My Darwin Quote Challenge

[TLK Valentine]

I agree.

Does the same apply to attacking Jesus?

Has anyone been attacking Jesus?

 

[Shadow]

Explain this quote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world.

I think it is necessary to distinguish as to the source by which "the civilised races of man" would exterminate "the savage races". As with biblical quotations, there are ussually several interpretations to a quote. Darwin is describing the process by which species become extinct. In all non-human contexts that would be a 'natural' and spontaneous one, that would occur without any intention or design. Assuming a predator hunted a species as their prey to extinction, the resulting extinction is not the intention or design of the species of predator but an accidental result of their behaviour.
Applied in Darwin's time, we have to keep in mind that Europeans had been reguarly committing genocide around the world and that this was often a result of making territorial cliams and then clearing people from the land. The intention of the colonisers was to seize the land from it's native inhabitents, and the extinction of the 'savage races' did not constitute a single systematic design (though there was often considerable 'intent' behind it).
It is important to note that Darwin is speculating as to the future of struggle between races based on the assumption that natural selection is a scientific or natural law of which moral judgements may or may not correspond. As essentialsaltes pointed out, speculating as to the future of the human race according to such laws does not imply any approval of this process- merely the recognition that it exists.
Darwin himself was not responsible for 'social darwinism'; that distinction falls to his Herbert Spencer who coined the term 'survival of the fittest', and also 'genuis' whilst in the process of creating the 'Intelligence Quotent' or IQ test. The mechanism of natural selection has taken on the image of being a competitive struggle for survival, but Darwin also applied the concept to refer to co-operative behaviour, such as that amongst social insects such as ants, waspd, bees etc. The emphasis on 'competition' in social darwinism reflects the realities of living in a capitalist society rather a reflection of biology. Nevertheless, co-operative behaviour in nature also influenced anarchist thinkers, such as Peter Kropotkin, that co-operation was man's natural state (before the Publication of the Origin of Species if I recall) by assuming that the laws of biology were also the laws of society.
Please note that this quote refers to an hypothetical evolution process over the course of centuries and you can therefore be fairly confident that he was refering to an accidental result of human evolution. So this quote does not carry the moral weight of a equating Darwinian struggle for survival with the Holocaust in this context. It does however represent a 'train of thought' which, when taken to the point of absurdity and combined with industrial technologies and organisation, that eventually led to the holocaust.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please note that this quote refers to an hypothetical evolution process over the course of centuries and you can therefore be fairly confident that he was refering to an accidental result of human evolution. So this quote does not carry the moral weight of a equating Darwinian struggle for survival with the Holocaust in this context. It does however represent a 'train of thought' which, when taken to the point of absurdity and combined with industrial technologies and organisation, that eventually led to the holocaust.

Thank you, Red, for the info.

Nice to meet you!

 

[Hoshiyya]

What about trying to convince them on the basis of a literal translation of the Bible?

If they are Christians who believe in Evolution, and your goal is to make them Christians who do not believe in Evolution, then probably that could work.

If they are non-Christians who believe in Evolution, I don't see why/how it could work.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Has anyone been attacking Jesus?

Historically ?
Yes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Historically ?
Yes.

I was thinking in this thread.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I was thinking in this thread.

I don't think his question was about whether anyone was attacking Jesus in this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

If they are Christians who believe in Evolution, and your goal is to make them Christians who do not believe in Evolution, then probably that could work.

If they are non-Christians who believe in Evolution, I don't see why/how it could work.

So far we have:

1. Don't try to convince them by attacking Darwin.
2. Don't try to convince them with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Anything else we can try that won't work?

How would you convince them?

 

[Hoshiyya]

So far we have:

1. Don't try to convince them by attacking Darwin.
2. Don't try to convince them with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Anything else we can try that won't work?

How would you convince them?

On page 3 of this thread I said: You cannot convince them to reconsider the theory of evolution except by discrediting the theory itself.

If the goal is to actually convince people, why use a tactic that won't work ?


"How would you convince them?"

Depends on if "them" refers to Christians who believe in evolution, or atheists who believe in evolution.
In both cases however I think you would have to adress the theory itself.

In regards to atheists, the goal should be to make them Christians first. If they are Christian, it should be much much easier to get them to reconsider evolution, and like I said before, you could effectively use the Bible to teach 6-day creation to Christians.

But if one is unable to show any flaws in the theory of evolution, and have as one's only resort attacking the person of Darwin, I doubt one can get far.

 

[AV1611VET]

On page 3 of this thread I said: You cannot convince them to reconsider the theory of evolution except by discrediting the theory itself.

Since I believe [instant] creation is the antithesis of evolution, I believe that all you would have to do is convince an evolutionist of [instant] creation.

HOWEVER, I also believe that it is the job of the Holy Ghost to convince us of [instant] creation -- not ours.

Therefore, in my opinion, one cannot proselytize an evolutionist into a creationist, unless the Holy Ghost helps him.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Personally I would use a cognitive argument that goes something like this:

You (speaking to the person who believes in Darwinism/Evolution) have not actually seen proof of evolution.
You only believe that there is proof of evolution. You believe, you don't actually know it for a fact.
Hence you believe in proof, you haven't actually seen proof, of Darwinism/Evolution/whatever you want to call it.

No Darwinist you’ll ever meet will prove to you that Darwinism is true.
They simply say, “the scientists have the proof, and we basically take them at their word.
I haven’t seen the proof myself, I’m just a layman, but my school told me Darwinism was true, so it must be true. Why would my school, or the scientists, lie?”

The people we’ll meet, they know they don’t have the proof, (and will never be able to show it,) they just contend that if Darwinism is not true, the implications are too severe.
The institutional, robotic and progressively debased thinking of scientists, or even intentional lying, would be suggested as the inevitable implication of Darwinism not being true.
And either of those alternatives is too much for them to handle.
That is to say, the social implication(s) of Darwinism not being true is so shocking and far-reaching most will simply not pursue the thought any further.

Hence their belief in Evolution is not based on proof, it is based on various social factors.

They might say:
“How did Darwinism become so popular in the western world, if not because it is true?”

The social phenomenon of the spreading of Darwinism follows the same pattern as any ideology, without proof coming into the picture.

Attaching itself to existing social concerns and providing an explanation and justification for things, the -ism named after Darwin was popularized, and like most -isms in the modern world, it was (in all likelihood) popularized through conscious propaganda effort, with the purpose of using the ideology unto certain social ends.

So in short my argument touches on how the belief in Evolution became popular and how it remains popular in an objective, analytical way. I don't even deal with things that I personally think Darwinists/Evolutionists don't care about.

If you are missionizing Muslims, there is no need to bring up (ie. attack or discredit the idea of) Nephites.
If you are missionizing Mormons, there is no need to bring up (ie. attack or discredit the idea of) the Quran.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Since I believe [instant] creation is the antithesis of evolution, I believe that all you would have to do is convince an evolutionist of [instant] creation.

HOWEVER, I also believe that it is the job of the Holy Ghost to convince us of [instant] creation -- not ours.

Therefore, in my opinion, one cannot proselytize an evolutionist into a creationist, unless the Holy Ghost helps him.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is necessary to do anything of spiritual significance.

However this is a simple principle:
If your goal is to convince someone to believe something, you should use the methods that you think will actually lead to that result.

 

[AV1611VET]

Personally I would use a cognitive argument that goes something like this:

It looks like you're smart enough to fight fire with fire.

My method is the opposite.

I try to fight fire with water.

In other words, I fight evolution with its antithesis: instant creation.

Either way, it will take the Holy Ghost to settle the matter in their hearts.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Since I believe [instant] creation is the antithesis of evolution, I believe that all you would have to do is convince an evolutionist of [instant] creation.

HOWEVER, I also believe that it is the job of the Holy Ghost to convince us of [instant] creation -- not ours.

Therefore, in my opinion, one cannot proselytize an evolutionist into a creationist, unless the Holy Ghost helps him.

" I believe that all you would have to do is convince an evolutionist of [instant] creation."

Yes and I am trying to answer how to convince people to believe in Creationism/instant creation.
Do we attack Charles Darwin, whom Evolutionists do not care about at all, or do we try to discredit the theory itself using logical arguments and observations ?

 

[Hoshiyya]

It looks like you're smart enough to fight fire with fire.

My method is the opposite.

I try to fight fire with water.

In other words, I fight evolution with its antithesis: instant creation.

Either way, it will take the Holy Ghost to settle the matter in their hearts.

You're trying to make people believe in instant creation. I assume that is the same as 6-day creation, as taught by Scripture. The question is HOW to lead people to believe that, which arguments work, what actually convinces people.

It is clear to me that the belief in Evolution is based on social factors, rather than some kind of allegiance to the man called Charles Darwin.

 

[AV1611VET]

" I believe that all you would have to do is convince an evolutionist of [instant] creation."

Yes and I am trying to answer how to convince people to believe in Creationism/instant creation.
Do we attack Charles Darwin, whom Evolutionists do not care about at all, or do we try to discredit the theory itself using logical arguments and observations ?

I'm with you on this, my friend.

Attacking Darwin isn't going to cut it with them.

Crucifying Jesus didn't stop Christianity, and note here where extreme persecution just caused it to spread:

Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

Chuck Swindoll, one of my mentors in my earlier days, tells the humorous story of a woman who came home to find her daughter and five friends in a circle playing with something.

Upon investigating, she found out they each had a skunk on the living room floor.

"Run!" she screamed.

Whereupon each child, terrified, grabbed a skunk and ran to other parts of the house.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're trying to make people believe in instant creation.

I like to think I testify of instant creation.

I don't necessarily expect them to change overnight.

But I'm a witness for that doctrine.

And yes, by instant creation, I mean a literal 6-day creation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't think his question was about whether anyone was attacking Jesus in this thread.

I don't think his question was about anything of substance.

 

[Shadow]

Personally I would use a cognitive argument that goes something like this:

You (speaking to the person who believes in Darwinism/Evolution) have not actually seen proof of evolution.
You only believe that there is proof of evolution. You believe, you don't actually know it for a fact.
Hence you believe in proof, you haven't actually seen proof, of Darwinism/Evolution/whatever you want to call it.

No Darwinist you’ll ever meet will prove to you that Darwinism is true.
They simply say, “the scientists have the proof, and we basically take them at their word.
I haven’t seen the proof myself, I’m just a layman, but my school told me Darwinism was true, so it must be true. Why would my school, or the scientists, lie?”

The people we’ll meet, they know they don’t have the proof, (and will never be able to show it,) they just contend that if Darwinism is not true, the implications are too severe.
The institutional, robotic and progressively debased thinking of scientists, or even intentional lying, would be suggested as the inevitable implication of Darwinism not being true.
And either of those alternatives is too much for them to handle.
That is to say, the social implication(s) of Darwinism not being true is so shocking and far-reaching most will simply not pursue the thought any further.

Hence their belief in Evolution is not based on proof, it is based on various social factors.

They might say:
“How did Darwinism become so popular in the western world, if not because it is true?”

The social phenomenon of the spreading of Darwinism follows the same pattern as any ideology, without proof coming into the picture.

Attaching itself to existing social concerns and providing an explanation and justification for things, the -ism named after Darwin was popularized, and like most -isms in the modern world, it was (in all likelihood) popularized through conscious propaganda effort, with the purpose of using the ideology unto certain social ends.

So in short my argument touches on how the belief in Evolution became popular and how it remains popular in an objective, analytical way. I don't even deal with things that I personally think Darwinists/Evolutionists don't care about.

If you are missionizing Muslims, there is no need to bring up (ie. attack or discredit the idea of) Nephites.
If you are missionizing Mormons, there is no need to bring up (ie. attack or discredit the idea of) the Quran.

I think firstly, you have to keep in mind that evolution is not inherently atheist and that there is room for a god of the gaps. Science is based on 'methodological naturalism' which means that we look for naturalistic explanations by the scientific method but do not exclude the possibility of a supernatural cause. The exception is if you are dealing with someone who believes in 'metaphysical naturalism' (more widely known as 'scientific materialism') which specifically excludes the possibility of supernatural causes. It is more than possible to accept evolution and still believe that the universe was ultimately created- but it won't be a biblical account of creation.
It is fair to say that the social implications of saying 'I am a creationist' do factor into people not questioning the consensus view of evolution. We want to 'fit in' and asking difficult questions which challange the beliefs of our peers and question the authority of science are to say the least 'uncomfortable'. But Science can only develop with dissenting views looking for 'better' explanations.

The problem for a creationist is demonstrating that it is more than a 'god of the gaps' and that god is a superior explanation to a naturalistic one. This is not simply saying that evolution is a 'popular' idea, but challanging the beliefs which led to it's popularity in that scientific explanations of the natural world are 'superior' to religious ones in so far as they give us the power to change our surrondings. I remember flicking through a copy of the Origin of Species, and noticed that one of the chapters covered 'domestic selection' which would include the ability of farmers to chose cattle or chickens based on their desirable characteristics (or pigeon fanceirs as I think Darwin kept pigeons to observe how these characteristics changed through the generations). Whereas 'Domestic selection' involved man chosing these characteristics, Darwin developed the theory of 'natural selection' to identify the mechanism by which these characteristics would develop without human interference.
A creationist has to argue that naturalistic explanations are inadequate and that the advance of science either is an illusion or has limits. The latter is easier as it concerns the possibility of future discoveries which may or may not be made an appeals to the idea that the future is a product of free will and is therefore uncertain and not governed by a natural law which mankind is predisposed to the progressive expansion of scientific knowledge of the world. Once you've done that, people will be more likely to accept God as the primary explanation for understanding the origins of the universe.
Beyond that, you'd have to argue that the evidence for evolution isn't 'evidence' and why the Bible can therefore constitute evidence for an account of creation.

 

[EcksDee]

So far we have:

1. Don't try to convince them by attacking Darwin.
2. Don't try to convince them with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Anything else we can try that won't work?

How would you convince them?

Well, the thing with evolution is that it's basal to all life sciences and has evidence in almost every field of science.

A simple answer is you would have to provide one piece of legitimate conflicting data. Find a fossilized Canis Lupus Familiaris in the Cambrian rock layer (as an example, really anything like that would work), publish your methodology and data in a paper and have others scrutinize it.

A more difficult answer would be that you'd need to turn almost all of science on its head (though still using the scientific method to do so.) Step one would be to come up with an alternate hypothesis that explains current biodiversity (as arising from 4000 years of breeding after the Noachian flood.) Then you'd have to rewrite genetics to allow for inbreeding to not end in a genetic bottleneck.
Then you'd have to rewrite everything in geology to make sedimentary layers not take millions and millions of years to form and come up with an alternate hypothesis that explains this in a Noachian way.
Then you'd have to rewrite cosmology to make our solar system, galaxy and all other galaxies follow a geocentric world view (as the Bible does).

Now THIS is where it gets really interesting though.

After you've disproved all the life sciences you have to start working on the very basics of science itself. You'd have to rewrite physics to allow the speed of light constant to change (to account for a young universe that appears old in every way). The speed of light constant is so integral to so many formulas that it's not even funny. Not even mentioning photonics, wave theory, electromagnetism, Maxwell's equations, and so on.