Charles Darwin & Genesis 3:5

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution can’t drag race with king mantis shrimp it packs quite the bunch the heat generated is hot as the sun and produces light.

"I don't understand evolution, or even the basics of science, therefore it is wrong."

 

[BeyondET]

"I don't understand evolution, or even the basics of science, therefore it is wrong."

its like clay in a potter's hand

 

[Kylie]

In Genesis 3:5, the serpent promised Eve that she could become like God, through special knowledge apart from what God had chosen to reveal.

All religions based on salvation through one's own attainment of special knowledge or enlightenment, such as Gnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, occultism, new age, etc. stem from the same false promise that we can become gods unto ourselves.

With Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, this age-old promise of Satan became cloaked in scientific language. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Darwin gave the masses permission to be gods unto themselves, making their own morality apart from God's commands, by demonstrating that we don’t need God for our very existence, but instead that we are the result of a mechanistic evolutionary process.

This sounds like, "The Bible says that Satan will try to give you knowledge without it coming from God," and then you can claim that any knowledge you don't like doesn't come from God, you can claim it comes from Satan, thus proving your holy book of choice correct.

I don't see how that's a logically valid argument.

 

[d taylor]

This sounds like, "The Bible says that Satan will try to give you knowledge without it coming from God," and then you can claim that any knowledge you don't like doesn't come from God, you can claim it comes from Satan, thus proving your holy book of choice correct.

I don't see how that's a logically valid argument.

Maybe that is your problem, you do not know what the Bible actually states.

This is what satan/the serpent said " For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Nothing about satan giving knowledge

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I am re-reading the Book of Genesis, and I just finished the part where Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.

It's very clear that the text is condemning their practice of homosexuality, and yet we are taught by public schools and mainstream media today that homosexuality is perfectly okay.

Why is this? Does this have anything to do with Charles Darwin, and how he created widespread doubt that God created male and female, as two distinct genders, for heterosexual relations alone?

 

[Bradskii]

I am re-reading the Book of Genesis, and I just finished the part where Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.

It's very clear that the text is condemning their practice of homosexuality, and yet we are taught by public schools and mainstream media today that homosexuality is perfectly okay.

Why is this? Does this have anything to do with Charles Darwin, and how he created widespread doubt that God created male and female, as two distinct genders, for heterosexual relations alone?

I'm not sure. But I read somewhere that Darwin was a big fan of musical theatre. I guess you can draw your own conclusions from that as to the reasons he wrote that book. Know what I mean..?

What punishment do you think we should reintroduce for homosexuals, HD?

 

[Gene2memE]

Why is this? Does this have anything to do with Charles Darwin, and how he created widespread doubt that God created male and female, as two distinct genders, for heterosexual relations alone?

Darwin's views on gender and homosexuality were, as one biology professor puts it, "utterly conventional" for a man of his station, time and place. Another biology professor classes them as "remarkable only for their orthodoxy”.

Even in the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin's view was that there were only two genders:

"Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestication in one sex and become hereditarily attached to that sex, so no doubt it will be under nature. Thus it is rendered possible for the two sexes to be modified through natural selection in relation to different habits of life, as is sometimes the case; or for one sex to be modified in relation to the other sex, as commonly occurs."
​

For his views on homosexuality - which were, again, pretty much exactly in line with the thinking of his time and place - you can read this article.

Short summary: Darwin didn't create "widespread doubt that God created male and female, as two distinct genders, for heterosexual relations alone".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am re-reading the Book of Genesis, and I just finished the part where Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.

It's very clear that the text is condemning their practice of homosexuality, and yet we are taught by public schools and mainstream media today that homosexuality is perfectly okay.

Why is this? Does this have anything to do with Charles Darwin, and how he created widespread doubt that God created male and female, as two distinct genders, for heterosexual relations alone?

I think that what you're saying is a load of bull.

 

[Astrid]

I am re-reading the Book of Genesis, and I just finished the part where Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.

It's very clear that the text is condemning their practice of homosexuality, and yet we are taught by public schools and mainstream media today that homosexuality is perfectly okay.

Why is this? Does this have anything to do with Charles Darwin, and how he created widespread doubt that God created male and female, as two distinct genders, for heterosexual relations alone?

Maybe it is that public schools are no
longer controlled by the church.

Chances are you do not want the Mormons,
Scientologists, etc running the schools.
In America, that's illegal.

Trying to connect everything you find
undesirable in society to Darwin is silly.

 

[Astrid]

Darwin's views on gender and homosexuality were, as one biology professor puts it, "utterly conventional" for a man of his station, time and place. Another biology professor classes them as "remarkable only for their orthodoxy”.

Even in the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin's view was that there were only two genders:

"Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestication in one sex and become hereditarily attached to that sex, so no doubt it will be under nature. Thus it is rendered possible for the two sexes to be modified through natural selection in relation to different habits of life, as is sometimes the case; or for one sex to be modified in relation to the other sex, as commonly occurs."
​

For his views on homosexuality - which were, again, pretty much exactly in line with the thinking of his time and place - you can read this article.

Short summary: Darwin didn't create "widespread doubt that God created male and female, as two distinct genders, for heterosexual relations alone".

Observing that male and female are not
distinct in all organisms has nothing to
do with people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe it is that public schools are no longer controlled by the church.

I think that's his point.

Chances are you do not want the Mormons, Scientologists, etc running the schools.

That is correct. But that's for other reasons.

In America, that's illegal.

Not if the school is a private one.

Trying to connect everything you find undesirable in society to Darwin is silly.

Well I could name others, but then that would just give you more names to huff and puff about.

 

[Oneiric1975]

M
Trying to connect everything you find
undesirable in society to Darwin is silly.

Want to have some fun? Try pointing out things people of faith have done that are undesirable and see how many apologists turn up and how many excuses they come up with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Want to have some fun?

Sure.

Try pointing out things people of faith have done that are undesirable and see how many apologists turn up and how many excuses they come up with.

Sure thing ... let's go!

I'll do my three favorites:

1. the Crusades
2. the Inquisition
3. the Salem witch trials

Excuse I came up with: All done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.

Neat, huh?

 

[Astrid]

Want to have some fun? Try pointing out things people of faith have done that are undesirable and see how many apologists turn up and how many excuses they come up with.

Uh, no thanks.
We all know there's hypocrisy and failure
to be found in people and their institutions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh, no thanks.

Oh, c'mon ... just one, please?

We all know there's hypocrisy and failure to be found in people and their institutions.

That's against the Bible too.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Sure.Sure thing ... let's go!

I'll do my three favorites:

1. the Crusades
2. the Inquisition
3. the Salem witch trials

Excuse I came up with: All done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.

Neat, huh?

And we've been through this before. So long as you are equally agreeable that horrors laid at the feet of "evolutionary theory" are done not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it, we're all OK!

 

[AV1611VET]

And we've been through this before. So long as you are equally agreeable that horrors laid at the feet of "evolutionary theory" are done not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it, we're all OK!

Okay ... that's fair.

But let me ask you this:

Why is the Bible so clear-cut, but evolutionary theory isn't?

For example, a child can take the Bible and show someone that the witch trials were wrong; but even a scientist had to learn that eugenics leads to inbreeding depression.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Why is the Bible so clear-cut, but evolutionary theory isn't?

For example, a child can take the Bible and show someone that the witch trials were wrong

Clearly that is wrong. The bible clearly states in Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

 

[AV1611VET]

Clearly that is wrong. The bible clearly states in Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

So are you saying that those women were bona fide witches?

I don't think they were.

For one thing, they were called witches by their antagonists.

For another, even if they called themselves witches, they weren't.

A bona fide witch had the ability to call a person's spirit up from Paradise.

Remember the witch of Endor in the Old Testament?

The powers they possessed back then makes the self-proclaimed witches of today look like cartoon characters.

 

[Oneiric1975]

So are you saying that those women were bona fide witches?

I don't think they were.

Thanks to science we know that witches don't exist! But back in more benighted times when people of faith actually believed in witches why would they think the Bible was wrong?

The powers they possessed back then makes the self-proclaimed witches of today look like cartoon characters.

See? You found a way to make excuses for religion! QED.