Cryptozoology forums > Debates > Evolution vs. Creationism > view thread
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: Hootowl posted Sun, Nov 1 2009, 6:27pm 
Charles Darwin was raised as a nominal Christian, and ended his life a confirmed agnostic. From his own autobiography (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin ... - Google Books):

""By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories." (p.86)

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was 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." (p.87)

"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 my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (p. 87)

"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 had 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 which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." (p.87)

"At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." (p.91)

"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." (p.93)"


If you believe this agnosticism bordering on atheism was not influenced by his views on evolution, then you are deluding yourself.
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: Guodzilla posted Sun, Nov 1 2009, 6:32pm 
Agnosticism is not, never has been, and never will be atheism.
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: rwrazor13 posted Wed, Nov 11 2009, 4:56pm 
Completely agree. Agnosticism is simply saying one doesn't know. Way more honest a way of thinking than atheism.
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: Guodzilla posted Sun, Nov 1 2009, 7:09pm 
"Many false religions" --So, pray tell, which one is the TRUE religion, or IS there a one true religion? I am Episcopalian, but I would never once be so self-absorbed as to proselytize my own religion above that of others. I have friends who are atheistic, Wiccan, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and I have even had acquaintances who were Buddhist and Hindu. Absolutely NEVER would I dare to do something as selfish as to encroach on their fundamental beliefs, many of which are perfectly compatible with my own.

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was 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." --That sounds more like a change in personal belief, not in presenting scientific fact. I consider it a mistake to confuse the two. Personal belief can be changed by tangible (and previously-experienced) scientific fact and should never be regarded as immutable. People change their minds over all sorts of things; that's human nature.

"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 my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." --Again, this is simply indicative of his own changing personal beliefs, NOT a scientific equation, set of specimens, structural model, etc. which would or would not prove God exists.

"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 had 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 which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws."
--John Warwick Montgomery has stated that evolution fails to prove the absence of God just as thoroughly as Creationism fails to conclusively prove his existence. This passage is an illustration of that. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Evolution is not and never has been atheistic. To be more precise, it is "nontheistic," meaning that belief in God is one thing, and belief in evolution is another, entirely unrelated subject. As I constantly say in here, using the bible to teach geology, biology or any of the earth sciences is absolutely as ridiculous as using Shakespeare to teach math.

"At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists."
--again, this harkens back to the misconception that there is one, and only one, TRUE religion in the world, and all other religions are false, along with their god(s.) However, that being said, which of any person alive, either in 1872, or in 2009, has the temerity to state with any affirmation that his (or her) religion is the true one? I certainly don't, and I know of nobody else who is. Anyone who states "I AM!" is lying. I also don't pass judgment on atheists, because they have a right to believe (or disbelieve) as they choose.

"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." --I, myself, experienced the exact same thing when I was a child. I was born and raised Catholic, underwent a nine-year interval of agnosticism and then a gradual but steady metamorphosis back into Christianity. I shook off the brainwashing of my youth and tried to live without God for nine years (BIG mistake!) Afterward, I returned to Christianity and eventually regained my strong religious faith, based now in Episcopalianism. No brainwashing needed for my return. However, what bodily harm could there be in atheism or in theism? For the moment, absolutely none. THAT is the statement behind evolutionism. Evolutionism must be known for what it is: An understanding of how things are, right now, in the present. Religious belief is an attempt to make sense of what is to come in our own personal future when our time on earth is done. That's perfectly fine with me. I'll continue on going to church every Sunday and performing my parish duties, and Charles Darwin will be happily and companionably sitting down for lunch with Jesus in my mind.
In sum, all of those quotes simply illustrated Darwin's changing personal beliefs within himself. They happened to him and him alone, just as our own mental paradigm shifts happen to all of us, personally. There were no scientific principles stated which turned the tables on the wholesale belief in God. If a number of people turned atheist or agnostic through Darwin's words, then so be it! That does NOT mean God doesn't exist.

Personally, I am frightened of Creationism because to me, it seems like an attempt to put a yoke around God's neck and a bit in his mouth. I strongly caution against trying to put God in a specimen bottle, because that sounds like an attempt to prove oneself above God, and THAT, last I heard, is blasphemy.
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: lowredx posted Sun, Nov 1 2009, 8:17pm 
Nice post and it is called Hootism in case your wondering.
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 11:09am 
which of any person alive, either in 1872, or in 2009, has the temerity to state with any affirmation that his (or her) religion is the true one? Hooty, that's the one.

That was a good post, Guodzilla. At an old thread of mine I explained how I underwent a process very similar to Darwin's, vis-ΰ-vis my Faith. This had nothing to do with evolution, but with a growing realization that the God "description" I was reared believing in did not fit the facts. That we can't understand God, much less try to "box" Him. My teachers assumed evolution as matter of fact, BTW.

Evolution theory, and Science, does not go against God. It does go, forcibly, against a literal interpretation of the Bible, because those writing the Bible weren't very concerned about Science. Couldn't care less, I suspect.

I say that the Christian Religion, some sects more than others, are fundamentally wrong in that they claim to be the only true ones. That has nothing to do with poor Darwing; if he had not been born this fundamental flaw would still be there. Of course when one starts believing oneself to be the only official translator of the Word Of God, things start going downhill from an already flawed start.

But that is only MY OPINION, folks !!! I MAY be WRONG !!! Don't let me pick your brains !!!
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: Hootowl posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 3:07pm 
"So, pray tell, which one is the TRUE religion, or IS there a one true religion? I am Episcopalian, but I would never once be so self-absorbed as to proselytize my own religion above that of others."

Then the obvious question arises - Why are you an Episcopalian? If your religion is a better path than those of your friends, it would be quite selfish of you to deny them the opportunity of hearing your reasoning of why the Episcopal religion is your faith of choice.

If your religion is not a better path to salvation than that of your friends, the other obvious question arises - Why don't your friends care enough about you to teach you the possibly superior value of their faiths?

Being an Episcopalian, I would assume you accept Jesus as your Saviour, and would seek to follow his advice in how to live your faith. As just one example:

Matthew 28:17-20 - "And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”"

Jesus was quite clear that Christians are supposed to preach the Word to others, not keep it to themselves.

If you feel the Christian faith has nothing better to offer mankind than atheism or devil-worship, then I am, for once, speechless.

The rest of your commentary is pretty much "It's okay to be a Christian and believe in materialistic evolution." I strongly disagree. Belief in his version of evolution destroyed whatever flicker of faith in God Darwin had, and believers in it have used it to do much harm in the world.

I fail to see the connection between believing God created life, and directed it's development, with blasphemy. I call it giving God the credit He deserves, and that He himself takes credit for in the Bible.
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: Entity posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 4:49am 
"and believers in it have used it to do much harm in the world. "

What harm? Give an example.

And do not forget how many people were killed in the name of the biblical god, allah and many other deities. That is not an "atheistic evolution" world view but religious.
Subject: Re: How many have read Origin of Species?
From: schloaty posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 3:56pm 
To add on to what you say....

What people DO with information in NO WAY impacts the veracity of that information.

Catholoism's truth is not affected by the Crusades.
Evolution's truth is not affected by social Lamarkism.

These are argument falacies - the appeal to nazims (has a true fallacy name, but I can't remember).


Close Window