| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
27th December 2005, 10:09 AM
|  | Veteran
   
| | Join Date: 1st November 2005 Location: Southern Copenhagen
Posts: 1,309
Blessings: 110,318 My Mood 
Reps: 962,953,261,475 (power: 962,953,270) | |  Charles Darwin was a creationist
In the paper http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/durant.shtml the author John Durant gives some details of the historical background for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. This leads up to a rejection of the idea of a special creation. In 1802 the Anglican clergyman William Paley released the book "Natural Theology", in which he presented basically what is today known as Intelligent Design. Paley had studied homologies (basically the same structure in different species having different functions, e.g. forelegs of quadropeds and wings of birds) and analogies (different structures in different species having basically the same function, e.g. tailes of fish and whales), and he had tried to come up with an explanation. He had noticed how well adapted species were to thir environments, and he followed an Aristotelian line of thinking: form follows function. This is one creationist way of explaining specialization. An alternative is the Platonist way: function follows form. Platonists would operate with some archetypes ("kinds") that then existed in some variants. Paley's vision was that of a creator as a master craftsman, who had carefully designed and manufactured the species to be most adapted to their environments. Charles Darwin who at the beginning was a believing creationist was influenced by Paley, and also he had his focus on the adaptedness of species as the key to specialization. However, he was on the search of higher laws that is laws that would explain the rules for this adaptedness. And this is where he broke with the creationists that were seeking transcendental laws. Darwin was looking for a principle within nature itself, somewhat like the law of gravity. We know what Darwin found: Natural Selection. Darwin through his life lost more and more of his faith ending up calling himself an agnostic. However, John Durant's thesis is that the special creation, that is the idea of the creator having created all species directly in the beginning is not in accordance with the Bible, only Darwinian evolution (in some theistic variant though) can be defended both theologically and scientifically. If interested, Wikipedia has a page about Paley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley - FreezBee
__________________ Like icy shards from the broken mirror within Melting in the tears from the stars in your eyes Shining still fainter, still brighter through the darkness The love between you and me, a trace of dawn
|
27th December 2005, 11:05 AM
|  | Stop QWERTYface!
  
 | | Join Date: 25th December 2003 Location: Dallas
Posts: 21,480
Blessings: 2,166
Reps: 325,583,815,600,460,416 (power: 325,583,815,600,491) | | | Paley and Durant's opinions are interesting, but unfortunatly, much like arguments about Communism or whatever, they really don't address the evidences for whether evolution has occured within Darwin's theoretical framework. We see on CF every day, that people who are devout Christians have no problem with a purely materialistic scientific study of evolution, while still maintaining the truth of sin and the Cross.
I hope that Creationists will check out your links beause they are important for the sociological debate but, ultimately, where the first cells that evolved came from doesn't matter scientifically.
__________________
(The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos |
27th December 2005, 11:20 AM
|  | Raptor Jesus
30  
| | Join Date: 23rd December 2005
Posts: 503
Blessings: 129,977
Reps: 879 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by USincognito Paley and Durant's opinions are interesting, but unfortunatly, much like arguments about Communism or whatever, they really don't address the evidences for whether evolution has occured within Darwin's theoretical framework. We see on CF every day, that people who are devout Christians have no problem with a purely materialistic scientific study of evolution, while still maintaining the truth of sin and the Cross.
I hope that Creationists will check out your links beause they are important for the sociological debate but, ultimately, where the first cells that evolved came from doesn't matter scientifically.
Scientifically, it does matter. It just doesn't matter within the scope of evolution. |
27th December 2005, 11:58 AM
| | Veteran
| | Join Date: 1st November 2005 Location: Southern Copenhagen
Posts: 1,309
Blessings: 110,318 My Mood
Reps: 962,953,261,475 (power: 962,953,270) | | Originally Posted by USincognito Paley and Durant's opinions are interesting, but unfortunatly, much like arguments about Communism or whatever, they really don't address the evidences for whether evolution has occured within Darwin's theoretical framework. We see on CF every day, that people who are devout Christians have no problem with a purely materialistic scientific study of evolution, while still maintaining the truth of sin and the Cross.
I hope that Creationists will check out your links beause they are important for the sociological debate but, ultimately, where the first cells that evolved came from doesn't matter scientifically. It's true that many Christians today, including myself accept a purely materialistic study of evolution. My reason for the post was also just to show that Darwin himself unlike what many creationists think wasn't an atheist, and that he actually started out within the best creationist theories of his time. Today's special creationists (including IDists) have not surpassed Paley. That's why I think Durant's thesis is not just of historical interest. You can find both on the Internet and in creationist litterature taht Darwin was an atheist waging war against Christianity, and that does not seem to be historical truth. The Theory of Evolution grew out of creationism, this should give creationists something to think about. Originally Posted by five Scientifically, it does matter. It just doesn't matter within the scope of evolution. Yes, once we get the ball rolling, it has no impact on evolution, how the ball started rolling. Evolution of species is independent of how the first cell got around. - FreezBee
__________________ Like icy shards from the broken mirror within Melting in the tears from the stars in your eyes Shining still fainter, still brighter through the darkness The love between you and me, a trace of dawn
|
27th December 2005, 01:11 PM
|  | Contributor
  
| | Join Date: 9th March 2005 Location: MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
Posts: 9,179
Blessings: 137,090
Reps: 18,563,956,112,384,120 (power: 18,563,956,112,402) | | | Charles Darwin also either had a schizophrenic / psychotic mental disorder. Now the question might be asked, if this was a result of his departure from his faith or perhaps the reason he drifted towards evolution..? |
27th December 2005, 01:13 PM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 28th August 2004
Posts: 2,000
Blessings: 111,531
Reps: 2,843 (power: 13) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper Charles Darwin also either had a schizophrenic / psychotic mental disorder. Now the question might be asked, if this was a result of his departure from his faith or perhaps the reason he drifted towards evolution..?
Lying for god again, LittleNipper? How many Heaven Points has that earned you to date? |
27th December 2005, 01:20 PM
| | Senior Veteran
47
| | Join Date: 12th October 2004 Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 2,985
Blessings: 1,230,477
Reps: 692,329,274,203,046 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by mikeynov Lying for god again, LittleNipper? How many Heaven Points has that earned you to date?
I imagine that somewhere right now in the supernatural realm on a supernatural version of this same forum, Satan received the following message: "You must spread more reputation around before giving it again to LittleNipper." |
27th December 2005, 03:29 PM
| | Back in Town
28  
| | Join Date: 5th May 2005
Posts: 9,324
Blessings: 214,183
Reps: 70,872 (power: 88) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper Charles Darwin also either had a schizophrenic / psychotic mental disorder. Now the question might be asked, if this was a result of his departure from his faith or perhaps the reason he drifted towards evolution..?
Wow, what an argument. "You'd have to be insane to accept evolutionary theory! I don't know why, or what evolutionary theory is, but you'd have to be insane! Insane!" |
27th December 2005, 03:54 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 9th March 2005 Location: MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
Posts: 9,179
Blessings: 137,090
Reps: 18,563,956,112,384,120 (power: 18,563,956,112,402) | | Originally Posted by mikeynov Lying for god again, LittleNipper? How many Heaven Points has that earned you to date?
No, just telling you something that is known but not spread abroad by evolutionists who are afraid that their "saint" had rough edges. I dare say that you would never be told anything about Darwin's personal life, because it is rather sad... Look it up on the Internet. I'm sure that there has been research done. |
27th December 2005, 03:59 PM
|  | Legend
39
| | Join Date: 21st September 2002 Location: United States
Posts: 32,420
Blessings: 51,126
Reps: 295,212,687,427,838,720 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper No, just telling you something that is known but not spread abroad by evolutionists who are afraid that their "saint" had rough edges. I dare say that you would never be told anything about Darwin's personal life, because it is rather sad... Look it up on the Internet. I'm sure that there has been research done.
Well, if it's on the Internet, then it must be true!
Better idea: How about you tell us where you found this bit of info? | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
