Creationist Verses

[Gwenyfur]

Doubtful. There's very little science in anything you've written...



...Case in point: Darwin's theory is not atheistic.

Then you haven't read "Origin of the Species"

 

[The Lady Kate]

Then you haven't read "Origin of the Species"

Actually, I have. My copy mught be a misprint, because I certainly can't find anything that says "there is no God" in there anywhere.

Am I missing a page?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Then you haven't read "Origin of the Species"

Have your read it? Be honest here, and if so could you point out the atheistic statements in it?

I highly doubt that you have read it when you make such obviously wrong statements about it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species he was not aware of Biblical creationism. The special creation he was looking at is immutablity of species and catastrophism. Basically it was the idea that many times the world had been completely devastated and the repopulated by 'specially created' animals to repopulate it. He did come out later and admit he rejected Biblical creationism but by then it was allready pretty obvious he considered the Bible to be mythology.

Darwin never shown the slightest insight or interest in the Christian faith. Darwin's father was an avowed atheist and his Grandfather was a famous atheist who wrote this:

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

- The Temple of Nature 1802​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin

Charles Darwin went into the family buisness and neither his father or brothers ever expressed anything remotely ressembling Christian conviction.

 

[mark kennedy]

Have your read it? Be honest here, and if so could you point out the atheistic statements in it?

I highly doubt that you have read it when you make such obviously wrong statements about it.

He mentions the Creator just like his grandfather mentions the 'first cause', both of which could be taken to mean God. Clearly Darwin considered nature to be the creator and never mentions God in any way shape or form. To consider Darwin to be anything other then atheistic seems curious at best, that was the one thing Ernst Mayr praised him for.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Actually, when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species he was not aware of Biblical creationism. The special creation he was looking at is immutablity of species and catastrophism.

Both of which are direct consequences of Biblical Creationism and the Flood.

Basically it was the idea that many times the world had been completely devastated and the repopulated by 'specially created' animals to repopulate it.

Many times, or just once?

He did come out later and admit he rejected Biblical creationism but by then it was allready pretty obvious he considered the Bible to be mythology.

"The Bible" or just Genesis? and was this a result of his studies or of his personal issues?

Darwin never shown the slightest insight or interest in the Christian faith.

Rather odd for someone who studied Theology at Christ's College in Cambridge, don't you think?

Darwin's father was an avowed atheist

...who was the one who originally enrolled Charles into Cambridge in the first place, with the intent to make him a clergyman.

Again, rather odd behavior, don't you think?

and his Grandfather was a famous atheist who wrote this:

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

- The Temple of Nature 1802
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin

An Atheist wrote this? I don't see the part about "There is no God" in there anywhere... and I certainly don't see it here.

"Would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions and associations, and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!"

A "Famous Atheist" referring to a "First Cause" creating life? Again, quite odd behavior... What is the "First Cause" that grandpa Darwin speaks about?

Charles Darwin went into the family buisness and neither his father or brothers ever expressed anything remotely ressembling Christian conviction.

Even if this were true... and given the facts, it would be extremely odd if it were... I'm still not seeing anything in Origin of Species that says or implies that God does not exist. What I do see is a journal of observations and hypotheses leading to a conclusion that life diversified in this world in a way different from what a literal reading of the Bible would suggest... which is certainly not the same thing as Atheism.

So I don't see how Darwin's theory can be accurately or honestly described as "Atheistic."

 

[artybloke]

And as for being American....you aren't speaking german now are you?

No I'm speaking communist. In the sense that Christ was.

And for someone who claims to be able to criticise people who've been working their whole lives in a field of science you seem remarkably chary of defining what it is you're supposed to arguing against. What gives you the right to criticise something you know nothing about (and are not prepared to investigate?)

Most creationists seem to operate with a set of stawmen definitions - which ones are you operating with?

And why, incidentally, do you and the rest of your fundagelical crew think you can tell the rest of Christendom what the Bible means?

 

[gluadys]

Actually, when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species he was not aware of Biblical creationism. The special creation he was looking at is immutablity of species and catastrophism.

That was the "biblical creationism" of Darwin's day. The "biblical creationism" of today was an invention of a generation after Darwin published.

The de-linking of "species" from "kind" was one of the first adaptations biblical literalists made to the facts of evolution that even they could not deny.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Actually, when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species he was not aware of Biblical creationism. The special creation he was looking at is immutablity of species and catastrophism. Basically it was the idea that many times the world had been completely devastated and the repopulated by 'specially created' animals to repopulate it. He did come out later and admit he rejected Biblical creationism but by then it was allready pretty obvious he considered the Bible to be mythology.

Darwin never shown the slightest insight or interest in the Christian faith. Darwin's father was an avowed atheist and his Grandfather was a famous atheist who wrote this:

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

- The Temple of Nature 1802


​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin

Charles Darwin went into the family buisness and neither his father or brothers ever expressed anything remotely ressembling Christian conviction.

Charles Darwin held a Degree in Theology and was a preacher .... he had been exposed to Christianity quite thoroughly...however, after he read the works of James Hutton. "theory of the earth" 1795 (causing doubt the earth was 6000 years old) THen Chalres Lyell invented the Geologic column in 1830, "In the Minds of Men", "Principles of Geology". Then came the writings of F. Sherwood taylor, "Geology Changes the Outlook". (causing doubt of the flood) Thomas Malthus wrote a book (can't find it now, it's on the bookshelf somewhere here!) that said more offspring were poduced that could survive with the limited food supply so it was best that the weak die off... something to that effect.

Then along came Challes Darwin, who in 1859, after 20 years of writing published "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection of The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life [Yes, folks, that's the full title!!!!](causing doubt of the Creator) Which led directly to the rise of humanism. There is no G-d, so we are in charge.

Later in life Darwin wrote "Often a cold sudder has run through me and I have asked myself whether I may have devoted myself to a phantasy." Life and Letters, 1887 Vol2 Page 229

 

[gluadys]

Charles Darwin held a Degree in Theology and was a preacher .... he had been exposed to Christianity quite thoroughly.

He studied theology. I don't know that he ever preached. Certainly he never became a priest.

..however, after he read the works of James Hutton. "theory of the earth" 1795 (causing doubt the earth was 6000 years old) THen Chalres Lyell invented the Geologic column in 1830, "In the Minds of Men", "Principles of Geology". Then came the writings of F. Sherwood taylor, "Geology Changes the Outlook". (causing doubt of the flood) Thomas Malthus wrote a book (can't find it now, it's on the bookshelf somewhere here!) that said more offspring were poduced that could survive with the limited food supply so it was best that the weak die off... something to that effect.

"invented" the geologic column? How could anyone invent the geologic column and be taken seriously by other geologists? Why is the same geologic column still found by geologists today? Lyall summed up the conclusions of the previous century's work in geology.

I am not sure that Malthus said it was best that the weakest died off. He said it was inevitable that once populations outstripped their food supply that famine, disease or (in the case of humans) war would reduce the population.

Then along came Challes Darwin, who in 1859, after 20 years of writing published "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection of The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life [Yes, folks, that's the full title!!!!]

And?

Since Origin was not about humans, what meaning of "races" was Darwin referring to?

(causing doubt of the Creator)

Maybe for some. But many Christians affirmed that if God had not used special creation, God was still the Creator. If you like reading old books, you might look up the works of James McCosh, a 19th century professor of theology at Princeton (then called the College of New Jersey). Look for Christianity and Positivism: a series of Lectures to the Times on Natural Theology and Christian Apologetics, published in 1871.

He fully accepted evolution without denying his faith in God. He took the stance that religious and scientific accounts of creation were complementary to each other. What religious accounts ascribe to the orderly workings of the Creator, scientific accounts interpret as the results of natural law. Each expounds the plans of God in its own way.

(Paraphrased from Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, David N. Livingstone p. 109)

McCosh was not alone. Here is another pertinent quote from a 19th century Christian.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.​

Which led directly to the rise of humanism.

You have your history backwards. Humanism existed well before the mid-19th century. Some well-known humanists who died before Darwin was born include the French philosopher Voltaire and the American writer, Tom Paine.

Evolution =/= atheism or humanism. Evolution is accepted by scientists ranging in belief from atheists and humanists to Catholic biologists and Pentecostal preachers.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Charles Darwin held a Degree in Theology and was a preacher .... he had been exposed to Christianity quite thoroughly...however, after he read the works of James Hutton. "theory of the earth" 1795 (causing doubt the earth was 6000 years old) THen Chalres Lyell invented the Geologic column in 1830, "In the Minds of Men", "Principles of Geology". Then came the writings of F. Sherwood taylor, "Geology Changes the Outlook". (causing doubt of the flood) Thomas Malthus wrote a book (can't find it now, it's on the bookshelf somewhere here!) that said more offspring were poduced that could survive with the limited food supply so it was best that the weak die off... something to that effect.

Well, At least you acknowledge that Darwin didn't disprove YEC... the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth was already on the ropes long before he came along.

Not sure where you're getting the whole "inventing" the geologic column part.... it's quite real.

As for Malthus, I don't recall him writing that it was best for the weak to die off... only that it happens. Populations tend to grow faster than the food supply. Where a population grows too quickly, disease, famine, and war tend to put it in check.

This is, scientifically speaking, neither good nor evil. It's just the way it is. One can observe the same thing at work in the animal kingdom... particularly in any predator/prey environment: The two groups tend to maintain a certain ratio.

Then along came Challes Darwin, who in 1859, after 20 years of writing published "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection of The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life [Yes, folks, that's the full title!!!!](causing doubt of the Creator)

Where's the doubt? I don't see anything there that would cause a reasonable person to lose faith in God...

Which led directly to the rise of humanism. There is no G-d, so we are in charge.

You think Darwin caused Humanism?

Ever heard of a little thing called "The Renaissance"?

Later in life Darwin wrote "Often a cold sudder has run through me and I have asked myself whether I may have devoted myself to a phantasy." Life and Letters, 1887 Vol2 Page 229

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the entire letter, or at least a link to the full text?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the entire letter, or at least a link to the full text?

Considering the length of the letter, I really don't want to type that much heh...
and honestly when I googled it in a vain hope of not having to type it all out...I came up with nothing...I have a hard copy... The online copy seems to run on different page numbers....heh but you're more than welcome to read through them to find it

http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-ii/

 

[The Lady Kate]

Considering the length of the letter, I really don't want to type that much heh...
and honestly when I googled it in a vain hope of not having to type it all out...I came up with nothing...I have a hard copy... The online copy seems to run on different page numbers....heh but you're more than welcome to read through them to find it

http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-ii/

Well, at least who was he writing the letter to? That should make the search go by easier...

 

[The Lady Kate]

Never mind... I found it.

Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire,
November 23 [1859].
My dear Lyell,
You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;* nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

Hmmm.... putting the quote in its proper context seems to have a much different meaning, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Dannager]

Considering the length of the letter, I really don't want to type that much heh...
and honestly when I googled it in a vain hope of not having to type it all out...I came up with nothing...I have a hard copy... The online copy seems to run on different page numbers....heh but you're more than welcome to read through them to find it

http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-ii/

The reason your Google search turned up nothing is because you misspelled a word in the quotation you typed out. I corrected the misspelling in my own Google search and came up with the same full text that The Lady Kate found.

 

[gluadys]

Never mind... I found it.



Hmmm.... putting the quote in its proper context seems to have a much different meaning, wouldn't you agree?

As with many mined quotes, the sentence after the one cited is significant. Really turns the meaning of the whole around.

 

[Dannager]

Actually, now that I read the full text, it looks like the line you quoted means exactly the opposite of what you thought it did when put into context. Let this be a lesson - quote-mining rarely gets you anywhere.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Hi!
My internet is down--I'm using a freinds computer---buit I should be able to get on here again in a couple of days and then I'll be able to answer your questions.

 

[Dannager]

I'd like to point out something that Gwenyfur has said in the Indiana Legislation furor thread for a moment:

Have you ever thought that by following something that is even marginally a lie, that you are following a lie?

This is an interesting thing to say, especially after being shown that whoever provided you with that particular selective quotation you used in this thread was being dishonest. If the above statement holds true, doesn't that mean you yourself are following a lie?

 

[RightWingGirl]

In that case, could you respond to post #77? If Exodus 20:11 is part of what God spoke and wrote on the stone tablets, why does Deuteronomy 5 recount what is written on the stone tablets without that verse, and yet it says God "added no more" than what is listed there?

I think that Dut.5 was written on the tablets and Exodus 20 was spoken by God.