[__ Darwin __] How Darwin got his ideas - the TRUTH

[KV-44-v1]

Science or Philosophy?

Uncovering those that forged the future by reshaping the past.

answersingenesis.org

Nurturing Naturalism

Uncovering Those That Forged the Future by Reshaping the Past

answersingenesis.org

 

[Vaccine]

"It will be sometime before we see slime, snot, or protoplasm generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used the pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process" Darwin

Darwin's natural philosophy drove his quest to find an alternative to creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

"It will be sometime before we see slime, snot, or protoplasm generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used the pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process" Darwin

Darwin's attribution of the origin of life to God, in On the Origin of Species, was an expression of his religious views, which he subsequently admitted did not belong in a scientific work.

As he indicates, the way life began, has no implications at all for evolution, which would work the same way no matter how the first living things were created.

 

[Vaccine]

Darwin's attribution of the origin of life to God, in On the Origin of Species, was an expression of his religious views, which he subsequently admitted did not belong in a scientific work.

As he indicates, the way life began, has no implications at all for evolution, which would work the same way no matter how the first living things were created.

His objection was because he meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. He plainly meant to keep God out of it in favor of snot producing new animals.


Darwin had no problem discussing religious views in his book, especially concerning creation:
"I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Attacking Christianity was his thing:
"I have lately read Money's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks" Darwin, Letters dated Oct 22 and 24, 1878

 

[Barbarian]

His objection was because he meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. He plainly meant to keep God out of it in favor of snot producing new animals.

First, he attributed it to God. But of course, that is not something science can answer. However, it doesn't matter to evolutionary theory. It would work exactly the same, regardless of the way life began on Earth.

I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations

He did indeed reject the idea that there was more than one creation. He attributed it all to God. However, he did suppose that God might have created any number of original species:

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 On the Origin of Species

Late in life, Darwin, by his own words, drifted toward agnosticism. But this was long after he wrote his book, in which he credited God with creation of life.

 

[Vaccine]

First, he attributed it to God. But of course, that is not something science can answer. However, it doesn't matter to evolutionary theory. It would work exactly the same, regardless of the way life began on Earth.

Darwin said it was by some wholly unknown process. God had nothing to do with it in his view.

He did indeed reject the idea that there was more than one creation. He attributed it all to God

Darwin attributed it to things like protoplasm, slime, snot, etc.. By creator Darwin meant some wholly unknown process. He thought more of snot than God.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin said it was by some wholly unknown process. God had nothing to do with it in his view.

At his time, it was wholly unknown. Darwin merely assumed that God did it:

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

Which is not a scientific idea; it's a religious belief. How God did that was a complete mystery in Darwin's time. But He left all sorts of evidence, which gives us some notion of how the process worked.

Darwin attributed it to things like protoplasm, slime, snot, etc..

Darwin could only speculate, because he had no evidence. But we do have lots of evidence for that process now. Self-catalyzing nucleic acids, abiotic amino acids and short proteins, and much more. Would you like to learn how we've learned more about how life was brought forth by the earth?

As I said, none of this has anything to do with evolution. Evolution would work the same way it does now, if God just magically poofed living things into being.

He thought more of snot than God.

Actually, he considered God to be the Creator of life. I think you're confusing the process with the Creator. Darwin didn't.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, Darwin, who as a student assumed that species were immutable, got his ideas from the data he collected on his Voyage on the Beagle as the companion of the captain. His discoveries in S. America and in the Galapagos shook his confidence in special creationism.

And much later, considering the economic ideas of Adam Smith and his "hidden hand", he realized how it all worked. From that, he concluded:

• More are Born than can live long enough to reproduce.
• Every organism is slightly different than its parents.
• Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce.
• The useful ones tend to increase in the population, and the harmful ones tend to be removed.
• Over time, this results in speciation (new kinds of living things).

And subsequent investigation proved this hypothesis was correct, making it a confirmed theory.

Ironically, Darwin was admitted to the Royal Society ( the most prestigious scientific society in the world at the time) for earlier discoveries, having demonstrated that barnacles are arthropods, and discovering the way Pacific atolls form. If he had never figured out the mechanisms of evolution, he would still be a famous scientist.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Darwin's attribution of the origin of life to God, in On the Origin of Species, was an expression of his religious views, which he subsequently admitted did not belong in a scientific work.

As he indicates, the way life began, has no implications at all for evolution, which would work the same way no matter how the first living things were created.

Well clearly the Public Schools in the Western world are cranking out AThiestic evolutionists, not thiestic ones. People's thiesm comes from somewhere other than those schools. That school system is responsible for a great falling away.

 

[Barbarian]

Well clearly the Public Schools in the Western world are cranking out AThiestic evolutionists, not thiestic ones.

It's disheartening to hear such misconceptions. Of course they don't. Schools sponsor groups like Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and no science teacher in public schools teaches atheistic evolution. You've been lied to about that.

People's thiesm comes from somewhere other than those schools.

And it should. The government has no business promoting religious doctrines. As James Madison observed, a government that can promote your religion, can quickly change to promoting a religion you don't like.

That school system is responsible for a great falling away.

The evidence suggests that it's because prominent people identifying themselves as Christians, have promoting things like segregation, extreme political agendas and so on as Christian values. Indeed, those denominations that have most actively done such things are experiencing the declines.

 

[follower]

Darwin's natural philosophy drove his quest to find an alternative to creationism.

Is the equivalent to saying sin or the devil made him do it ?

 

[Barbarian]

Is the equivalent to saying sin or the devil made him do it ?

Actually, Darwin only very reluctantly concluded that species were not fixed. The evidence eventually persuaded him that new kinds of animals do evolve.

One intriguing aspect of Darwin’s Origin is that, read critically, it is not simply the monochrome materialist tract many have been led to expect. As Abigail Lustig has shown, both in the thought patterns and in the structuring of his “one long argument,” Darwin would show himself to be in implicit dialogue with William Paley whose Natural Theology (1802) was the foremost work of Christian apologetics of the 19th century (and which Darwin is on record as having greatly admired in his student years).
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/09/darwin-and-the-problem-of-pain/

In fact, "natural philosophy" was really an attempt to show Divine Providence in nature. But YE creationists, skimming articles to support their own ideas, often miss that fact.