darwin's beliefs

archaeologist · Jul 18, 2007

in all of these discussions on origins it would be wise to examine the source from which evolution spawned. now i titled this with darwin's name as it will be the starting point as most people refer to him and not any one else as the founder of the evolution 'movement'.

here are a couple quotes from darwin's own words to get this discussion rolling. taken from:

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

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 very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since 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 the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

[Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws/QUOTE]

Click to expand...

That there is much suffering in he world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentinent beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to supose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

Click to expand...

**note, that this quote contains the words quoted to me by a TE in hopes of confusing the religious origin of evolution. notice that it does not refer to God as being believed but argued against and does not support the contention that Darwin based his theory in God or was led by God to produce this line of thinking.

Formely I was led by feelings such as those just referred to, (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember by conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.

Click to expand...

that should be enough to get started after discussing darwin's beliefs, we can go on to wallace's, lyell's, and others if you are not convinced that evolution is not of God by that time.

KerrMetric · Jul 18, 2007

fix your post

archaeologist · Jul 18, 2007

USincognito · Jul 18, 2007

And these quotes were written before or after Origin was published?

metherion · Jul 18, 2007

Why is this even relevant?

Why does what Darwin did or did not believe factor into people's acceptance of evolution?

Darwin didn't become an agnostic until after his daughter died in 1851. Not because of evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, show exactly how the mention of God several times in Origin of Species shows that the idea is completely without God.

Meh. That's it. Now, I officially declare and will argue that since Darwin's beliefs are somehow relevant to evolutionary theory and prove it to be not of God, King James' homosexual orientation taints the King James Version Bible and that particular translation is now an abomination against God.

Ridiculous idea? Maybe, but until someone shows me how it's okay for Darwin but wrong against the KJV, it stands.

Metherion

Edit: Something I forgot to put it.

Would it reflect at all on the validity of the Bible if Ken Ham or Kent Hovind suddenly renounced their faith? If so, why, and if not, why does it matter for Origin of Species?

shernren · Jul 18, 2007

And archie, Tim Berners-Lee is a Unitarian Universalist (in short, he doesn't believe that God is a Trinity or that anyone will go to hell). So doesn't that make the Internet godlessly immoral? What are you doing here?

billwald · Jul 19, 2007

Doesn't matter what darwin believed except as a history of the science.

Dannager · Jul 19, 2007

Really don't care what Darwin believed.

I don't care whether the guy who makes my sandwiches is a Christian, Muslim, Pagan or atheist. If he makes a good sandwich, I'll keep coming back. I do love a good sandwich.

You just don't like what he had to say, archaeologist. This is one way for you try justify the feeling of discomfort you get when your beliefs are challenged. It's okay. We know how this works.

archaeologist · Jul 19, 2007

Would it reflect at all on the validity of the Bible if Ken Ham or Kent Hovind suddenly renounced their faith

neither originated the Bible, moot point.

Why does what Darwin did or did not believe factor into people's acceptance of evolution?

believers are to consider the source. if it is not of God then they must do away with it. evolution leads away from or tries to replace God, no believer should have anything to do with the theory.

Darwin didn't become an agnostic until after his daughter died in 1851. Not because of evolutionary theory

doesn't matter. if you read the quotes you would see that he admited that God never took hold in him which means his perspective was not divinely grounded.

Ridiculous idea? Maybe, but until someone shows me how it's okay for Darwin but wrong against the KJV, it stands.

you have your wires crossed. King James did not write the Bible, did not edit it, did not participate in the translation process. his sexual preferences has nothing to do with influencing the Bible in any way.

darwin on the other hand, thought, wrote, investigated published his owntheory which is now leading people astray. a big difference between the two, i would say.

And archie, Tim Berners-Lee is a Unitarian Universalist (in short, he doesn't believe that God is a Trinity or that anyone will go to hell). So doesn't that make the Internet godlessly immoral? What are you doing here?

what does this have to do with anything? are you using the internet to change God's word? deny His words? etc.

false point.

[Doesn't matter what darwin believed except as a history of the science/QUOTE]

actually it does, for God said to not follow the world or its thinking. showing that darwin was not of God allows people to reject his theories and return to God.

You just don't like what he had to say, archaeologist. This is one way for you try justify the feeling of discomfort you get when your beliefs are challenged

Click to expand...

sorry you are wrong. it is about trying tostop people from makingbig mistakes in their lives, getting them to return to God and forsake the world's ways.

people think that science has been given pass on God's laws and commands...it hasn't and those who forget to apply God's directives to their lives while in science are just getting themselves in deep trouble.

USincognito · Jul 19, 2007

archaeologist said:
believers are to consider the source. if it is not of God then they must do away with it.

shernren said:
And archie, Tim Berners-Lee is a Unitarian Universalist (in short, he doesn't believe that God is a Trinity or that anyone will go to hell). So doesn't that make the Internet godlessly immoral? What are you doing here?

archaeologist said:
what does this have to do with anything? are you using the internet to change God's word? deny His words? etc.

What is it like to be born without a sense of irony?

Hnefi · Jul 19, 2007

archaeologist said:
believers are to consider the source. if it is not of God then they must do away with it.

Believers who believe only for the sake of belief itself might base their opinion on the source and the source alone. Everyone with a rational, critical outlook, however, will consider the statement itself before considering the source. Only if the individual cannot reliably determine whether the statement holds any merit is the source considered.

Take Behe for example. I consider his concept of irreducible complexity to be hogwash, because the concept itself doesn't hold up to scrutiny. However, Behe has written many relevant and valuable texts on other subjects. That he is wrong about one thing has no particular bearing on his ability to be correct on another.

Dannager · Jul 19, 2007

archaeologist said:
sorry you are wrong.

No, I'm not. We get this all the time, archaeologist. It's frustratingly common. It's the root of why most creationists remain creationists even after being exposed to evidence that directly refutes their position. And of course you're not willing to admit that it's true. If you were, you'd also switch positions. Willful ignorance lets you avoid the rigors of intellectual honesty - you don't need to be consistent if you are able to mentally block out everything that you disagree with.

You're comfortable where you are. You have your rickity, glass-fortress beliefs and the opportunity to defend them against what you must tell yourself is the influence of Satan or somesuch. And that mentality further emboldens you, because you take to heart the idea that Christians are always the underdogs. Except you (and most other fundamentalists) draw it out to the ridiculous conclusion that the more people who are against you, the more correct you must be. The end result is that being told (and shown!) that you're wrong simply entrenches you in your dogma more, rather than causing you to give pause and examine your beliefs for a moment.

This is how it always goes.

it is about trying tostop people from makingbig mistakes in their lives, getting them to return to God and forsake the world's ways.

We haven't left God. Evolution is one of God's ways. You just don't like to consider that, because it would mean a drastic re-examination of your closely-held religious beliefs, and that's uncomfortable for you.

people think that science has been given pass on God's laws and commands...it hasn't and those who forget to apply God's directives to their lives while in science are just getting themselves in deep trouble.

Haha, God's "directives"? God didn't give science any. God did give us brains, and the ability to employ logic and rational observation. I imagine that creationists forsaking those mighty gifts must be taken as a rather stinging insult to God.

shernren · Jul 19, 2007

archaeologist said:
believers are to consider the source. if it is not of God then they must do away with it. evolution leads away from or tries to replace God, no believer should have anything to do with the theory.

And yet, the "source" of the Internet is a guy who doesn't believe in hell or the Trinity. Why do you have anything to do with it?

And if you want a rogues' gallery, what about the Bible? Think about all its writers. David was an adulterer and a murderer, Moses couldn't control his temper. Paul was so unedified after his trip to the third heaven that God had to give him a thorn in the flesh just to keep him on the ground. "Sure, but those guys believed God." Fair enough - Darwin did too, to some degree, while he was writing The Origin of the Species. But God tells Zophar, Bildad, and Eliphaz that they spoke wrongly about Him and calls them to repent - does that mean "no believer should have anything to do with" three-quarters of the book of Job? And what of Ecclesiastes, which is mostly written from an agnostic if not atheistic viewpoint? What's it doing in a Bible when believers should be avoiding the products of godlessness?

metherion · Jul 19, 2007

you have your wires crossed. King James did not write the Bible, did not edit it, did not participate in the translation process. his sexual preferences has nothing to do with influencing the Bible in any way.

darwin on the other hand, thought, wrote, investigated published his owntheory which is now leading people astray. a big difference between the two, i would say.

King James authorized the KJV and codified it, making sure among other things that the translations would support the stance of the Church of England. So, yes. He did participate in the translationg process, making sure many points were translated a specific way, even if he himself didn't do it. He had much more to do with it than you give him credit for.

Also, evolutionary theory has changed a LOT since Darwin's day. Furthermore, Darwin was not the first person so suggest that species changed over time. Ideas such as Lamarckism predate Darwinian evolution (Lamarck died 29 years before Origin of Species was published). He did not think the entire thing up by himself. He just authored the beginning of a great many changes to the ideas that are now evolutionary theory.

They're not nearly as different as you'd like to believe. Both provided guidelines for changes to already existing material. Both books are rather influential books. And both people had unBiblical traits.

So it stands.

Metherion

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 19, 2007

Interesting point about James I: without him there would have been no recognised translation into English. We should thank him.

Archie, what say you?

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 19, 2007

archaeologist said:
....

please provide proof for such a statement. in all my history classes, that has never come up besides if he was wanting things said ina certainway, why did he leave the homosexual passages alone?
'.....

I recall debating with you in another place about James' sexuality and that considerable references notwithstanding you remained adamantly unconvinced that he was so inclined.

Have you now altered your position?

Assyrian · Jul 19, 2007

archaeologist said:
That there is much suffering in he world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentinent beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to supose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

Click to expand...

**note, that this quote contains the words quoted to me by a TE in hopes of confusing the religious origin of evolution. notice that it does not refer to God as being believed but argued against and does not support the contention that Darwin based his theory in God or was led by God to produce this line of thinking.

Perhaps you could provide a link for this this discussion. I don't remember seeing that quote brought up here before.

You keep bringing up Darwin's religious views, but you never do explain why that is relevant when the theory of a round earth came from a pagan Greek and we got the structure of DNA from two atheists Watson and Crick.

Assyrian · Jul 19, 2007

archaeologist said:
Dannager said:

We haven't left God. Evolution is one of God's ways

Click to expand...

you love to say that but you have never posted contextual scriptures to prove it

Your argument doesn't make sense. Do you need contextual scriptures to prove the earth orbits the sun? Do you have any scriptural proof? Or can you show from scripture that DNA is a double helix? How about the inverse square law of gravity? If they aren't demonstrated scripture, why do you think evolution should be?

although the Bible says God created not used a natural process. you are just wrong, you have denied and left God.

Do you have reference for that?

TomBormat · Jul 19, 2007

RudolphHucker said:
I recall debating with you in another place about James' sexuality and that considerable references notwithstanding you remained adamantly unconvinced that he was so inclined.

Have you now altered your position?

Wait a minute now, RH. If King James was off buggering people, he should have been stoned to death, not translating the Bible!

The King is dead, long live the King (Archie)!

metherion · Jul 19, 2007

Well, Archie, we appear to be at a bit of a standstill regarding sources, since that is what I was taught in the history classes at my college.

And since it's the summer, I'm not there, so I lack the huge library I usually go to for giving source information.

So I tell ya what. Drop me a PM with a copy of the statement you want proof for and when I get back to college in the last few days of August or the beginning of September I shall go get my sources and ressurect this thread if I must to post them.

But, I can guaruntee you if you don't PM me I will forget.

Now, to the rest.

besides if he was wanting things said ina certainway, why did he leave the homosexual passages alone?

Perhaps he still thought it was wrong and couldn't help himself. Perhaps he didn't want to tip off the people doing the work that it was done at the behest of a gay king. Or perhaps it was because it wasn't him doing the actual translating, just giving it guidelines. You'd have to ask him yourself.

the rest of your arguments are poor interpretations as you continue to look for excuses and justifications to pursue what God said not to do.

What? I could have sworn He said we would know Him via His creation. I could have sworn we were told to look at nature to see His glory. I also could have sworn we were told NOT to put ANYTHING before Him, including a few passages from a book, however holy it might be. Please tell me where exactly in the Bible it specifically tells us not to try and understand our world, to study biological evolution, etc.

And do not question my opinion of God. That's between me and Him, and my ideas on how the people behind two books stack up has nothing to do with it.

Metherion

darwin's beliefs

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Veteran

you are not reading this.

Contributor

Back in Town

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Regular Member

Back in Town

you are not reading this.

Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Active Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency