Evolution is NOT atheism

[lucaspa]

Yes you can! You see Darwin was bringing up a theory that was being introduced into a mainly christian society. Being that it would bring major problems because of this, he had to soften the blow somewhat by mentioning a creator. So when the subject came up, it could be said that this was in his book. Very ingenious actually. But actually how many references to a creator are there? And why did he not base his theory on how God started evolution instead of leaving "The Creator" out of his theory? A mere mention of something proves nothing!

How many references in Origin. About 100 or so.

If you notice, Darwin has the Creator making the first cell directly. Exactly what creationists want.

So you think Darwin was an atheist. This is from a letter that Darwin wrote to a friend in the latter days of his life. He has no reason to lie or dissemble. It was a private letter.

"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. ... I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Oh, in the ellipses, he states that he has "wild swings" of belief, but those so-called "wild" swings never bring him to atheism.

Darwin remained a member in good standing of his local Anglican Church. His longest friendship was with the local pastor -- Brody Innes -- who defended Darwin against people like you who tried to call him an atheist.

Also, if Darwin was an atheist, why would he put this falsification of atheism in the Fontispiece of Origin?

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

That idea, if true, blows atheism away. It also fulfills your request that Darwin talk about "how God started evolution ". By this quote, God is behind EVERYTHING that is 'natural', including evolution.

That creationists cannot accept God like this -- the Biblical God -- doesn't mean Darwin couldn't.

 

[lucaspa]

Darwin Vader was a christian, wasnt he schooling to be a pastor, almost finished?
Or maybe catholic clergy.

Ikster, I have read a few of Darwins Books and personal letters he wrote to personal friends...HE WAS A CHRISTIAN

Darwin was at Cambridge studying to be a pastor. He wasn't that interested in it -- didn't have the vocation -- but it was THE major way for poor men to be scientists. Practically all Darwin's scientist friends were also Anglican clergy. There really wasn't a way for someone to be paid to be a scientist like there is now. You had to have a day job or be independently wealthy. The day job then was minister.

In the event, when Darwin was invited to be the naturalist on the Beagle, it kick started his career as scientist. By the time Darwin got back to England he had such a good professional reputation (all in advance of evolution) that Daddy (who was wealthy) bought him a village and Darwin lived off the rents.

 

[lucaspa]

That's very funny. Troll? And how fast did you and others respond after me? 3 posts that were almost automatic, and I'm the troll? You guys crack me up.

OK. Then you are undercover atheist trying to destroy Christianity from the inside.

The point remains, Ikester, that Darwin discussed the Creator in a favorable light:
1. Giving the Creator a direct creation of the first life

2. Assigning the Creator as being behind evolution and using it as His "secondary cause" of creation.

I think you missed the significance of that "secondary cause". In the language of Christianity, God works two ways: primary or direct causation and secondary, or indirect causation. Darwin was using the code words that firmly put evolution as a means used by God. Rather than denying God, Darwin was confirming Him to anyone who knows anything about Christianity and Christian thought.

Here's what Christians (who are also creationists) say about the two means of causation:

" Most biblical theists, for example, assume that God acts in at least two ways: (1) through the natural regularities or laws that he upholds and sustanins through his invisible power and (2) through more dramatic, discernible and discrete actions at particular points in time. Because theists assume that the second mode of divine action is by far the rarer and usually associated with the accomplishment of some particular divine purpose on behalf of human beings" Stephen C. Meyer, The methodological equivalence of design and descent: can there be a scientific "theory of creation"? in The Creation Hypothesis, Scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer, 1994, pg 97-98

 

[Freodin]

That's very funny. Troll? And how fast did you and others respond after me? 3 posts that were almost automatic, and I'm the troll? You guys crack me up.

Your denial isn´t evidence that you are not a troll.

.
.
.

I have to apologize. No, I do not really think you are a troll, atheist or otherwise.

I simply used that as an example of how your post appears to us.