yet of those which do survive, the best adapted individuals, supposing that there is any variability in a favourable direction, will tend to propagate their kind in large numbers than the less well adapted. If the numbers be wholly kept down by the causes just indicated, as will often have been the case, natural selection will be powerless in certain beneficial directions; but this is no valid objection to its efficiency at other times and in other ways; for we are far from having any reason to supposed that many species ever undergo modification and improvement at the same time in the same area."

Sound familiar?

As the father of modern evolutionism, Charles Darwin is consequently responsible for the slaughter of millions of people and the racism that ravaged the globe in the twentieth century. All the while, his unsuspecting followers promote Darwinism as the “true†religion. Their mantra is, “We have the truth. The Bible is wrong because it disagrees with what we believe.†Today we are saddled with laws protecting only the teaching of the religion of Darwinism in public schools.

Sieg Heil, Darwin.

 

[Barbarian]

Whoa! A new record for inconsistencies and misconceptions.

First let's agree that a Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

Then we should acknowledge that telling the truth is always a good thing, even if it's unpleasant.

Darwin was considered a liberal for his time, because he opposed slavery and advocated human rights for all people. He was a racist, as most Europeans and Amercans were at the time.

However, modern science has shown us that racism is foolish, so you have to look pretty hard to find a Darwinist who's a racist.

On the other hand....

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

Arch-creationist Henry Morris (founder of the Intitute for Creation Research) The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148:

While racism has become a rarity among scientists, it is unfortunately still to be found among some (certainly not all) creationists. It's not because scientists are necessarily of higher moral character; it's just that evolutionary theory has shown that racism is foolish and misguided.

 

[willow the wip]

Darwinsum is a self proclamed religion to disprove the exsistance of God

 

[Barbarian]

Could you point to where Darwin said his theory a religion to disprove the existance of God?

Like the charge of racism, it's so absurd as to suggest that you're a trolling atheist.

 

[willow the wip]

I am not an atheist.

an atheist denighs the exsistence of God.

I do not, Creationists Prove Darwinisum to be inconclusive

 

[Barbarian]

Whether or not you are an atheist troll, I would like my question answered.

 

[willow the wip]

ok here is an answer

The famous 1860 Oxford debate between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samual Wilberforce.

Charles Kingsley, an Anglican clergyman-naturalist, in a letter of thanks to Darwin for sending a copy of the Origin, wrote in 1859: "I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self-development into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply lucunas which he himself has made. I question the former may be not the loftier thought."

this is not biblical

Frederick Temple, the future Archbishop of Canterbury, accepted the theory and said that it required the abandonment of a literal reading of Genesis.

Temple also repeated Kingsley’s idea that God "made [things] . . . make themselves." (Durant 20).

An Oxford Anglican, Aubrey Moore, accepted the Origin & pointed out that the theory of God’s occasional intervention in nature entailed the idea of his "ordinary absence." And this latter idea was not the orthodox Christian conception of creation.

By contrast, Aubrey Moore wrote in 1891, evolution implied the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power." (Arthur Peacocke, "Biological Evolution and Christian Theology--Yesterday and Today," in Durant, 111).

Moore continues: "The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day [1891], is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science [the theory of evolution] has pushed the deist’s God further and further away. . . . [Thus] Darwinism appeared . . . Under the guise of a foe, [but] did the work of a friend. . . ." (quoted by Peacocke 111).

 

[willow the wip]

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc04.htm

EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS FAITH
Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is a religion, and it must be accepted by faith. This is science vs. evolution; this is the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

This material is excerpted from the book, EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY. (See Order Sheet.) An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Evolution and Society.

Evolutionists freely admit that evolution is a religion, and can only be accepted by faith.

Darwinism is a mythology.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."â€â€*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

It is a faith.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."â€â€*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

Evolution makes man into his own god. It is "a nontheistic religion."

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life."â€â€*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.

This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed by them a "religion."

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."â€â€*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).

*Huxley, *Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission:

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."â€â€*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

 

[Barbarian]

Charles Kingsley, an Anglican clergyman-naturalist, in a letter of thanks to Darwin for sending a copy of the Origin, wrote in 1859: "I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self-development into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply lucunas which he himself has made. I question the former may be not the loftier thought."

this is not biblical

Of course it is. This has been the orthodox understanding for a long time. It goes back at least as far as St. Augustine, who pointed that the act of creation was instantaneous, and that creation eolved from there, as Genesis says.

Frederick Temple, the future Archbishop of Canterbury, accepted the theory and said that it required the abandonment of a literal reading of Genesis.

Indeed. But a literal reading of Genesis is not orthodox Christian understanding. Because a literal reading of Genesis produces logical contradictions, we know it must not be literal.

An Oxford Anglican, Aubrey Moore, accepted the Origin & pointed out that the theory of God’s occasional intervention in nature entailed the idea of his "ordinary absence." And this latter idea was not the orthodox Christian conception of creation.

This is neither theistic evolution nor evolutonary science, which makes no such claim.

By contrast, Aubrey Moore wrote in 1891, evolution implied the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power." (Arthur Peacocke, "Biological Evolution and Christian Theology--Yesterday and Today," in Durant, 111).

Most Christians accept that evolution is God's creation, yes.

Moore continues: "The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day [1891], is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science [the theory of evolution] has pushed the deist’s God further and further away. . . . [Thus] Darwinism appeared . . . Under the guise of a foe, [but] did the work of a friend. . . ." (quoted by Peacocke 111).

It's true that evolutionary theory makes theism more understandable, and seems to present an impossible dilemma for deism. But that's not what it's about.

 

[Barbarian]

Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is a religion, and it must be accepted by faith.

Nope. You've been misled by folks with an agenda. In fact, if you challenge a scientist on evolutionary theory, he'll start citing facts, not scripture.

This is science vs. evolution; this is the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

(Anti-science stuff)

If you want to learn about capitalism, never ask Fidel Castro to tell you about it.

Let's take a look at your claims:

Evolutionists freely admit that evolution is a religion, and can only be accepted by faith.

Nope. In fact, they point out that it is based on evidence, not faith. The Supreme Court of the United States, when they decided against creationism being forced into public school curricula, pointed out that creationism is a religion, while evolutionary theory is a science.
(Edwards vs. Aguilar)

Darwinism is a mythology.

Darwinian theory is based on evidence. As such, it cannot be mythology.

(edited quote from Eisely)

Have you read the book from which the quote came? I have. The part they edited out is quite interesting. It is Eisley's account of the way the evidence for the origin of species was found. I suspect you weren't the one committing this dishonesty.

Let's avoid this kind of thing in the future. From now on, we are each on our honor not to quote from any article or book we have not read completely. Fair enough?

*Huxley, *Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission:

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."â€â€*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

Indeed, almost all evolutonists would agree with him. Science does not in any way rule out God. Even most athiests would agree on this point.

And I would still like my question answered. Where does Darwin say that his theory was a religion to rule out God?

 

[willow the wip]

In the UK Dawin is taught as fact not theary If a student spoke out about Man comming from monkeys the child would be disiplined.

to evolve a theory and base it on fact is a inposed religion to disprove the exsistance of Creation.

I have often argude this point with my teachers when i attended school i was disiplined for it.

Darwin taught that the big bang theory was made by chance it denighs the exsistance of God as taught in schools in the UK.

And takes the book of Genisis out of prospective.

Id rather not believe Darwin to be acurate other then the Bible the holy word.

God Created the world not Darwin

 

[Barbarian]

In the UK Dawin is taught as fact not theary

I know a teacher in the UK. They teach it as theory, as it is taught in the US. Perhaps you don't know what a scientific theory is?

If a student spoke out about Man comming from monkeys the child would be disiplined.

I would hope that the teacher would explain to him that men did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys are too evolved in different ways to be the ancestors of men.

to evolve a theory and base it on fact is a inposed religion to disprove the exsistance of Creation.

In science, theories must be based on evidence. However, it does not in any way disprove, or attempt to disprove, creation.

I have often argude this point with my teachers when i attended school i was disiplined for it.

I'm sorry to hear that. If they had been kinder, and explained the theory to you, you would be wiser and less resentful.

Darwin taught that the big bang theory was made by chance it denighs the exsistance of God as taught in schools in the UK.

Darwin never heard of the Big Bang theory. And it doesn't deny God.

And takes the book of Genisis out of prospective.

Are you very sure you aren't a troll?

I'd rather not believe Darwin to be acurate other then the Bible the holy word.

Fortunately, you don't have to choose; they are both right.

God Created the world not Darwin

Were you under the impression that someone said he did?

 

[Pearly Gator]

First let's agree that a Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

Since you are not a Christian, what exactly are you doing here?

 

[Barbarian]

I am a Christian. Like most Christians, I accept that evolution is God's creation.

 

[willow the wip]

Evilolution is Evilution, Creation is Creation.

 

[Barbarian]

Not to a Christian.

 

[Featherbop]

Wait, I didn't know Most christians believed in evolution(macro). Or are you talking about most christians believe in (micro) evolution?

Or that one must believe in evolution to be a christian?

Maybe I just read you're posts wrong barbarian?

 

[Barbarian]

Most Christians accept common descent.

The only country where creationism has a significant number of followers is the USA.

 

[Featherbop]

Ok, so you're a christian/evolutionist that does not believe God created the world as told in the Bible?
Correct?

 

[Barbarian]

Ok, so you're a christian/evolutionist that does not believe God created the world as told in the Bible?
Correct?

Nope. I believe what He says in the Bible. The problem is that you don't accept it.

God says in Genesis that He created life by natural means. This rules out "ex nihilo" creation entirely.