Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[turnorburn]

He being a man i agree but is he a part of the evolutionary process according to evolutionary biologists..

Thanks..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

He being a man i agree but is he a part of the evolutionary process according to evolutionary biologists..

Hmm... I read the literature a lot, and I never saw that. Do you have a checkable source for that story?

Thanks..

 

[turnorburn]

Sure you said it here in post #40:

But He is also man, a man who was subject to fear and pain, hunger and thirst, and capable of sin. (otherwise His temptation by Satan is meaningless)

tob

*edit: now maybe you can answer the rest of the question: is he a part of the evolutionary process according to evolutionary biologists?

Thanks

 

[Vaccine]

Nope. "Common designer" completely falls apart, because it can't explain homologies, suboptimal or vestigial structures,(these last two are not the same thing) or the genetic or transitional evidence.

Just your version of a common designer does. Homologies like echolocation in bats and dolphins is excellent evidence of design. Why presume to know what a designer did or did not consider optimal? Life doesn't come with a warranty, things do degrade with time.

Barbarian observes:
They aren't. They merely have photosynthetic algae embedded in their skin. It turns out that the algae seem to use their wastes and provide oxygen in the skin (salamanders get much or all of their oxygen through the skin)

That was the title of the articlce even: Photosynthetic algae have been found inside the cells of a vertebrate for the first time.
Nested Hierarchy is supports both creation and evolution. It's also a human concept with flaws.

. Not only have scientists discovered that our mitochondria (and the chloroplasts of plants) are endosymbionts with their own, bacterial, DNA,

That is speckulation. There is a lot more evidence for a global flood than that.

I suggested you might present even one world-class geneticist who doubts that DNA shows common descent, and you declined to do so. Here's your chance again. Show us even one.

Here they are:
Scot Kelchner, associate professor of systematics and evolution Eric Bapteste, Leo van Iersel, Axel Janke, Scot Kelchner, Steven Kelk, James O. McInerney, David A. Morrison, Luay Nakhleh, Mike Steel, Leen Stougie, James Whitfield, and in another article Graham Lawton and michael Syvanen and in another article Eugene Koonin.df
And I made a thread in the science forum since this is about "other religions"​

Since this thread is about "other religions", here are some of Darwin's ideas that weren't aboiut science:

"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[8]" -The Descent of Man

In his day races also meant species, but it seems he didn't know he wasn't supposed to mix science and philosophy.

 

[Tristan]

Okay, I have a problem here.

God created the universe and everything in it. What we observe scientifically is an observation of God's creation. Why are we denying empirical evidence? It doesn't make any logical sense that God would create the universe and then proceed to use a completely different set of parameters. Is it a divine joke?

turnorburn: No he's not a part of the evolutionary process because he didn't reproduce! His genes were not passed on to any progeny.

 

[Barbarian]

*edit: now maybe you can answer the rest of the question: is he a part of the evolutionary process according to evolutionary biologists?

Already told you. Those of us who are Christians acknowledge that He is the Creator of the evolutionary process. I'm guessing you were hoping for a different answer?

Reality isn't obliged to meet your expectations.

 

[Barbarian]

Tristan writes:

Why are we denying empirical evidence? It doesn't make any logical sense that God would create the universe and then proceed to use a completely different set of parameters. Is it a divine joke?

I don't think so. At least if we can believe St. Paul:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

[Barbarian]

Just your version of a common designer does.

As one Christian noted, you could say it was a common designer, if the designer was malicious or stupid. So that's not an option for a Christian.

Homologies like echolocation in bats and dolphins is excellent evidence of design.

Turns out, they aren't homologies. Indeed, the evidence shows early whales didn't have it. Ditto early bats. And the structures are not homologous; couldn't be, since two different media are involved. But of course hearing is homologous in mammals. So bats and whales are homologous in hearing in the same sense that you and bats and whales are homologous in hearing. But your sense of echolocation is the primitive mammalian form, while bats evolved one set of adaptations, and whales evolved a different set.

Why presume to know what a designer did or did not consider optimal?

Easy to determine. Our backs, knees, hips, and feet are suboptimal. But it's only been a few million years that we've been bipedal, so it's not surprising. A designer would never have done it that way. But a Creator would be competent enough to make the system evolve. IDers are scared of a God that competent.

Life doesn't come with a warranty, things do degrade with time.

Modern humans are demonstrably better fit for bipediality than our early ancestors. Sorry; that one won't fly.

Barbarian observes:
They aren't. They merely have photosynthetic algae embedded in their skin. It turns out that the algae seem to use their wastes and provide oxygen in the skin (salamanders get much or all of their oxygen through the skin)

That was the title of the articlce even: Photosynthetic algae have been found inside the cells of a vertebrate for the first time.

Barbarian said: ↑
. Not only have scientists discovered that our mitochondria (and the chloroplasts of plants) are endosymbionts with their own, bacterial, DNA, And (as you read, because you deleted the journal paper), we have directly observed the evolution of endosymbiosis, so it's no surprise now.

That is speckulation.

Directly observed. The abstract and cite is still in my post. Go take a look.

There is a lot more evidence for a global flood than that.

None whatsoever. However, there was a great regional flood in the Middle East, about the right time for it to be Noah's flood. In the absense of any evidence, and seeing as the Bible does not say it covered the whole world, there's no reason to assume a worldwide flood.

Barbarian suggests: ↑

I suggested you might present even one world-class geneticist who doubts that DNA shows common descent, and you declined to do so. Here's your chance again. Show us even one.​

Here they are:

(Koonin and a list of other names with no evidence)

Since Koonin says that natural selection is critical to human evolution, he clearly thinks DNA shows common descent.

And these, he says, are his research goals:

• Comparative analysis of sequenced genomes and automatic methods for genome-scale annotation of gene functions.[2]
• Application of comparative genomics for phylogenetic analysis, reconstruction of ancestral life forms and building large-scale evolutionary scenarios.
• Mathematical modeling of genome evolution.[3][4][5]
• Computational study of the major transitions in the evolution of life, such as the origin of eukaryotes.
• Evolution of eukaryotic signaling and developmental pathways from the comparative-genomic perspective.
• Testing fundamental predictions of the theory of evolution using genome-wide sequence comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Koonin
The common ancestry of life
Eugene V Koonin* and Yuri I Wolf

A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.
Biology Direct 2010, 5:64

So, you messed up on that one, at least. Slow down a bit, show us the "world class" credentials for these folks, along with a statement from them that they don't think DNA shows common descent.

Since this thread is about "other religions", here are some of Darwin's ideas that weren't aboiut science:

"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct.

Darwin's predictions, as you know, have been repeatedly verified. Would you like a brief list of the many, many transitionals that have been found as he predicted?

(Darwin decries the abuse of other cultures by Europeans)
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

He had every reason to believe this was the case, since Europeans were expanding and killing off many native peoples in the world. He expands on this issue in The Voyage of The Beagle; he had a rather serious disagreement with the creationist captain of the Beagle, who argued that slaves liked being slaves.

At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.

Regrettably, he's probably right about that. We have continuously depleted the numbers of great apes.

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[8]" -The Descent of Man

Darwin, like all Europeans of his time, assumed that Europeans were superior to other men. Today, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races, you'd have to search hard for a racist evolutionist. On the other hand, many creationsts are still blathering racial slander like this:
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.
Institute for Creation Research leader Henry Morris, in The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148

This is not to say that all creationists are racists, but it's very troubling that Morris could publish something as shocking as that, which attributes intellectual and spiritual inferiority to blacks, without any criticism from his fellow creationists. It leaves a very bad impression of the moral values of creationists.

In his day races also meant species, but it seems he didn't know he wasn't supposed to mix science and philosophy.

As you see, Darwin was correct about apes, and of course, he correctly perceived what "civilized men" were doing to less-technologically-advanced humans. We just developed a better moral stand with regard to other cultures. Some of us. Morris seems to have been left behind in that process.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian: Tristan said:

No he's not a part of the evolutionary process

Barbarian said:

He is the Creator of the evolutionary process

So you see you did answer..

Thanks..

tob

*edit: spelling

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding Jesus
He is the Creator of the evolutionary process.
Already told you. Those of us who are Christians acknowledge that He is the Creator of the evolutionary process. I'm guessing you were hoping for a different answer?

Reality isn't obliged to meet your expectations.

So you see you did answer..

Yep. You missed it, the first time.



Thanks..

 

[turnorburn]

Only because you haven't answered my original question, and you probably never will.. "is he a part of the evolutionary process according to evolutionary biologists" is a yes or no question. Everyone knows Jesus is our creator

tob

 

[Tristan]

No

 

[Barbarian]

Only because you haven't answered my original question,

"is he a part of the evolutionary process according to evolutionary biologists" is a yes or no question.

You've tried to make it as vague as possible, and then demand a yes or a no. Depends on the biologist. All biologists without a religious axe to grind are evolutionary biologists, of course, but if you're asking if evolutionary theory says Jesus is the author of evolution, the answer is "No." Science can't answer questions about the supernatural. If you're asking whether believers who happen to be biologists accept Jesus as the author of nature, including evolution, the answer is "Yes." It's not that hard.

You got your answer, but you were trying to turn it into a "are you still beating your wife" game. The fact that Jesus is God and therefore the author of evolution remains.

Everyone knows Jesus is our creator

Apparently not.

 

[Vaccine]

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

He had every reason to believe this was the case, since Europeans were expanding and killing off many native peoples in the world. He expands on this issue in The Voyage of The Beagle; he had a rather serious disagreement with the creationist captain of the Beagle, who argued that slaves liked being slaves.

Understand when I talk about Darwin in this forum, I am separating those who accept his scientific theory and those who accepted his philosophy. I don't think anyone here accepts his philosophy so nobody here should mind me being critical of Darwin's personal philosophy. Even if we can find individual examples of exceptions to these philosophies like the captain or Morris, Creationism teaches all men are created equal whereas Darwin's philosophy was all men are not equal.

Darwin, like all Europeans of his time, assumed that Europeans were superior to other men. Today, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races, you'd have to search hard for a racist evolutionist.

I'm sure there were others after William Wilberforce who believed in equality.
Again, I am separating those who accept his theory from those who accepted his philosophy in the past. I'm sure many evolutionists today are progressive, altruistic people, even if it wasn't always so.

On the other hand, many creationsts are still blathering racial slander like this:
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.
Institute for Creation Research leader Henry Morris, in The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148

This is not to say that all creationists are racists, but it's very troubling that Morris could publish something as shocking as that, which attributes intellectual and spiritual inferiority to blacks, without any criticism from his fellow creationists. It leaves a very bad impression of the moral values of creationists.

It sure does. I did not know who this was before, but I find that very distressing coming from a creationist. I do not agree with him. We are free moral agents and our character is not bound by our genes.

As you see, Darwin was correct about apes, and of course, he correctly perceived what "civilized men" were doing to less-technologically-advanced humans. We just developed a better moral stand with regard to other cultures. Some of us. Morris seems to have been left behind in that process.

I agree Morris was left behind there but dont accept any good has come from Darwin's philosophy. Leaving his theory aside, he was a naturalist. Naturalism teaches there is no God, that nature IS god. That is at odds with the bible, which teaches God sustains nature, not that God is nature. Nature is finite, God is infinite. I believe merging naturalism with Christianity only waters it down. As ToB asked, where is Jesus in that? I believe Jesus actually rose from the dead as the bible says. Naturalism rejects the supernatural, such as the resurrection. I think we can thank Darwin for there being more naturalists than ever.

 

[Barbarian]

Understand when I talk about Darwin in this forum, I am separating those who accept his scientific theory and those who accepted his philosophy.

His philosophy was that while people varied in ability and intelligence our equality before God is in having the right to our dignity, freedom and fruits of our own labor. I think that's a pretty good philosophy.

I don't think anyone here accepts his philosophy so nobody here should mind me being critical of Darwin's personal philosophy.

I hope you also accept those things, and have merely been misled as to what Darwin believed.

Even if we can find individual examples of exceptions to these philosophies like the captain or Morris, Creationism teaches all men are created equal

Not the modern, YE version. It's no coincidence that creationism has always been strongest where segregation and racial discrimination were the law for many years.

whereas Darwin's philosophy was all men are not equal.

No. Like Lincoln, he thought that men varied in abilities and intelligence, but were equal (as Jefferson and the other founders believed) in having equal rights.

Barbarian observes:
Darwin, like all Europeans of his time, assumed that Europeans were superior to other men. Today, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races, you'd have to search hard for a racist evolutionist.

I'm sure there were others after William Wilberforce who believed in equality.

Wilberforce, like Darwin, Jefferson, and Lincoln, thought that the "primitive races" were inferior in intelligence to Europeans. I see an inconsistency in your argument, here.

Again, I am separating those who accept his theory from those who accepted his philosophy in the past. I'm sure many evolutionists today are progressive, altruistic people, even if it wasn't always so.

Darwin, and his fellows were considered liberal for their time, because they opposed slavery and thought all people should have the same rights and freedoms. Pretty much what Abraham Lincoln thought. Lincoln today would be considered pretty backward on race, but you have to judge people by the times they lived in.

Barbarian observes:
On the other hand, many creationsts are still blathering racial slander like this:
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.
Institute for Creation Research leader Henry Morris, in The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148

This is not to say that all creationists are racists, but it's very troubling that Morris could publish something as shocking as that, which attributes intellectual and spiritual inferiority to blacks, without any criticism from his fellow creationists. It leaves a very bad impression of the moral values of creationists.

It sure does. I did not know who this was before, but I find that very distressing coming from a creationist. I do not agree with him. We are free moral agents and our character is not bound by our genes.

Barbarian observes:

As you see, Darwin was correct about apes, and of course, he correctly perceived what "civilized men" were doing to less-technologically-advanced humans. We just developed a better moral stand with regard to other cultures. Some of us. Morris seems to have been left behind in that process.​

I agree Morris was left behind there but dont accept any good has come from Darwin's philosophy.

The end of slavery, the right to vote and to attend decent schools has been a great benefit to blacks in particular and to America in general. I don't see that there is any other way that could be defended by a Christian.

Leaving his theory aside, he was a naturalist. Naturalism teaches there is no God, that nature IS god.

Well, let's take a look...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1872

So no, that's twrong, too.

That is at odds with the bible

All of my Bibles say that God is the Creator. And every Christian I know agrees with Darwin that God created life. I don't understand how a Christian could say otherwise.

I believe Jesus actually rose from the dead as the bible says. Naturalism rejects the supernatural, such as the resurrection.

Nope. At least not the methodological naturalism of science. You've confused Darwin's ideas with ontological naturalism, which does deny God. Neither Darwin nor science can do that.

I think we can thank Darwin for there being more naturalists than ever.

Ellen G. White. The Adventist "prophetess" who invented YE creationism. Here's a testimony from someone who fell into that philosophy:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.


"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"


That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Glenn Morton, former YE creationist and ICR school graduate
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

YE creationism is a great atheist-maker.

 

[Vaccine]

His philosophy was that while people varied in ability and intelligence our equality before God is in having the right to our dignity, freedom and fruits of our own labor. I think that's a pretty good philosophy.

Darwin's philosophy was terrible. Not that he has much of an impact anymore but here is another example of his terrible philosophy:

I hope you also accept those things, and have merely been misled as to what Darwin believed.

Here are his own words:
"....the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" -The Descent of Man
“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

Darwin, and his fellows were considered liberal for their time, because they opposed slavery and thought all people should have the same rights and freedoms. Pretty much what Abraham Lincoln thought. Lincoln today would be considered pretty backward on race, but you have to judge people by the times they lived in.

So Lincoln is backward but Darwin is the progressive? We can thank Lincoln for freed slaves and Darwin for eugenics. Lincoln was an emancipator and Darwin, who referred to other races as "savages", said things like this:".. because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

Well, let's take a look...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1872

Whatever god Darwin is selling there, it isn't the Christian God from the bible.
Here are his thoughts on that:
“For my own part I would as soon be descended from …[a] monkey, or from that old baboon… –as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

All of my Bibles say that God is the Creator. And every Christian I know agrees with Darwin that God created life. I don't understand how a Christian could say otherwise.

Because Darwin's god is nature. I agree the Bible says God is the creator, it does not say God used nature to make life. "Let the earth bring forth life.." doesn't mean dirt made life. Saying things like God "used" nature a doctrine of religious naturalism, not Christianity.

Ellen G. White. The Adventist "prophetess" who invented YE creationism. Here's a testimony from someone who fell into that philosophy:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Glenn Morton, former YE creationist and ICR school graduate
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

YE creationism is a great atheist-maker.

Some key words there being "verge "and "becoming". This isn't the thread to discuss geology, but I'll just say it's too bad he never read "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record." by Derek Ager. I don't think anyone can claim to "invent" YE creationism, it's just taking the bible at face value.

This is from a former creationist's book "Saving Darwin":
“… undisguised glee he outlines how evolution, which he calls ‘Darwin’s dangerous idea’, eats through and dissolves the foundations of religion. The theory of evolution, which he thinks is the greatest idea anyone ever had, destroys the belief that God created everything, including humans. ‘Darwin’s idea’, he writes with approval, ‘eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized worldview’” (pp. 9–10).

“Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost my confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science. Dennett’s universal acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to these stories—the fall, ‘Christ as second Adam’, the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred” (p. 10).
http://creation.com/review-karl-gibersons-saving-darwin

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

you've tried to make it as vague as possible

Tristan said:

No he's not a part of the evolutionary process

Whose being vague?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
His philosophy was that while people varied in ability and intelligence our equality before God is in having the right to our dignity, freedom and fruits of our own labor. I think that's a pretty good philosophy.

Darwin's philosophy was terrible.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I think all men are created with equal rights and dignity.

Not that he has much of an impact anymore but here is another example of his terrible philosophy:

(eugenics blurb offered)

Apparently, you linked to the wrong source. Darwin called eugenic ideas an "overwhelming evil."

Barbarian observes:
His philosophy was that while people varied in ability and intelligence our equality before God is in having the right to our dignity, freedom and fruits of our own labor. I think that's a pretty good philosophy.
I hope you also accept those things, and have merely been misled as to what Darwin believed.

Here are his own words:
"....the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" -The Descent of Man
“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

So Darwin's description of slavery as a "great crime" is offensive? In what way? Notice he indicts his own nation for regarding it otherwise. And he attributes it to racism. What's do you find objectionable in that?

Barbarian said: ↑
Darwin, and his fellows were considered liberal for their time, because they opposed slavery and thought all people should have the same rights and freedoms. Pretty much what Abraham Lincoln thought. Lincoln today would be considered pretty backward on race, but you have to judge people by the times they lived in.

So Lincoln is backward but Darwin is the progressive?

Since I told you that they had the same opinions, and since they lived in the same times, I'm puzzled how you came to that conclusion.

We can thank Lincoln for freed slaves and Darwin for eugenics.

No. Darwin consider eugenic ideas to be an overwhelming evil:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man Chapter V.

Later Darwinists, like Punnett and Morgan showed that the eugenic program was not only immoral, but scientifically impractical. It wouldn't work.

Lincoln was an emancipator and Darwin, who referred to other races as "savages", said things like this:".. because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

He says they were enslaved because they were a different race. Which is quite true, and one reason why he called slavery a "great crime." I don't see what's offensive about that.

Barbarian suggests:

Well, let's take a look...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1872​

Whatever god Darwin is selling there, it isn't the Christian God from the bible.

It's perfectly consistent with the God who created the universe, who sent His Son to save us.

Here are his thoughts on that:

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from …[a] monkey, or from that old baboon… –as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

You wouldn't? Killing infants, treating women like slaves, torturing enemies? I find that completely incompatible with Christian values.

Barbarian Observes:

All of my Bibles say that God is the Creator. And every Christian I know agrees with Darwin that God created life. I don't understand how a Christian could say otherwise.​

Because Darwin's god is nature.

Nope. He mentioned, for example, (in The Voyage of the Beagle) that he was kidded by the ship's officers for his Anglican beliefs. You don't think Anglicans are Christians?

I agree the Bible says God is the creator, it does not say God used nature to make life.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

So is this missing from your Bible, or do you not consider Earth to be part of nature?

Saying things like God "used" nature a doctrine of religious naturalism, not Christianity.

You'll have to bring that up with the Author. I'm just telling you what He says about it.

Barbarian said: ↑

Ellen G. White. The Adventist "prophetess" who invented YE creationism. Here's a testimony from someone who fell into that philosophy:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Glenn Morton, former YE creationist and ICR school graduate
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

YE creationism is a great atheist-maker.
​

Some key words there being "verge "and "becoming".

Note that he cites others who were lost. This is what YE creationism will have to answer for.

This isn't the thread to discuss geology, but I'll just say it's too bad he never read "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record." by Derek Ager. I don't think anyone can claim to "invent" YE creationism, it's just taking the bible at face value.

Unless God says that He used nature to produce life? How so?

This is from a former creationist's book "Saving Darwin"...

Here's a hint: if you what the truth about capitalism, don't ask Fidel Castro to explain it to you.

 

[Barbarian]

TOB writes:

"is he a part of the evolutionary process according to evolutionary biologists" is a yes or no question.

Barbarian observes:
You've tried to make it as vague as possible, and then demand a yes or a no. Depends on the biologist. All biologists without a religious axe to grind are evolutionary biologists, of course, but if you're asking if evolutionary theory says Jesus is the author of evolution, the answer is "No." Science can't answer questions about the supernatural. If you're asking whether believers who happen to be biologists accept Jesus as the author of nature, including evolution, the answer is "Yes." It's not that hard.

You got your answer, but you were trying to turn it into a "are you still beating your wife" game. The fact that Jesus is God and therefore the author of evolution remains.

Tristan said:

No he's not a part of the evolutionary process​

Whose being vague?

You are. Removing the context will do that. I restored it for you; that part is in green.

 

[turnorburn]

Kind of like the dance you did here?

He being a man i agree but is he a part of the evolutionary process according to evolutionary biologists..

Hmm... I read the literature a lot, and I never saw that. Do you have a checkable source for that story?

Thanks..

Then i had to remind you here..

Sure you said it here in post #40:

But He is also man, a man who was subject to fear and pain, hunger and thirst, and capable of sin. (otherwise His temptation by Satan is meaningless)

Your dancing a familiar dance, and its one I'm not dancing to. Tristan knew immediately what i meant you danced around it.. This thread is about evolution being a religion, a religion designed to make a monkey out of Jesus, for or against, yes or no, its not that difficult..

Adios

tob