[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Lie

[Barbarian]

Stasis is part of evolutionary theory, and has been since Darwin. It's called "stabilizing selection", and it works as Darwin predicted.
I though that applies to "traits" of a species not species as a whole. Most species don't change over time according to the fossil record.

Barbarian observes:
Different species. That one died out about 450 million years ago. We can classify brachiopods very well, because the fine detail of soft tissue was often fossilized, and we know how they differ from modern species. How about the same species? Guess why you can't find one.

They're the same. You can find them if you care to look:
"Lingula anatine, a genus known from the Cambrian, and still surviving"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brachiopod_genera

Same genus. Not the same species. Impressive for a genus to have lasted that long, though.

"one of the planet's oldest species, half-a-billion years"
http://www.treehugger.com/ocean-con...-12-help-save-2-million-year-old-species.html

Your blurb contradicts itself. There is no nautiloid species 500 million years old. If you doubt this, show us. Hint; weblogs and newspapers often conflate taxa, as your link did.

Here is a starfish from (supposedly) 420 million years ago, which still look the same today.

Barbarian observes:
Different species and genera. Guess why you can't find a species from that time, still alive today.

There are many fossils of starfish dating back to ~430 million years still alive today, if you care to look.

Nope. The fact that you can't find one is pretty good evidence.

Here's another one, Asterias rubens:

Not even half that old:
Type: Asterias rubens


Ecology: slow-moving low-level epifaunal carnivore


Environments: marine (2 collections), shallow subtidal (2), marginal marine (1)


Age range: 201.6 to 0.012 Ma
http://fossilworks.org/?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=31411

Darwin's ideas are based on nature,. the "elementary principles of the world", not according to Christ or the bible.

Barbarian observes:

Newton's ideas are based on nature, the "elementary principles of the world", not according to Christ or the bible.​

Newton, as most scientists, was studying the creation to learn more about the creator.

That's a quick change of goal posts. As you see, Newton didn't use anything of Christ or the Bible in his work. As you probably know, Newton denied that Christ was God.

On the other hand, here's Darwin's view:
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

Newton's ideas did not involve elevating the creation above the Creator.

See above. Darwin's ideas didn't either. The main difference is, when Darwin wrote that book, he was convinced Jesus was God, and Newton didn't think so.

Darwin, who called himself a materialist,

See above. Nuff said. Notice that Darwin considers creation to be entirely due to the Creator. He, unlike modern creationists, fully accepted God as the Creator of nature and all of it's processes. The Adventist invention of YE creationism denies God to be great enough to make such a world.

Which is precisely what this verse warns about:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” - Col 2:8

Perfectly sums up YE creationism.

Barbarian observes:

There are many things that are true that are not in scripture. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Trying to make it into a science text is disrespectful, to say the least.​

I agree.

I don't see how. Perhaps you could explain how denial the evidence Paul speaks of as coming from God, could not be an attempt to make the Bible into a science text. I'm not sure you were the one who did that, though.

 

[Sparkey]

I've been taught that Charles didn't want trouble with his wife, Emma (a Christian) and made concessions in his earlier writings for that reason.

He is self described as:

... "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation."

Charles Darwin (1879)

Is/does belief constitute religion? Well, that is part of it, sure. But there is more than belief that is required. I've never thought of evolution as a religion. I believe that my motorcycle will start when I next put in the key, but that belief is a far cry from what I would call a religion.

I don't know much about it, but religious naturalism seems to be the better candidate for a religion opposed to Christianity.

All forms of religious naturalism, being naturalistic in their basic beliefs, assert that the natural world is the center of our most significant experiences and understandings. Consequently, nature is considered as the ultimate value in assessing one's being.

That does sound familiar: "the natural world is the center of our most significant experiences and understandings." Maybe the reason (or one reason) we don't hear about 'religious naturalism', per se, is that there is no money in it (so far)? It does seem to be the one religion that has immunity to separation of church & state.

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:

Newton's ideas are based on nature, the "elementary principles of the world", not according to Christ or the bible.​

Newton distinguished between the creation (principle elements) and the Creator.
"God, the wisest of beings required of us to be celebrated not so much for his essence as for his actions, the creating, preserving, and governing of all things according to his good will and pleasure."​

That's a quick change of goal posts. As you see, Newton didn't use anything of Christ or the Bible in his work. As you probably know, Newton denied that Christ was God.

The goalposts never moved, Col 2:8 just doesn't apply to Newtons ideas. Newton did not deny that Christ was God. True, Newton denied the trinity but according to James Gleik, in his 2003 biography, Newton regarded Christ as God's son, a mediator between God and humanity, chosen to be a prophet and messenger, and exalted to God's right hand.

On the other hand, here's Darwin's view:
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

That sentence did not appear in the first edition of The Origin of Species. In other editions, which Darwin had no say in, referencing a "Creator" was added to appease the public and his wife, as Sparrow pointed out. If we look at his journals and other writings he calls himself a materialist and has many materialist ideas.

“It will be some time before we see slime, protoplasm, etc., generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter” (1973, p. 594; the quote from Darwin appears in an extremely anti-religious letter he wrote to J.D. Hooker on March 29, 1863, as reproduced in Francis Darwin’s Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, 3:17, emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1111

See above. Darwin's ideas didn't either. The main difference is, when Darwin wrote that book, he was convinced Jesus was God, and Newton didn't think so.

Newton thought Jesus was the son of God. Darwin thought the term creation was "rubbish". Darwin was a philosopher proposing naturalism. Philosophy based on the "principle elements" (nature) is exactly what Col 2:8 is warning against.

Barbarian observes:

There are many things that are true that are not in scripture. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Trying to make it into a science text is disrespectful, to say the least.​

I agree.

I don't see how. Perhaps you could explain how denial the evidence Paul speaks of as coming from God, could not be an attempt to make the Bible into a science text. I'm not sure you were the one who did that, though.

Anyone can reject the evidence without making the bible into a science text. Is an atheist who rejects Darwinism turning the bible into a science text?
That's just a logical fallacy.
Also, an inference from the data is not evidence, it's one interpretation. Rejecting religious naturalism in favor of a biblical interpretation of the data is what Col 2:8 tells us to do.

 

[Milk-Drops]

So, if you ask a creationist why he believes in creation, and he says "because the Bible says so", then it's religion, but if he starts talking about evidence, then it's science. Right? Whether something is a religion does not depend on why a specific individual believes it, but on the nature of the thing itself. The dictionary definition is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". Seems to me that evolution fits that definition pretty well.

The TOG​

I understand where you are coming from The TOG. Some people do have a faith based belief in the theory of Evolution, but the actual Theory of Evolution has actually nothing to say about the nature, cause, or purpose of the Universe. The theory just explain how living organisms adapt through specific mechanisms to best survive in their environment.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Nothing in the theory of Evolution states that a lineage can survive for several millennium without major changes. Barbarian mentioned Stabilizing selection. This is true because if an organisms fits a niche so well, and the environment is stable, there are no pressures to influence any major changes, their could be pressures prohibiting major changes as well. However, a line could remain mostly unchanged, but how many lines diverged from the parent line? That would still show evolution. Also, is the current line still capable of breeding with the ancestors? That also has to be taken into effect.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's a quick change of goal posts. As you see, Newton didn't use anything of Christ or the Bible in his work. As you probably know, Newton denied that Christ was God.

The goalposts never moved

Sure were. Your initial complaint was that Darwin didn't use anything of Christ or the Bible in his work. I pointed out that this was also true of Newton, and suddenly the goalposts moved to

Newton did not deny that Christ was God.

'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.[24] As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[9] a personal devil and literal demons.[9] Although he was not a Socinian he shared many similar beliefs with them.[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

Newton's argument that Jesus is not God:

1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
   
   
2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
   
   
3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
   
   
4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
   
   
5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
   
   
6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
   
   
7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
   
   
8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
   
   
9. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
   
   
10. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
    
    
11. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
    
    
12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Newton_Arian.html
Barbarian observes:
On the other hand, here's Darwin's view:
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

That sentence did not appear in the first edition of The Origin of Species. In other editions, which Darwin had no say in

That seems inconsistent with your second claim:

“It will be some time before we see slime, protoplasm, etc., generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter” (1973, p. 594; the quote from Darwin appears in an extremely anti-religious letter he wrote to J.D. Hooker on March 29, 1863, as reproduced in Francis Darwin’s Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, 3:17, emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1111

Which was written long after he wrote his book and had become in his own words, an agnostic. Which of these do you want us to believe?


Barbarian observes:

See above. Darwin's ideas didn't either. The main difference is, when Darwin wrote that book, he was convinced Jesus was God, and Newton didn't think so.​

Newton thought Jesus was the son of God.

But not God. As I showed you.

Anyone can reject the evidence without making the bible into a science text. Is an atheist who rejects Darwinism turning the bible into a science text?

Only those who deny the evidence based on the Bible, so yes, it's possible to deny the evidence on other bases.

Also, an inference from the data is not evidence, it's one interpretation.

I can only point out that a creationism denies the evidence.

Rejecting religious naturalism in favor of a biblical interpretation of the data is what Col 2:8 tells us to do.

Nope. Nothing about religious naturalism. But it does clearly rule out making up new doctrines like YE creationism.

Newton was not less of a physicist for rejecting Christ as God. Darwin was not less of a biologist after late in life, a personal tragedy took his faith from him. That's not how science is done. Both men eventually made grave errors in their religious outlook. But neither theory is less true for that.

 

[Barbarian]

Nothing in the theory of Evolution states that a lineage can survive for several millennium without major changes.

Stablizing selection, as you know, clearly makes this claim, and that's been the case since Darwin.

However, a line could remain mostly unchanged, but how many lines diverged from the parent line?

Allopatric speciation. A small group enters a different environment, where things are not the same, and adapt to the new conditions. This is very basic evolutionary theory. A quick study would make all of this clear to you.

And yes, there is the question of orthogenesis, which is rare, if it occurs at all. Until recently, we couldn't know for sure if Cro-magnons were of our species or not. They are anatomically modern, but until we had genetic data, we couldn't be sure. They are. So organisms can indeed exist as a species for millennia, as Darwin wrote.

 

[TOG]

Wrong. One can believe in a scientific theory for entirely religious reasons.

If I believe a scientific theory for religious reasons, that doesn't turn it into a religious theory. It's still a scientific theory even though I happen to believe in it for scientific reasons. It works the other way around too. If I believe in a religious theory for scientific reasons, that doesn't make it a scientific theory. If it did, then scientists wouldn't have any problem with people who believe in so called "creation science" for scientific reasons, since it would then be a scientific theory. It is the nature of the theory itself that determines whether it is scientific, religious or something else.

It's just that scientists don't.

Christians believe Jesus could do no wrong. Muslims believe that Mohammed could do no wrong. Barbarian believes scientists can do no wrong. Hmmmm... No... Nothing religious about it.

Aside from the fact that neither evolutionary theory nor any other scientific theory makes claims about the purpose of the universe,

Saying that a thing has a purpose implies some thought behind it. Saying that there is no thought behind the universe implies that it has no purpose. Saying that the universe has no purpose is a statement about the purpose of the universe.

let's take a look at a real dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary is generally conceded to be the definitive source for the meaning of English words:
(snip)

Seems to me that if we make secondary definitions

So, any definition that doesn't fit the one you like is a "secondary definition"? I don't have the Oxford dictionary, but according to your quote, it only has 3 definitions. That doesn't seem too "authoritative" to me. Skipping the example sentences and such, here's what Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language has to say:

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause nature and purpose of the universe
2. A specific set of fundamental beliefs or practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs or practices
4. The life or state of a monk, nun, etc.
5. The practice of religious beliefs
6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly
7. Archaic Religious rites
8. Archaic Strict faithfulness; devotion
9. Get religion Informal a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b. To resolve to mend one's errant ways​

It seems to me that both definitions 1 and 6 could be applied to evolution. Definition 2 could also apply, since it does not stipulate that there be no evidence to back up the beliefs. Although not mentioned specifically, even in this encyclopedic unabridged dictionary, the use of words such as "belief" and "faith" imply that there is no proof of said beliefs. That doesn't mean there can't be evidence, and even scientific evidence.

Clearly not what the word means in common usage.

See above for common usage.

If one's argument depends on bending the meaning of words, isn't that a clue?

You mean like evolutionists like bending the definition of the word "species", depending on their needs in any given case? Also, isn't it a clue when one's argument depends on limiting the definition of words?

The TOG​

 

[Milk-Drops]

Stablizing selection, as you know, clearly makes this claim, and that's been the case since Darwin.



Allopatric speciation. A small group enters a different environment, where things are not the same, and adapt to the new conditions. This is very basic evolutionary theory. A quick study would make all of this clear to you.

And yes, there is the question of orthogenesis, which is rare, if it occurs at all. Until recently, we couldn't know for sure if Cro-magnons were of our species or not. They are anatomically modern, but until we had genetic data, we couldn't be sure. They are. So organisms can indeed exist as a species for millennia, as Darwin wrote.

I meant to type "can't".

 

[Barbarian]

Christians believe Jesus could do no wrong. Muslims believe that Mohammed could do no wrong. Barbarian believes scientists can do no wrong.

Sounds like some projection going on there. I've often pointed out where specific scientists (Darwin, for example, and Newton) made errors.

Aside from the fact that neither evolutionary theory nor any other scientific theory makes claims about the purpose of the universe,

Saying that a thing has a purpose implies some thought behind it. Saying that there is no thought behind the universe implies that it has no purpose. Saying that the universe has no purpose is a statement about the purpose of the universe.

Science doesn't (in fact can't) say whether or not the universe has a purpose. Hence Darwin's correct statement that it was wrong to claim a purpose (creation) in his book, even while he was an Anglican Christian at the time, who believed in the God of Christianity.

Barbarian suggests:
let's take a look at a real dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary is generally conceded to be the definitive source for the meaning of English words:
(snip)

So, any definition that doesn't fit the one you like is a "secondary definition"?

I'm just pointing out that if someone says "he's religiously on time", they don't actually mean he has a religion of punctuality. It's a figure of speech, a secondary definition.

Skipping the example sentences and such, here's what Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language has to say:

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause nature and purpose of the universe
2. A specific set of fundamental beliefs or practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs or practices
4. The life or state of a monk, nun, etc.
5. The practice of religious beliefs
6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly
7. Archaic Religious rites
8. Archaic Strict faithfulness; devotion
9. Get religion Informal a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b. To resolve to mend one's errant ways

It seems to me that both definitions 1 and 6 could be applied to evolution. Definition 2 could also apply, since it does not stipulate that there be no evidence to back up the beliefs. Although not mentioned specifically, even in this encyclopedic unabridged dictionary, the use of words such as "belief" and "faith" imply that there is no proof of said beliefs. That doesn't mean there can't be evidence, and even scientific evidence.

Definition 1 won't work, because evolution makes no claims about the cause or the purpose of the universe.

Definition 6 won't work, because a scientist doesn't "believe in" any scientific theory; all theories are considered provisional on new evidence, and hence it is only possible to have a statistical confidence in them.

Definition 2 won't work because theories are not fundamental beliefs, but depend only on evidence and the confidence that the universe is knowable and consistent. Which is a confidence obtained from observation.

You mean like evolutionists like bending the definition of the word "species", depending on their needs in any given case?

A myth. As you know, evolutionary theory, from the very start (Darwin made the observation) said that "species" would be a provisional designation, because species evolve into other species. Hence, the existence of intermediate forms which might or might not be classified as species is evidence for evolution, but completely incompatible with creationism, which denies such change. I had asked, several times for an explanation from creationists how they handle this difficulty, but no one stepped up and explained for us.

Also, isn't it a clue when one's argument depends on limiting the definition of words?

If you use a word in an informal way, when you are discussing a precise meaning, you will always be misunderstood. That's the way it works. If you assume "he attended the lectures religiously" to mean being there was his religion, then you will be misled.

 

[TOG]

You mean like evolutionists like bending the definition of the word "species", depending on their needs in any given case?

A myth. As you know, evolutionary theory, from the very start (Darwin made the observation) said that "species" would be a provisional designation, because species evolve into other species.

You keep confusing the definition of a species with the definition of the word "species". I wonder why?

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

I never understood the question about what "is" is. Sorry. As you see, the concept of species is a serious problem for creationism, but because evolutionary theory shows that the concept is a fuzzy one, science has no difficulty with it.

I've yet to hear a creationist come up with a reasonable reply for why there are no ironclad definitions for "species." There should be, if creationism were true.

 

[turnorburn]

evolution is the doctrine of atheism communism and humanism in short its a godless religion.. the devil isn't stupid he convinced Adam and Eve he had the answers and he can convince anyone willing to listen to his dribble. God did it all in six days then rested on the seventh if the devil says God did no such thing who are you going to believe?

tob

 

[Sparkey]

I never understood the question about what "is" is. Sorry. As you see, the concept of species is a serious problem for creationism, but because evolutionary theory shows that the concept is a fuzzy one, science has no difficulty with it.

I've yet to hear a creationist come up with a reasonable reply for why there are no ironclad definitions for "species." There should be, if creationism were true.

You should know that the bible wasn't written in English so that's the reason you can't find a definition for the English word, species. The word that was used is better translated as "kind" and it is "ironclad". We are told that "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind."

Barbarian observes:
The bible is not a science book.

Sparrow wonders
Why does Barbarian look to the bible for a scientific definition?

 

[Vaccine]

Sure were. Your initial complaint was that Darwin didn't use anything of Christ or the Bible in his work. I pointed out that this was also true of Newton, and suddenly the goalposts moved to .

Still where they were. You pointed out a quote from Darwin's book which he himself called "rubbish", and made a baseless assertion about Newton.

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to Anti-Christianity and favoritism to other religions/atheism:

1. Isaac Newton translated parts of the Bible, and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.[16]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia:_Anti-Christianity

Newton considered the bible as a source for his insights, Darwin thought it was rubbish.

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but cannot explain who sets the planets in motion" -Newton

"he suspends the earth over nothing." -Job 26:7

As you probably know, Newton denied that Christ was God.
'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.[24] As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[9] a personal devil and literal demons.[9] Although he was not a Socinian he shared many similar beliefs with them.[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

Wikipedia has an anti-Christian bias.

That sentence did not appear in the first edition of The Origin of Species. In other editions, which Darwin had no say in
That seems inconsistent with your second claim:

“It will be some time before we see slime, protoplasm, etc., generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter” (1973, p. 594; the quote from Darwin appears in an extremely anti-religious letter he wrote to J.D. Hooker on March 29, 1863, as reproduced in Francis Darwin’s Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, 3:17, emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1111

Which was written long after he wrote his book and had become in his own words, an agnostic. Which of these do you want us to believe?

There's no conflict, the first printing of his book did not have the part about a "creator" you quoted. Subsequent printings included the quote because he "truckled" (gave in) to public opinion.
Got a source for him being an agnostic? He calls himself a materialist here

Barbarian observes:

See above. Darwin's ideas didn't either. The main difference is, when Darwin wrote that book, he was convinced Jesus was God, and Newton didn't think so.​

​

I'd sure like to see your source that says Darwin was "convinced Jesus was God".

Nope. Nothing about religious naturalism.

Darwin was a naturalist and had a philosophy degree. Religious naturalism, that God is indistinguishable from natural processes, is what his book proposed.

But it does clearly rule out making up new doctrines like YE creationism.

It's been around since the beginning. It's just a plain reading of the bible, which was accepted for thousands of years until some new philosopher called Darwin came along.

 

[Barbarian]

You should know that the bible wasn't written in English so that's the reason you can't find a definition for the English word, species.

Hold it a moment. Creationists keep telling us that creationism isn't a religion, it's "scientific." Now you're telling me it's a religion, after all?

The word that was used is better translated as "kind" and it is "ironclad".

All living things on Earth are one kind, of course. But I've often challenged creationists to show me the specific kinds they think exist; they can't even find clear distinctions between animals, much less other taxa. As TOG admits, you can't draw such lines, because there are always intermediate cases.

Barbarian observes:
The bible is not a science book.

Sparrow wonders
Why does Barbarian look to the bible for a scientific definition?

I don't. I was just assuming that creationists had something other than a reinterpretation of Genesis to support their ideas. Baraminologists say so, and they are normally YE creationists.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on the meandering goal posts:
Sure were. Your initial complaint was that Darwin didn't use anything of Christ or the Bible in his work. I pointed out that this was also true of Newton, and suddenly the goalposts moved to:

Newton did not deny that Christ was God..

Which he did, of course.

Still where they were.

Nope. Entirely different claims, and the second one is quite false:

Newton became an Arian around 1672. First let us explain the Arian doctrine. It is a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian Arius which, based on a study of the Bible, stated the belief that Jesus was more than man, but less than God.
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Newton_Arian.html

Now Newton, who felt that his mission was more to study religion than science, certainly did not stop at reading the King James version of the Bible, but rather read all original versions he could, learning the necessary ancient languages. He discovered that the final phrase ‘and these three are one’ was not present in any Greek version that he studied. Newton came to the conclusion that it was a deliberate addition to the text to provide justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. He wrote down a list of twelve reasons why he was an Arian.
http://sirisaacnewton.info/newtons-arian-beliefs/

For in his manuscript entitled “Twelve Articles,” he states that there is “one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.”[13] Implicit in this statement is the belief that Christ Jesus is distinct from both man and God. Jesus was “a true man born of a woman”[14] and “Christ [who] came not to diminish the worship of his Father.”[15] Newton felt that Jesus was an intermediary between man and God and that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, and Jesus is the Word or prophet of God.”[16] This and his other anti-trinitarian views arise from his study of the works of church fathers. In the two manuscripts, “Queries regarding the Word Homoousios” and “Paradoxical Questions,”[17] Newton discusses the source of corruption to the true religion and the cause of its introduction. His argument is long and tedious, and I will content myself to say that he proved to himself (if no one else) that the corrupt doctrine was the doctrine of the Trinity.
http://www.galilean-library.org/sit..._/essays/history/the-complexity-of-newton-r77

You pointed out a quote from Darwin's book which he himself called "rubbish",

He was quite correct that a religious belief had no place being presented as a scientific argument. However, his beliefs had changed, likely due to the early death of a beloved daughter, and in later years, he rejected much of his Christian faith, referring to himself as leaning toward agnosticism.

and made a baseless assertion about Newton.

See above. You think Christians have an anti-Christian bias?

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to Anti-Christianity and favoritism to other religions/atheism:

1. Isaac Newton translated parts of the Bible, and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.[16]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia:_Anti-Christianity

Conservapedia is a political agenda, which is why no one takes it seriously. How, exactly, does his rejection of Jesus as God, lead to his theory of gravitation?

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but cannot explain who sets the planets in motion" -Newton

"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

Barbarian observes:
As you probably know, Newton denied that Christ was God.
'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.[24] As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[9] a personal devil and literal demons.[9] Although he was not a Socinian he shared many similar beliefs with them.[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

Wikipedia has an anti-Christian bias.

Sorry, that won't fly. The author of that article is citing scholarly work, some of which I linked for you. Newton thought the Bible has been altered to make Jesus a God.

Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament.
When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed...In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books.


“It will be some time before we see slime, protoplasm, etc., generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter”
Charles Darwin.

Darwin correctly observes that it was inappropriate to express his religious belief as a scientific hypothesis. While he did admit to being an orthodox Anglican Christian when he was gathering his material and writing the book, (he mentions this as being a point of amusement for the officers on the Beagle) he became a professed agnostic in later years, which no doubt colored his recollection of his earlier expression of faith.

Which was written long after he wrote his book and had become in his own words, an agnostic. Which of these do you want us to believe?
Barbarian observes:
See above. Darwin's ideas didn't either. The main difference is, when Darwin wrote that book, he was convinced Jesus was God, and Newton didn't think so.

I'd sure like to see your source that says Darwin was "convinced Jesus was God".

Before leaving on the Beagle voyage Darwin saw himself as quite orthodox. He remembers “being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality”
http://myweb.loras.edu/ji001232/scitheo/darwin.htm

I can look it up in my copy, if you like.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Nothing about religious naturalism.

Darwin was a naturalist

Anglican Christian, when he wrote his book. Later on, an agnostic.

It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.
Charles Darwin letter to John Fordyce, 1879
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041

Religious naturalism, that God is indistinguishable from natural processes, is what his book proposed.

Nope. Other than his belief that God just created the first living things, he made no claims about God at all in that book. Read it and see.

Barbarian observes:

But it does clearly rule out making up new doctrines like YE creationism.​

It's been around since the beginning.

No, it's no older than the 20th century, the invention of Seventh-Day Adventists:
Adventist Origins of Young Earth Creationism
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf

Biologos is an organization of Christians who are scientists, founded by Francis Collins, an Evangelical Christian who headed the Human Genome Project. It's a myth that YE creationism was ever Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Sparkey]

Hold it a moment. Creationists keep telling us that creationism isn't a religion, it's "scientific." Now you're telling me it's a religion, after all?

Barbarian, you've labeled a group of people and seem to think that you know what 'they' believe.

While in reference to me, please note that I prefer the term 'Believer' to 'Creationist'.

 

[Barbarian]

You should know that the bible wasn't written in English so that's the reason you can't find a definition for the English word, species.

Barbarian asks:
Hold it a moment. Creationists keep telling us that creationism isn't a religion, it's "scientific." Now you're telling me it's a religion, after all?

Barbarian, you've labeled a group of people and seem to think that you know what 'they' believe.

If one depends on the Bible for terms, that strikes me as a religion. I, for example, depend on the Bible for my religious ideas.

While in reference to me, please note that I prefer the term 'Believer' to 'Creationist'.

Most Christians aren't creationists. And there are a lot of creationists who aren't Christians. But "Believer" seems to be a good fit for you.

 

[Jack Spratt]

I wouldn't call evolution a religion. It's almost anti religion.

It says nobody created us, we just happened by chance, there is no creator and therefore there is nobody to be accountable to.

As soon as there is a creator then there must be someone very powerful, a purpose for our life and some one to answer to for our actions.

As opposed to just happening by chance. A chance beginning and a end of everything after death. Random happenings in the universe and no hope for anything other than happenstance. No religion but total absence of any accountability for our actions or choices. Free but totally at the mercy of what ever flies through the cosmos and crashes into us, what ever storm builds up and sweeps us away, any earth quake or tsunami that shakes and drowns entire countrysides. No body to worship, nobody to pray to for protection, NO HOPE for everlasting life.