• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution as a necessary socio-political creation story

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,448
765
✟95,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The teaching of Evolution is a 'rationalizing' of world history that was a necessary requirement of post-Enlightenment / modern society.

All of mass society was being organized on the basis of rational social science. 'Reason' was to replace 'Dogma' in every facet of social planning, from the political technology of government, to the economy, social relations, and most importantly public education. The modern world was to be an enlightened scientific society and so all bodies of knowledge and understanding had to be filtered through an epistemological bottleneck of rationalism and empiricism and methodological naturalism. In the Age of Enlightenment, this was the new intellectual order of the day.

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins. It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue. This is because the belief in Evolution is essentially applied historical rationalism; the belief that events progress in an orderly way based on uniform laws of nature. Before any of the particulars of Evolution were known, it was already concluded that world history must be a 'rational' history; a history that unfolded in a methodically natural way. Under the philosophical rules of Enlightenment, there was simply no other option.

The other important thing about the teaching of Evolution, is that, like all other aspects of a mass industrial society, it requires the administration and organization of a managerial class of 'experts' to interpret and promote it to mass society. The teaching of Evolution makes an "enlightened" managerial elite the gatekeepers of reality for a modern society. Just as modern society is said to be organized on the highest principles of social-science and enlightened political technology of liberal democracy. Evolution requires the management of a widespread academic, scientific, and media bureaucracy, the same type of bureaucracy necessary for promoting liberal democratic ideology (i.e., the ideology that rejects any source of authority apart from that socio-political bureaucracy)

Evolution, too, meets the needs of a pluralistic secular state. Evolution is a belief that can be syncretized with Christianity, eastern religion, masonic Deism, and Atheism. It is a creation story for all faiths, and thus the best suited historical narrative for an inclusive modern liberal democracy.


As for the actual science of Evolution. These are distantly secondary considerations to the primary political and philosophical *requirement* that Evolution be taught as the official origins story within a modern liberal society. It is a political necessity.


This is why, as one scientist stated:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”​


This is because when you question Evolution, you are really tapping into an ideology that lies at the heart of the age of Enlightenment and modern society itself. We are ruled by this ideology and this ideology is hammered into us by a mass media from the cradle to the grave. Like the riot at Ephesus in Acts 19 and the Cult of Artemis , the entire mystical order of society, and especially its elite priesthood class, is threatened when you target its central ideology. This is why so many people seem to go crazy when they detect even the slightest hint of dissent from a belief in Evolution. There is an entire managerial class throughout all sectors of society who instinctively recognize the belief in Evolution as a kind of mystical cornerstone to their entire ideological worldview.

This is also why younger generations will continue to be taught the social myth that Evolution was simply the result of disinterested scientists who only cared about following the facts. We have to be raised up inside the ideology and can never be allowed to see it from the outside. This is why creationists are so particularly loathed in society and in their portrayals in mass media... whether they realize it or not, they are poking at the heart of modern ideology.
 

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,659
11,514
Space Mountain!
✟1,360,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The teaching of Evolution is a 'rationalizing' of world history that was a necessary requirement of post-Enlightenment / modern society.

All of mass society was being organized on the basis of rational social science. 'Reason' was to replace 'Dogma' in every facet of social planning, from the political technology of government, to the economy, social relations, and most importantly public education. The modern world was to be an enlightened scientific society and so all bodies of knowledge and understanding had to be filtered through an epistemological bottleneck of rationalism and empiricism and methodological naturalism. In the Age of Enlightenment, this was the new intellectual order of the day.

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins. It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue. This is because the belief in Evolution is essentially applied historical rationalism; the belief that events progress in an orderly way based on uniform laws of nature. Before any of the particulars of Evolution were known, it was already concluded that world history must be a 'rational' history; a history that unfolded in a methodically natural way. Under the philosophical rules of Enlightenment, there was simply no other option.

The other important thing about the teaching of Evolution, is that, like all other aspects of a mass industrial society, it requires the administration and organization of a managerial class of 'experts' to interpret and promote it to mass society. The teaching of Evolution makes an "enlightened" managerial elite the gatekeepers of reality for a modern society. Just as modern society is said to be organized on the highest principles of social-science and enlightened political technology of liberal democracy. Evolution requires the management of a widespread academic, scientific, and media bureaucracy, the same type of bureaucracy necessary for promoting liberal democratic ideology (i.e., the ideology that rejects any source of authority apart from that socio-political bureaucracy)

Evolution, too, meets the needs of a pluralistic secular state. Evolution is a belief that can be syncretized with Christianity, eastern religion, masonic Deism, and Atheism. It is a creation story for all faiths, and thus the best suited historical narrative for an inclusive modern liberal democracy.


As for the actual science of Evolution. These are distantly secondary considerations to the primary political and philosophical *requirement* that Evolution be taught as the official origins story within a modern liberal society. It is a political necessity.


This is why, as one scientist stated:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”​


This is because when you question Evolution, you are really tapping into an ideology that lies at the heart of the age of Enlightenment and modern society itself. We are ruled by this ideology and this ideology is hammered into us by a mass media from the cradle to the grave. Like the riot at Ephesus in Acts 19 and the Cult of Artemis , the entire mystical order of society, and especially its elite priesthood class, is threatened when you target its central ideology. This is why so many people seem to go crazy when they detect even the slightest hint of dissent from a belief in Evolution. There is an entire managerial class throughout all sectors of society who instinctively recognize the belief in Evolution as a kind of mystical cornerstone to their entire ideological worldview.

This is also why younger generations will continue to be taught the social myth that Evolution was simply the result of disinterested scientists who only cared about following the facts. We have to be raised up inside the ideology and can never be allowed to see it from the outside. This is why creationists are so particularly loathed in society and in their portrayals in mass media... whether they realize it or not, they are poking at the heart of modern ideology.

And if it turns out that the Theory of Evolution is actually reflective of the Reality we find ourselves in, then what?

From my philosophical perspective, you're offering a half truth here and conflating two or three different ideological and historical trajectories. It's better to keep them separate. There can still be a Devil deceiving the World on the one hand while, on the other, it's also true that the world really has Evolved (via God's providence).

The only reason that some Creationists can't get a handle on this is because...............well, there's a lot of reasons. :dontcare:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,448
765
✟95,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And if it turns out that the Theory of Evolution is actually reflective of the Reality we find ourselves in, then what?

Consider this analogy. We could have a serious data-driven debate about whether or not homosexuality should be allowed to be promoted in public to children or not. But we both know that, regardless of the data, the ruling ideology of our society is not going to allow that question to be on the table. We even have discrimination laws against proposing such questions.

Regardless of whether or not Evolution is true, our modern society dictates that it *must* be the official model of origins. We can have great debates about the particulars of Evolution, but our ideology dictates that history must be interpreted in a methodologically naturalistic way.

So, the point of this thread is not to ask whether or not Evolution is true, but to make clear that Evolution was going to be the official state-sponsored creation story, regardless of the data. There is just too much ideological necessity for an evolutionary creation story.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,659
11,514
Space Mountain!
✟1,360,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Consider this analogy. We could have a serious data-driven debate about whether or not homosexuality should be allowed to be promoted in public to children or not. But we both know that, regardless of the data, the ruling ideology of our society is not going to allow that question to be on the table. We even have discrimination laws against proposing such questions.

Regardless of whether or not Evolution is true, our modern society dictates that it *must* be the official model of origins. We can have great debates about the particulars of Evolution, but our ideology dictates that history must be interpreted in a methodologically naturalistic way.

So, the point of this thread is not to ask whether or not Evolution is true, but to make clear that Evolution was going to be the official state-sponsored creation story, regardless of the data. There is just too much ideological necessity for an evolutionary creation story.

On a number of points I think you and I may overlap, however surprising that may seem to be.

Where I tend to differ with you is that rather than citing that the current regimes of the world are pushing "an evolutionary creation story," I think instead that it's those folks---whether they're elite or common, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative ---who desire to inculcate the public square with a "revolutionary creation story" that are the problem ... and the use or abuse of the Theory of Evolution simply becomes an excuse and blanket for the "program," either way.

Think both Marx (collectively) and Nietzsche (individually) here as but earlier examples; various Christian Nationalists providing yet additional examples.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,902
Georgia
✟1,093,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The teaching of Evolution is a 'rationalizing' of world history that was a necessary requirement of post-Enlightenment / modern society.

All of mass society was being organized on the basis of rational social science. 'Reason' was to replace 'Dogma' in every facet of social planning, from the political technology of government, to the economy, social relations, and most importantly public education. The modern world was to be an enlightened scientific society and so all bodies of knowledge and understanding had to be filtered through an epistemological bottleneck of rationalism and empiricism and methodological naturalism. In the Age of Enlightenment, this was the new intellectual order of the day.
A materialist atheism in places like France during the so-called "age of reason" would find the doctrine on origins provided by belief in evolutionism - to be very satisfactory as compared to "Belief" in the Bible.

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins. It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue.
No wonder then that nations such as Russia and China would find evolution's doctrines to simply be "a given"
This is because the belief in Evolution is essentially applied historical rationalism; the belief that events progress in an orderly way based on uniform laws of nature. Before any of the particulars of Evolution were known, it was already concluded that world history must be a 'rational' history; a history that unfolded in a methodically natural way. Under the philosophical rules of Enlightenment, there was simply no other option.
No question about it.

Evolution is a belief that can be syncretized with Christianity, eastern religion, masonic Deism, and Atheism. It is a creation story for all
Syncretism in its various forms has plagued central and south America for a very long time.

This is why, as one scientist stated:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”​


This is because when you question Evolution, you are really tapping into an ideology that lies at the heart of the age of Enlightenment and modern society itself. We are ruled by this ideology and this ideology is hammered into us by a mass media from the cradle to the grave. Like the riot at Ephesus in Acts 19 and the Cult of Artemis , the entire mystical order of society, and especially its elite priesthood class, is threatened when you target its central ideology.
Which is in fact - its "central theology".
This is why so many people seem to go crazy when they detect even the slightest hint of dissent from a belief in Evolution. There is an entire managerial class throughout all sectors of society who instinctively recognize the belief in Evolution as a kind of mystical cornerstone to their entire ideological worldview.
spot on!
This is also why younger generations will continue to be taught the social myth that Evolution was simply the result of disinterested scientists who only cared about following the facts. We have to be raised up inside the ideology and can never be allowed to see it from the outside. This is why creationists are so particularly loathed in society and in their portrayals in mass media... whether they realize it or not, they are poking at the heart of modern ideology.
exactly

But in certain Christian circles there is another group also becoming "loathed" and that is the atheist and agnostic scholars in world class universities that are experts in OT and Hebrew language studies -- who dare to point out that the Bible is actually NOT teaching evolutionism but rather a completely contrary "belief" where 7 days of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 and in Exodus 20:8-11 - accounts for all life on planet Earth instead of evolutionism's doctrine on origins that runs counter to that idea.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,902
Georgia
✟1,093,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And if it turns out that the Theory of Evolution is actually reflective of the Reality we find ourselves in, then what?
Well "Then" - people like Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and others dump Christianity and become atheists where the atheist belief system is in complete harmony with the doctrine on origins found in evolution.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,902
Georgia
✟1,093,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So, the point of this thread is not to ask whether or not Evolution is true, but to make clear that Evolution was going to be the official state-sponsored creation story, regardless of the data. There is just too much ideological necessity for an evolutionary creation story.
In 2 Cor 4:4 - there is a statement about "The god of this world" running a contrary narrative to the God of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,659
11,514
Space Mountain!
✟1,360,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well "Then" - people like Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and others dump Christianity and become atheists where the atheist belief system is in complete harmony with the doctrine on origins found in evolution.

And, so? Being that I've studied the various positions that have a stake in the "evolutionary debate," I don't think there is an official "doctrine on origins found in evolution," brother Bob.

Yes, there is a synthesized set of assumptions found among some atheists who adhere to Philosophical Naturalism that tries to throw a wrench into the Creationist's Theology, but they're the exception, not the rule.

So, what is your main concern here?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,902
Georgia
✟1,093,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And if it turns out that the Theory of Evolution is actually reflective of the Reality we find ourselves in, then what?
Well "Then" - people like Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and others dump Christianity and become atheists where the atheist belief system is in complete harmony with the doctrine on origins found in evolution.
And so - that appears to be a logical consequence.
Being that I've studied the various positions that have a stake in the "evolutionary debate," I don't think there is an official "doctrine on origins found in evolution," brother Bob.
hmmm.. So no origins story in evolution about lower life forms giving rise to higher life forms via unobserved transitions that take millions of years to complete thus accounting for all life forms on Earth?

I suppose we agree that the Bible has a competing origins story for how all life forms on Earth came about.
Yes, there is a synthesized set of assumptions found among some atheists who adhere to Philosophical Naturalism that tries to throw a wrench into the Creationist's Theology, but they're the exception, not the rule.
What "other choice" did the atheist have - other than naturalism and materialism?
I assume we both agree that atheists would not be appealing to deity to cover the gaps and complete transitions.
So, what is your main concern here?
My post was not expressing any concern... rather just noting a logical consequence.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,448
765
✟95,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
On a number of points I think you and I may overlap, however surprising that may seem to be.

Where I tend to differ with you is that rather than citing that the current regimes of the world are pushing "an evolutionary creation story," I think instead that it's those folks---whether they're elite or common, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative ---who desire to inculcate the public square with a "revolutionary creation story" that are the problem ... and the use or abuse of the Theory of Evolution simply becomes an excuse and blanket for the "program," either way.

Think both Marx (collectively) and Nietzsche (individually) here as but earlier examples; various Christian Nationalists providing yet additional examples.

Yes, both the political Left and Right tend to adopt a progressive (evolutionary) view of history. A Hegelian world history; history as a grand 'becoming' through an awakening of human consciousness. Marxism advances through dissolving all traditional structures and building a new social man out of the resulting collective soup, and Nietzche advances through evolution of the individual superman or supergroup, though like Marx, the superman evolves through a consciousness transcendence of the old religious beliefs. Like you said, they are both revolutionary stories.

Christianity merges with the religion of human progress with the advent of mass industrial society, adopting more and more aspects of "Liberation Theology" and the gospel of social evolution, ultimately abandoning Biblical history altogether in exchange for the rationalistic enlightenment worldview. This eventually results in what is today referred to as "moral therapeutic deism".... basically just the belief that a god exists and we should be nice, tolerant, atomized individuals, and ultimately we find our sense of the sacred in the modern liberal democratic order and how it has enlightened the world with scientific social progress.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,448
765
✟95,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A materialist atheism in places like France during the so-called "age of reason" would find the doctrine on origins provided by believe in evolutionism - to be very satisfactory as compared to "Belief" in the Bible.
indeed... and Deism was all the rage amongst the intellectual classes... an unknown 'god of nature' that could only be perceived by enlightened human reason and was far beyond any superstitious dogma revealed in ancient scripture...

But in certain Christian circles there is another group also becoming "loathed" and that is the atheist and agnostic scholars in world class universities that are experts in OT and Hebrew language studies -- who dare to point out that the Bible is actually NOT teaching evolutionism but rather a completely contrary "belief" where 7 days of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 and in Exodus 20:8-11 - accounts for all life on planet Earth instead of evolutionism's doctrine on origins that runs counter to that idea.
yes, and really you hardly need experts to point out that Biblical history is fundamentally different than the Evolution creation story. That is why it was the job of every "reasonable Christian" to allegorize / mythologize the Old Testament (and all supernatural / miraculous claims in the Bible generally) ... and accept the "enlightened" view that the Bible is simply a collection of fables for teaching moral lessons, but certainly not to be believed as the revealed Word of God.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,659
11,514
Space Mountain!
✟1,360,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well "Then" - people like Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and others dump Christianity and become atheists where the atheist belief system is in complete harmony with the doctrine on origins found in evolution.
Sometimes, Bob, folks give up on the faith due to various private matters that all too often fly under the radar of consideration. Take the case of Darwin: His daughter died when she was young and this broke his heart. It wasn't "simply" that he went to the Galapogos Islands and observed what he observed. In the same way, I could say that it wasn't solely the fact that Darwin was taken to the Galapogos Islands that "caused" Captain Fitzroy (a Bible believer) to kill himself ...

Sometimes, some people have additional, unresolved grievances that turn their hearts aways and do them in, as tragic as that is. It's not solely the Theory of Evolution that does so. And if there is a case out there where it supposedly is "the reason," it shouldn't be.

And so - that appears to be a logical consequence.
No, not exactly. But don't worry about it.

hmmm.. So no origins story in evolution about lower life forms giving rise to higher life forms via unobserved transitions that take millions of years to complete thus accounting for all life forms on Earth?
Right. There is no real "origins story" among atheists. Not officially anyway, except as I said earlier, it might be bandied about as such by Philosophical Naturalists (like Dawkins).
I suppose we agree that the Bible has a competing origins story for how all life forms on Earth came about.
Yes. It definitely was meant to compete (or correct?) the earlier false premises of the ancient world. At least, that's my view.

What "other choice" did the atheist have - other than naturalism and materialism?
I assume we both agree that atheists would not be appealing to deity to cover the gaps and complete transitions.
There's Methodological Naturalism to consider in lieu of Philosophical Naturalism: the former of these doesn't require in its studies what the latter vehemently pushes for. There is a difference.
My post was not expressing any concern... rather just noting a logical consequence.
Again, it's not a logical consequence. I'm a Christian. I'm also a materialist of sorts. But I also tend to think that the Lord has had His Hand in the development of all that is. I just can't prove it; hence I'm a Materialist. But I can passively read about God's presence and intent in the various revelations of the Bible gvien through the Israelite/Jewish people and through Christ's Church and thereby come to believe that He has done so.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,902
Georgia
✟1,093,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:

Well "Then" - people like Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and others dump Christianity and become atheists where the atheist belief system is in complete harmony with the doctrine on origins found in evolution.
Sometimes, Bob, folks give up on the faith due to various private matters that all too often fly under the radar of consideration. Take the case of Darwin: His daughter died when she was young and this broke his heart. It wasn't "simply" that he went to the Galapogos Islands and observed what he observed.

No doubt he was in sorrow for a short while - but it does not account for decades of commitment to evolutionism. The storyline he was pursuing regarding a non-God solution for the origin of all life on Earth - is one a lot of scientist buy into even if they have not lost a daughter.

There is no real "origins story" among atheists.
They don't "like" to call it by that name -- we can all agree. But it amounts to the same thing.

It is a story that tries to explain how all levels of life on Earth came about -- from a baren planet to one with life at all levels.

Both Genesis and evolution take on that same task.

Dawkins explicitly admits to it - as does Provine.

Both start off as Christians and both dump Christianity once they find out that evolution is right and the Bible is wrong.

And that is a logical response if you think about it.
Again, it's not a logical consequence. I'm a Christian. I'm also a materialist of sorts.

No doubt some people choose a third path.. but it makes logical sense to note that once it is found that the Bible's doctrine on origins for all life on planet Earth is wrong - and the person supposes evolution to have the correct one - the atheist option is a very reasonable and consistent response.

But I also tend to think that the Lord has had His Hand in the development of all that is.

But the Bible is much more specific than "the Lord has had His Hand in the development of all that is" -- and it is those details that get in the way of slapping belief in evolution on top of it.

I can passively read about God's presence and intent in the various revelations of the Bible gvien through the Israelite/Jewish people and through Christ's Church and thereby come to believe that He has done so.

Has "done so" what?

Made all life on planet Earth in a 7 day week that is the same as timeline for that week at Sinai in Ex 20:8-11???
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,902
Georgia
✟1,093,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
yes, and really you hardly need experts to point out that Biblical history is fundamentally different than the Evolution creation story. That is why it was the job of every "reasonable Christian" to allegorize / mythologize the Old Testament (and all supernatural / miraculous claims in the Bible generally) ... and accept the "enlightened" view that the Bible is simply a collection of fables for teaching moral lessons, but certainly not to be believed as the revealed Word of God.
Yep. That is certainly a logical alternative to the Bible - were evolution's story on origins actually true.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,659
11,514
Space Mountain!
✟1,360,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
BobRyan said:
No doubt he was in sorrow for a short while - but it does not account for decades of commitment to evolutionism. The storyline he was pursuing regarding a non-God solution for the origin of all life on Earth - is one a lot of scientist buy into even if they have not lost a daughter.
No, Darwin was in sorrow for a long while on that point. And because of that sorrow, he ALSO couldn't perceive that the Bible or his former Christianity, or the Christian faith that his wife maintained, could be true. So, there was more to it, Bob. But don't take my word for it. Study Darwin and see all the factors what went into his ongoing disbelief. It wasn't Evolution alone that did it.

They don't "like" to call it by that name -- we can all agree. But it amounts to the same thing.
You're missing my point, Bob.
It is a story that tries to explain how all levels of life on Earth came about -- from a baren planet to one with life at all levels.

Both Genesis and evolution take on that same task.

Dawkins explicitly admits to it - as does Provine.
Right. And Dawkins is a Philosophical Naturalists, and William Provine was a Nihilist of sorts. So, again, these various factors do make a difference. I they didn't, I'd be a Philosophical Naturalists by default, but I'm not.
Both start off as Christians and both dump Christianity once they find out that evolution is right and the Bible is wrong.

And that is a logical response if you think about it.
No, it's not logical. I've studied Logic. I have a degree in Philosophy which includes Logic as one of its subdisiciplines. Holding the idea of Evolutin in one's mind does not for anything to follow, other than to present a challenge to an ultra literal reading of Genesis. That's it. That's all the idea of evolution "has to cause."
No doubt some people choose a third path.. but it makes logical sense to note that once it is found that the Bible's doctrine on origins for all life on planet Earth is wrong - and the person supposes evolution to have the correct one - the atheist option is a very reasonable and consistent response.
Atheists come to disbelief for a variety of reasons. Evolution is just an excuse half the time for what's REALLY ailing people, like loneliness, lack of companionship, illness, poverty, or sinful desires, etc. etc. etc.
But the Bible is much more specific than "the Lord has had His Hand in the development of all that is" -- and it is those details that get in the way of slapping belief in evolution on top of it.
Not really. Only if you allow them to. And you know what, I don't allow them to.
Has "done so" what?

Made all life on planet Earth in a 7 day week that is the same as timeline for that week at Sinai in Ex 20:8-11???

Has "done so" and so what? What a rhetorical question, Bob. Y'know, I actually understand your theology and I can see that that is what the book of Genesis teaches and in support of Exodus 20:8-11. I just don't take the first several chapters of Genesis as literal history. So, go figure that one out, brother Bob!!!

So, don't disparage me, Bob, and I won't disparage you. We can respect each others faith in Christ here, or at least we should be able to.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,448
765
✟95,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Charles Darwin was most likely following a family philosophical tradition that led him to his beliefs in Evolution. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote at great length on the evolutionary nature of the universe, (long before Charles was born), how all phenomena transform and unfold from primitive lifeforms beneath the waves, and to progressive development of higher forms. It was the rationalistic / naturalistic projection upon world history. The world as an alchemical furnace of refinement and transformation of nature. This was the necessary view of reality that stemmed from Enlightenment. And the god of enlightenment was the deist 'god of nature' that lay behind these transformations, the god that was truly perceived only through human reason. (as opposed to direct revelation through scripture)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,659
11,514
Space Mountain!
✟1,360,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Charles Darwin was most likely following a family philosophical tradition that led him to his beliefs in Evolution. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote at great length on the evolutionary nature of the universe, (long before Charles was born), how all phenomena transform and unfold from primitive lifeforms beneath the waves, and to progressive development of higher forms. It was the rationalistic / naturalistic projection upon world history. The world as an alchemical furnace of refinement and transformation of nature. This was the necessary view of reality that stemmed from Enlightenment. And the god of enlightenment was the deist 'god of nature' that lay behind these transformations, the god that was truly perceived only through human reason. (as opposed to direct revelation through scripture)

There is some truth to this, especially if we take into account the following brief article (and I'm linking it here because it saves me the time of having to type it out and say the same thing):


However, we need to be careful to discern where modern science proffers itself as knowledge but is, in fact, a "philosophy" from those instances where it is, as a practice of human inquiry, actually elucidating our understanding of the physical world.

If we don't discern this difference, then we might as well toss a lot of the thinking of scientists into the garbage bin, starting with Copernicus. And I'm not going to throw Copernicus away, or those who have come after him, even if I want to advocate for God's Word.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,902
Georgia
✟1,093,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Let's let Darwin speak for himself instead of just putting words in his mouth.
=================================================== begin quote

"Whilst on board the Beagle (1831-1836) 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; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine"

==>Darwin (1887) I p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

Darwin Online: Life and Letters and Autobiography
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,659
11,514
Space Mountain!
✟1,360,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let's let Darwin speak for himself instead of just putting words in his mouth.
=================================================== begin quote

"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; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. [/B]

And this is a damnable doctrine"

==>Darwin (1887) I p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

Darwin Online: Life and Letters and Autobiography

Yes, that's part of it, and I recognize this material from back when I was studying for my Master's.

But your quotes aren't the whole story with Charles Darwin, there's more, and this is the case even though we can likely say that it wasn't the death of his daughter alone that "caused" him to apostasize from his former Christian faith.

So with that, here's some additional information that we should be sure to add to the overall analysis:
1) The Tragic Death Of Charles Darwin's Oldest Daughter - Grunge (and the rest of this same article, not just the portion about his daughter's death)​
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,332
385
Midwest
✟126,125.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The teaching of Evolution is a 'rationalizing' of world history that was a necessary requirement of post-Enlightenment / modern society.

There's some excellent academic work on this, specifically Rhetorical Darwinism by Thomas Lessl.

In that book he starts with Francis Bacon and his efforts (and successes) to change the fundamentals of intellectual thought to a scientific mode, and then goes on to show a similar path via Thomas Huxley with Darwinism whereby it has become a fundamental aspect of all modern thought.
 
Upvote 0