Darwin and Dawkins both looked into this and came to the same conclusion - better to "mock the Bible" in their POV.
The T.E. quote above is not the only one who claims that his Christianity was being set aside by belief in the doctrine on origins found in evolution -
Darwin also claimed that faith in evolutionism destroyed Christianity for him - ...
-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.
When I said in the OP that "rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this
Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because
that which is known about God is evident within them
; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse
Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.
"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from
http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf
Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================
Whilst
on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.
But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that
the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….
By further reflecting… that
the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the
men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that
the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…
I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination,
to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.
I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;
Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].
=====================
Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that
HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -
Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of
Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a)
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood,
are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=======================
That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.
