PDA

View Full Version : Was Darwin a theist?



Cat
01-02-2005, 07:45 PM
Barry is natural selection neccessarily anticreation? I have previously done some reading, but not for a while, quite a while.

Why ask Barry? he's a bloody mathematician! He's just messing with your head Scott. You need to ask that question to someone with an honours degree in Genetics from London, like what I've got Scotty! And the answer to your question is that natural selection is entirely consistent with Creationism. I mean, even Darwin knew there was a God! And there's even a suggestion there may be a God gene, put there by the Great Creator himself!

antichrist
01-02-2005, 08:27 PM
Apes evolved out of Creationists.

Rincewind
01-02-2005, 11:39 PM
Barry is natural selection neccessarily anticreation? I have previously done some reading, but not for a while, quite a while.


Why ask Barry? he's a bloody mathematician! He's just messing with your head Scott. You need to ask that question to someone with an honours degree in Genetics from London, like what I've got Scotty! And the answer to your question is that natural selection is entirely consistent with Creationism. I mean, even Darwin knew there was a God! And there's even a suggestion there may be a God gene, put there by the Great Creator himself!

Not sure that a degree in Genetics, honours or otherwise is really that helpful. And I'm not sure that Charles Darwin wasn't a aetheist he certainly made a number of concessions on account of his deeply religious wife and his retiring nature. But his deeply held views on religion is another question entirely and totally irrelevent to Scott's question.

Natural selection is basically the process which says specimens which are best suited to their environment will survive and displace those which are less well suited. Evolution says that random mutation with natural selection will cause species to evolve and eventually diverge to the point that one homogeneous population bcomes two populations which biologists would recognise as distinct species. On a larger timescale this leads to new families, orders, etc, etc, etc.

There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.

So the problem with the orthodox position is they pretty much are forced to admit we are related to the apes. Which means if we go far enough back through your parents we will get to an smoething which is no longer human or even homonid. In fact, go far enough back and you and the chimpanzees at the zoo will have a common ancestor. What's more that common ancestor is the chimps closest common ancestor to any other species on earth. The current thinking is humans and chimps separated later than we did from the other apes, including gorillas (the chimps next closest relatives).

Now if this isn't foundation rocking enough, another thing which may be a problem is the origin of the original sin. If there was no single Adam and Eve and garden of Eden, how did original sin come into being, and if you toss out that, it makes much of the gospel more than a little irrelevent. Anyway, mileage may vary on this one depending on the theological importance of the original sin and so I won't say too much more.

The special creationists have the problem of God intervening quite a bit in the history of the earth. Not a major problem, but also taking quite a long time to get to "the point" from a religious angle. That is creating species that can actualy believe. I mean, why waste 200+ million years witht the dinosaurs only to wipe most of them out? Seems to present more questions than it answers.

The young earthers and just so wrong science-wise the position is only tenable in you accept the conspiracy explanation of scientific research in practically all the natural sciences. Hardly worth wasting breath on.

There are more than three positions and I might be accused of providing strawman refutations the the three I presented - so be it. But hopefully you find my post interesting and more use than just a couple of unfounded and misleading (in my view) statements about the importance of genetics (genetics and genes were unknown to Darwin when he wrote the Origin of Species) and Darwin's religious position (which in my view is by no means clear).

antichrist
02-02-2005, 02:42 AM
At the time of Darwin's death, Creationists reakoned that on is deathbed he recanted all of his On the Origin of the Species. But his wife soon after rebutted this and copies of her documents on this are available.

Even if Darwin recanted it is almost meaningless, a theory holds up or doesn't regardless.

And as someone doubted my credibility/repuatation earlier on another thread and I did not get around to answer, that if it was terrible Hitler who had discovered that two plus two equals four, it would still equal four.

So all the imbeciles who try to smear my views by "association" have now being taught another lesson.

Spiny Norman
02-02-2005, 06:36 AM
And as someone doubted my credibility/repuatation earlier on another thread and I did not get around to answer, that if it was terrible Hitler who had discovered that two plus two equals four, it would still equal four.

All we need now is for someone to expand at little on the Hitler comments, a bit more to-ing and fro-ing, and then KB can invoke Godwin's law. ;)

But you're right AC, a fact is a fact, regardless of who presents it.

See how conciliatory I can be? We might even become friends, who knows. :uhoh:

Spiny Norman
02-02-2005, 06:43 AM
There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.

Pretty good summary Barry. Problem with summaries though is that they tend to put people in boxes which (maybe) they don't quite belong in.

Myself for example ... if I had to choose between the three "boxes" above ... I'd fit more into the last one than the other two because I don't accept that natural selection produces change in species. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. I do believe that the earth appears to be substantially older than 10,000 years.

Maybe I'm a contradiction wrapped up in an anachronism? :hmm:

Cat
02-02-2005, 07:15 AM
Not sure that a degree in Genetics, honours or otherwise is really that helpful. And I'm not sure that Charles Darwin wasn't a aetheist he certainly made a number of concessions on account of his deeply religious wife and his retiring nature. But his deeply held views on religion is another question entirely and totally irrelevent to Scott's question.

Natural selection is basically the process which says specimens which are best suited to their environment will survive and displace those which are less well suited. Evolution says that random mutation with natural selection will cause species to evolve and eventually diverge to the point that one homogeneous population bcomes two populations which biologists would recognise as distinct species. On a larger timescale this leads to new families, orders, etc, etc, etc.

There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.

So the problem with the orthodox position is they pretty much are forced to admit we are related to the apes. Which means if we go far enough back through your parents we will get to an smoething which is no longer human or even homonid. In fact, go far enough back and you and the chimpanzees at the zoo will have a common ancestor. What's more that common ancestor is the chimps closest common ancestor to any other species on earth. The current thinking is humans and chimps separated later than we did from the other apes, including gorillas (the chimps next closest relatives).

Now if this isn't foundation rocking enough, another thing which may be a problem is the origin of the original sin. If there was no single Adam and Eve and garden of Eden, how did original sin come into being, and if you toss out that, it makes much of the gospel more than a little irrelevent. Anyway, mileage may vary on this one depending on the theological importance of the original sin and so I won't say too much more.

The special creationists have the problem of God intervening quite a bit in the history of the earth. Not a major problem, but also taking quite a long time to get to "the point" from a religious angle. That is creating species that can actualy believe. I mean, why waste 200+ million years witht the dinosaurs only to wipe most of them out? Seems to present more questions than it answers.

The young earthers and just so wrong science-wise the position is only tenable in you accept the conspiracy explanation of scientific research in practically all the natural sciences. Hardly worth wasting breath on.

There are more than three positions and I might be accused of providing strawman refutations the the three I presented - so be it. But hopefully you find my post interesting and more use than just a couple of unfounded and misleading (in my view) statements about the importance of genetics (genetics and genes were unknown to Darwin when he wrote the Origin of Species) and Darwin's religious position (which in my view is by no means clear).

Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies. What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 07:49 AM
Pretty good summary Barry. Problem with summaries though is that they tend to put people in boxes which (maybe) they don't quite belong in.

Myself for example ... if I had to choose between the three "boxes" above ... I'd fit more into the last one than the other two because I don't accept that natural selection produces change in species. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. I do believe that the earth appears to be substantially older than 10,000 years.

Maybe I'm a contradiction wrapped up in an anachronism? :hmm:

I don't intend to put people's views into boxes, but human nature is hard to avoid. It might be more useful to think about a belief continuum and what I described are just three point in a range of views.

Of course, you would know your own views best but you are sounding more like box #2 than #3 dweller to me. Perhaps I just didn't make box 2 sound inviting enough. ;)

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 08:02 AM
Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies.

Darwin didn't invent natural selection, he discovered it. Such linguistic abuse actually confuses your arguments. Had he invented it that would mean there could have been no evolution until the time of the publication of the Origin of Species. :eek:

I think the faith of Darwin is not a lay-down misere. He was a very retiring man and no doubt had a deeply religious upbringing and wife. He understood the theological implications of the Origin of Man but had the intellectual honesty to present to scientific results and have them stand on their merits without appeasing the religious opposition he knew it would attract.

Anyway, regardless of whether he invented NS or discovered it; regardless of whether Darwin was an aetheist or a Moony; the compatibilty of NS and creation is a complex question and should not be dismissed with some hand wavng and a vague statement on the supposed beliefs of Darwin.


What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?

What I tried to describe was natural selection. Please describe how it is inconsistent with the neo-Darwinians, in your view.

firegoat7
02-02-2005, 01:37 PM
Hello,

I call for a democratic vote on whether this thread ought to be split. It is clearly off track, not that this is a bad thing. I just want to call the moderators on consistency.

Cheers FG7

P.S ;) not that I believe that threads ought to be split, but I am curious to know whether Frosty does? Does this thread meet your criteria Frosty?

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 02:03 PM
I call for a democratic vote on whether this thread ought to be split. It is clearly off track, not that this is a bad thing. I just want to call the moderators on consistency.

The importance of the role of evolution in undermining the absolutist position on the value of human life over all others I think warrants the digression and I don't feel it is as yet off-topic.

The question is if all (wo)mankind and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor in the reasonably recent past (last 10 million years say) then how can the position of a single human life being more valuable than all other life on the planet be sustained?

Oepty
02-02-2005, 02:58 PM
So Barry. I guess it is then fair to say that natural selection is not necessarily contradictory to evolution. I have absolutely no problem with it.
The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
Scott

antichrist
02-02-2005, 04:23 PM
Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies. What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?

Before reading the rest of the posts I read or seen on TV that Charlie became atheistic due to Problem of Evil, specifically, his young favourite daughter dying at an early age due to some disease. As he was earmarked by his father to become a pastor and had studied theology he did quite a turn around. I am sure this fact is easy to find.

Cat
02-02-2005, 04:24 PM
So Barry. I guess it is then fair to say that natural selection is not necessarily contradictory to evolution. I have absolutely no problem with it.
The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
Scott

Great post Scotty, I think you'll leave Barry gobsmacked!

Cat
02-02-2005, 04:26 PM
Before reading the rest of the posts I read or seen on TV that Charlie became atheistic due to Problem of Evil, specifically, his young favourite daughter dying at an early age due to some disease. As he was earmarked by his father to become a pastor and had studied theology he did quite a turn around. I am sure this fact is easy to find.

If he was an atheist, they would never have let him in the Royal Society!

Cat
02-02-2005, 04:29 PM
What I tried to describe was natural selection. Please describe how it is inconsistent with the neo-Darwinians, in your view.


Not inconsistent, just there is something more at work to explain diversity, speciation and gene creation than the Classical Theory. What is it - God knows!

antichrist
02-02-2005, 04:31 PM
The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
Scott

The "Bible junkies" have interpreted the Bible to pinpoint the creation of the earth by God at 10am (Oxford Uni time maybe), some day in October in 2004 BC.

I actually put out a commerative issue of a magazine when "we" were exactly 6,000 years old, in 1996 I think it was.

In fact it was a bishop whose name I can't catch. I actually got a mention on the backpage of the SMH for picking up this fact.

Alan Shore
02-02-2005, 04:33 PM
The "Bible junkies" have interpreted the Bible to pinpoint the creation of the earth by God at 10am (Oxford Uni time maybe), some day in October in 2004 BC.

I actually put out a commerative issue of a magazine when "we" were exactly 6,000 years old, in 1996 I think it was.

In fact it was a bishop whose name I can't catch. I actually got a mention on the backpage of the SMH for picking up this fact.

It was Bishop Usher.

antichrist
02-02-2005, 04:36 PM
If he was an atheist, they would never have let him in the Royal Society!

Not necessarily, anyway I said atheistic, which in his case meant looking at the totalily of his views over a period of time. Not a in-your-face, down-your-throat, up-your-backside atheist like I am.

It was not him who defended himself at the Royal Society, it was Darwin's bulldog - Huxley.

Anyway how could a man who on one side had a ape as a grandparent defend himself. Was it Bishop Wilberforce who said that?

antichrist
02-02-2005, 04:38 PM
It was Bishop Usher.

That is correct, though a chance it may have been spelt "Ussher", but I think your spelling may be correct.

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 04:39 PM
Not inconsistent, just there is something more at work to explain diversity, speciation and gene creation than the Classical Theory. What is it - God knows!

Can you support this claim?

Cat
02-02-2005, 04:40 PM
Not necessarily, anyway I said atheistic, which in his case meant looking at the totalily of his views over a period of time. Not a in-your-face, down-your-throat, up-your-backside atheist like I am.

It was not him who defended himself at the Royal Society, it was Darwin's bulldog - Huxley.

Anyway how could a man who on one side had a ape as a grandparent defend himself. Was it Bishop Wilberforce who said that?

It was policitically unacceptable for him to have been forthright with his private thoughts - his work was too important. I guess we'll never know, but it's useful propaganda!

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 04:46 PM
It was policitically unacceptable for him to have been forthright with his private thoughts - his work was too important. I guess we'll never know, but it's useful propaganda!

My guess is based on a number of his comments in various writings of Darwin over his career, is that by the end of his life he was as atheistic as was permissible by social convention of the time. That it to say he was probably whgat we would call today a deist or perhaps agnostic.

If we wish to discuss further, can repliers please reply in a new thread as I have pointed out earlier this is irrelevent.

Spiny Norman
02-02-2005, 05:31 PM
P.S ;) not that I believe that threads ought to be split, but I am curious to know whether Frosty does? Does this thread meet your criteria Frosty?

Not my decision ... its completely up to the moderators.

Putting myself in their shoes for a moment, I would only bother to split a thread if someone drew my attention to it and it was clearly running off-track.

It would be useful to leave behind a place-holder post showing people where the discussion had split off too, because some people seem to like the variation and some prefer to stay "on track".

BTW, at the risk of going off-topic myself, I achieved an important milestone myself yesterday. After more than six years of being a moderator for a variety of companies I banned my first user .... 48 hours, temporary ... I must be getting old 'n cranky.

ursogr8
02-02-2005, 07:09 PM
<snip>

BTW, at the risk of going off-topic myself, I achieved an important milestone myself yesterday. After more than six years of being a moderator for a variety of companies I banned my first user .... 48 hours, temporary ... I must be getting old 'n cranky.


Or learning something here. ;)

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 07:18 PM
Thread split.

Your friendly fascist moderator

Rincewind
02-02-2005, 07:20 PM
At the time of Darwin's death, Creationists reakoned that on is deathbed he recanted all of his On the Origin of the Species. But his wife soon after rebutted this and copies of her documents on this are available.

For the record, wasn't it his daughter, Henrietta, not his wife, Emma, who rebutted these claims?

Spiny Norman
02-02-2005, 07:28 PM
... fascist ...

Careful Barry, Godwin's Law lurks. ;)

Cat
02-02-2005, 11:13 PM
Can you support this claim?

Following Mendel's theories De Vries proposed that mutationism was the main agent of change and challenged natural selection. In the 1930's Dobzhansky proposed the Synthetic model resolving the differences between the 2 models. It's the Synthetic model that is largely accepted today.

antichrist
03-02-2005, 03:45 AM
For the record, wasn't it his daughter, Henrietta, not his wife, Emma, who rebutted these claims?

With most of my books in storage I can't check, but my memory tells me it was his wife. How about that spelling on Bishop Ussher(?)

What I tell Creationists is that if evolution was in the Bible they would support just as much as they support Creationism -- with or without evidence etc..

Rincewind
03-02-2005, 07:24 AM
Following Mendel's theories De Vries proposed that mutationism was the main agent of change and challenged natural selection. In the 1930's Dobzhansky proposed the Synthetic model resolving the differences between the 2 models. It's the Synthetic model that is largely accepted today.

Sorry David but I believe your summary is simply wrong. Mutationism was a strong but short lived trend. Dobzhansky showed that adaption by accumulation of gradual change could be made to work with Mendelian genetics and basically reinstated Darwinian natural selection. The modern sythesis is a synthesis of Darwianian selection and Mendelian genetics. De Vries idea of mutationism (large step changes in a single generation) has been pretty much shown the door. Hence the term neo-Darwinism.

Oepty
03-02-2005, 11:46 AM
I am not against the splitting of threads, but what a stupid question to make as the title. What does it matter whether Darwin was? It does not effect whether what he wrote was true or false. It should be judged on its merits. Even if Darwin did change his views after he wrote Origin of Species it is totally irrelevant. He might have wrongly changed his views away from evolution. What a stupid question to ask.
Scott

Rincewind
03-02-2005, 11:55 AM
I am not against the splitting of threads, but what a stupid question to make as the title. What does it matter whether Darwin was? It does not effect whether what he wrote was true or false. It should be judged on its merits. Even if Darwin did change his views after he wrote Origin of Species it is totally irrelevant. He might have wrongly changed his views away from evolution. What a stupid question to ask.
Scott

That was why it was split. Hopefully the value of human life debate can continue in the original thread of that name.

Oepty
03-02-2005, 11:57 AM
Then why was my post put in this thread and not left in place. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Darwin was a theist. It should have been left in place.
Scott

Rincewind
03-02-2005, 12:02 PM
Then why was my post put in this thread and not left in place. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Darwin was a theist. It should have been left in place.
Scott

Sorry Scott it was collatoral damage. Can you please repost it back in the original thread?

The problem was it was a reply to a reply after David's irrelevent and incorrect comment regarding the religious persuation of Darwin and it got picked up as a part of that sub-thread.

Please accept my apology for the inconvenience.

Oepty
03-02-2005, 12:04 PM
Okay Barry. Will do.
Scott

antichrist
03-02-2005, 02:38 PM
I am not against the splitting of threads, but what a stupid question to make as the title. What does it matter whether Darwin was? It does not effect whether what he wrote was true or false. It should be judged on its merits. Even if Darwin did change his views after he wrote Origin of Species it is totally irrelevant. He might have wrongly changed his views away from evolution. What a stupid question to ask.
Scott

Hey Freddy Scott

I think you are just repeating my post 4 in this thread only I have said it better. It wastes time and space (like this post is) to repeat the same argument.

________________________________________
Post 4


At the time of Darwin's death, Creationists reakoned that on is deathbed he recanted all of his On the Origin of the Species. But his wife soon after rebutted this and copies of her documents on this are available.

Even if Darwin recanted it is almost meaningless, a theory holds up or doesn't regardless.

And as someone doubted my credibility/repuatation earlier on another thread and I did not get around to answer, that if it was terrible Hitler who had discovered that two plus two equals four, it would still equal four.

So all the imbeciles who try to smear my views by "association" have now being taught another lesson.

antichrist
03-02-2005, 03:19 PM
All we need now is for someone to expand at little on the Hitler comments, a bit more to-ing and fro-ing, and then KB can invoke Godwin's law. ;)

But you're right AC, a fact is a fact, regardless of who presents it.

See how conciliatory I can be? We might even become friends, who knows. :uhoh:

LIsten Frosty,
If we are to become friends you must say "good show" when I come up with a few good analogies like in the following post from another thread.

_______________________-

No wonder Matt's chess rating is low, the unfortunate guy can't even get his act together to stay "online". I think it was thoses nasty things people were saying about him - which he could read but was gagged like Habib - which caused the fatal attraction and suicide bombing. Talk about him being Bill's "love child", and Bill being his Antichrist and Ariel Sharon -- all rolled into one.

Cat
03-02-2005, 06:55 PM
Sorry David but I believe your summary is simply wrong. Mutationism was a strong but short lived trend. Dobzhansky showed that adaption by accumulation of gradual change could be made to work with Mendelian genetics and basically reinstated Darwinian natural selection. The modern sythesis is a synthesis of Darwianian selection and Mendelian genetics. De Vries idea of mutationism (large step changes in a single generation) has been pretty much shown the door. Hence the term neo-Darwinism.

I think you're splitting hairs, bit I guess I deserve it

Cat
03-02-2005, 06:59 PM
Sorry Scott it was collatoral damage. Can you please repost it back in the original thread?

The problem was it was a reply to a reply after David's irrelevent and incorrect comment regarding the religious persuation of Darwin and it got picked up as a part of that sub-thread.

Please accept my apology for the inconvenience.


It wasn't irrelevant at all! Scotty asked was creationism consistent with natural selection. The fact that a regular church-goer like Charles Darwin dreamt up the idea suggests that he must have seen no contradiction, a highly relevant point in the support of Scott's dialectic.

Rincewind
03-02-2005, 08:17 PM
It wasn't irrelevant at all! Scotty asked was creationism consistent with natural selection. The fact that a regular church-goer like Charles Darwin dreamt up the idea suggests that he must have seen no contradiction, a highly relevant point in the support of Scott's dialectic.

Actually Darwin was brought up in the Unitarian tradition. While was good friends with one local pastor and as his wife Emma was a bit of a social climber (and devout Anglican) he probably did often go to church. When that pastor moved on and a less open-minded (lets say) pastor was assigned, his church attendance seems to have dropped of. That pastor noted in correspondence that he never saw Darwin at church.

You seem to want to insist that Darwin was an orthodox christian with the views that accompany that. The truth was he was anything but. Perhaps the next time you make this claim you should do some research. You might find the following interesting reading...

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/barlow.html

Cat
03-02-2005, 08:55 PM
You seem to want to insist that Darwin was an orthodox christian with the views that accompany that. The truth was he was anything but. Perhaps the next time you make this claim you should do some research. You might find the following interesting reading...



Yes I know, he is classically described as a sceptical agnostic, but he still went to church with his wife to the end. Now what does that say about the power of prayer?

Rincewind
03-02-2005, 10:00 PM
Yes I know, he is classically described as a sceptical agnostic, but he still went to church with his wife to the end. Now what does that say about the power of prayer?

Ultimately futile. :P

antichrist
04-02-2005, 03:26 AM
For the record, wasn't it his daughter, Henrietta, not his wife, Emma, who rebutted these claims?

I checked out that website re Darwin's religion and found the following, whilst not finding the point I originally made re Darwin's alleged recantation it does show that Mrs Darwin was involved in his writings and affairs after his death, so she could very well have denied his alleged recantation.
_________________________________

1 Mrs. Darwin annotated this passage (from "and have never since doubted " ... to "damnable doctrine") in her own handwriting. She writes :—" I should dislike the passage in brackets to be published. It seems to me raw. Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief—but very few now wd. call that ' Christianity,' (tho' the words are there.) There is the question of verbal inspiration comes in too. E. D." Oct. 1882. This was written six months after her husband's death, in a second copy of the Autobiography in Francis's handwriting. The passage was not published. See Introduction.—N. B.

antichrist
04-02-2005, 03:29 AM
Yes I know, he is classically described as a sceptical agnostic, but he still went to church with his wife to the end. Now what does that say about the power of prayer?

It shows about the power of money, which is why he married her so her wealth could finance his research in that he would not have to go out and get a "real job" -- like been a pastor which is so unreal, literally speaking, but still real if you get the drift.

Rincewind
04-02-2005, 08:26 AM
I checked out that website re Darwin's religion and found the following, whilst not finding the point I originally made re Darwin's alleged recantation it does show that Mrs Darwin was involved in his writings and affairs after his death, so she could very well have denied his alleged recantation.
_________________________________

1 Mrs. Darwin annotated this passage (from "and have never since doubted " ... to "damnable doctrine") in her own handwriting. She writes :—" I should dislike the passage in brackets to be published. It seems to me raw. Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief—but very few now wd. call that ' Christianity,' (tho' the words are there.) There is the question of verbal inspiration comes in too. E. D." Oct. 1882. This was written six months after her husband's death, in a second copy of the Autobiography in Francis's handwriting. The passage was not published. See Introduction.—N. B.

The most persistent rumour of Darwin's deathbed recantation was traced to an American, one "Lady Hope". Henrietta wrote a rebuttal to quell these rumours. It was published in The Christian Feb 23, 1922, where she said in part...

"Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A."

she finished by saying

"The whole story has no foundation whatever."

Rincewind
04-02-2005, 08:44 AM
The following is also of interest...

http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ebook-page-130.asp

antichrist
04-02-2005, 01:56 PM
The following is also of interest...

http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ebook-page-130.asp

Boys, thanks for the Darwin references.

I was thinking this morning (dangerous habit) that Bishop Wilberforce may have been referring to Huxley when querying which of his ancestors was an ape, during the debate at the Royal Society? Which was the turning point in the debate. Like the quip of the "rock of ages" in the Scopes "Monkey Trial", one remembers them.

How about rememinces on the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 04:44 PM
How about rememinces on the Scopes Monkey Trial.

There's a great film about that called 'Inherit the Wind', I highly recommend it.

antichrist
04-02-2005, 08:40 PM
There's a great film about that called 'Inherit the Wind', I highly recommend it.

Remember about a year ago SBS showed maybe a two part series on it. All the background etc., interviews with people still alive who witnessed first hand. The town wanted the controversy to put their dying town on the may and attract daytrippers etc.

I have a full transcript of the trial somewhere.

Anyway, who was Wilberforce's quip aimed at, Darwin or Huxley?

Rincewind
04-02-2005, 09:48 PM
Anyway, who was Wilberforce's quip aimed at, Darwin or Huxley?

It's irrelevent anyway. Homo sapiens should all be classed as apes. The fact that we are not is just an anthropocentric hang over.

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 10:00 PM
It's irrelevent anyway. Homo sapiens should all be classed as apes. The fact that we are not is just an anthropocentric hang over.

You're really getting stuck in lately Baz... why the sudden flaunt?

Rincewind
04-02-2005, 10:11 PM
You're really getting stuck in lately Baz... why the sudden flaunt?

I'm sick, headaches obviously don't agree with me. :)

antichrist
04-02-2005, 10:15 PM
It's irrelevent anyway. Homo sapiens should all be classed as apes. The fact that we are not is just an anthropocentric hang over.

It may be considered irrelevant today but during the furore which surrounded publication of Origins it was the turning point. The insult took place at a special debate put on by the Royal Society between Bishop Wilberforce and Huxley. Huxley's reply was something like: It is a sad day when a figure of the Church has to stoop so low in an important occasion (???)".

I don't know if I have a transcript of that debate or if one was compiled. If anyone can help out I would appreciate.

antichrist
04-02-2005, 10:22 PM
My English language finer points are shocking but shouldn't the thread title be:

a) Was Darwin a theist

or

b) Was Darwin an atheist??

It just sounds better.

Rincewind
04-02-2005, 11:00 PM
Huxley's reply was something like: It is a sad day when a figure of the Church has to stoop so low in an important occasion (???)".

I thought it was something like "I'd rather be related to an ape, then an ass like you!" At least, that's what I would have said. ;)

Rincewind
04-02-2005, 11:00 PM
a) Was Darwin a theist

Point taken.

Libby
05-02-2005, 08:23 AM
At the time of Darwin's death, Creationists reakoned that on is deathbed he recanted all of his On the Origin of the Species. But his wife soon after rebutted this and copies of her documents on this are available.

Even if Darwin recanted it is almost meaningless, a theory holds up or doesn't regardless.

All that afternoon, Etty (4th child Henrietta) recalled "he kept lifting his hands to hold his rope, and then they dropped off with a feeble quivering motion, and many times he called out - Oh God, oh Lord God - but only as exclamations of distress I think." Etty did not record the death agony but Emma later wrote of "the last few hours of suffering which dwell upon the mind in an unreasonable degree because they are the last and which I would do much to forget."

from "Emma Darwin - the inspirational wife of a genius." Doesn't sound too much like a time in Darwin's life when you would attribute too much to anything he said, new theory, old theory, recanting or otherwise.

Was watching the American business program on SBS (during the day) a while ago. They had a story about the National Parks people (with a science bent) being a bit ticked off at being required to sell books at the Grand Canyon office about how the Canyon was formed by the Great Flood and not by thousands of years of erosion - just to balance their actual scientific texts :eh:

antichrist
07-02-2005, 07:01 PM
Was watching the American business program on SBS (during the day) a while ago. They had a story about the National Parks people (with a science bent) being a bit ticked off at being required to sell books at the Grand Canyon office about how the Canyon was formed by the Great Flood and not by thousands of years of erosion - just to balance their actual scientific texts :eh:

And in another thread someone is argueing that religion is not doing any harm.

These are the people who give religion a bad name. What makes me angry is that the ignorant want to lead the intelligent. Like China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. I have taken these so and sos on for years. And New Age is for the ignorant who have lost their religion. As stated earlier survival of the species did not need everyone to be intelligent and wise.

That German migrant in the news recently in refugee camps etc had refused drugs for her mental condition because of possible side effects. Well now she has completely lost the plot. A further case of people backing themselves against authority in a science, just as Creationists do. Which is why the teaching of religion is dangerous, some people will take it seriously.

Capablanca-Fan
05-02-2009, 11:32 PM
There's a great film about that called 'Inherit the Wind', I highly recommend it.
It's a mendacious distortion of the Scopes Trial (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/682), on many grounds.

Capablanca-Fan
05-02-2009, 11:35 PM
It may be considered irrelevant today but during the furore which surrounded publication of Origins it was the turning point. The insult took place at a special debate put on by the Royal Society between Bishop Wilberforce and Huxley. Huxley's reply was something like: It is a sad day when a figure of the Church has to stoop so low in an important occasion (???)".

I don't know if I have a transcript of that debate or if one was compiled. If anyone can help out I would appreciate.
Real historians have demolished the usual mythology behind the debate, both the notion that Huxley had demolished him, and that Wilberforce had really asked Huxley whether his ape ancestry was from his grandfather’s or grandmother’s side (see the pro-evolution historian J.R. Lucas, ‘Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html)’, The Historical Journal 22:313–330, 1979).

Capablanca-Fan
05-02-2009, 11:37 PM
The most persistent rumour of Darwin's deathbed recantation was traced to an American, one "Lady Hope". Henrietta wrote a rebuttal to quell these rumours. It was published in The Christian Feb 23, 1922, where she said in part..."
CMI lists Darwin's recantation story on its Don't Use page (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/#Darwin_recanted), the 8th most popular page on its site (http://creationontheweb.com/).

Capablanca-Fan
05-02-2009, 11:39 PM
To answer the question of this thread, see Darwin’s arguments against God: How Darwin rejected the doctrines of Christianity (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5703/).

antichrist
06-02-2009, 02:18 PM
Jono, you have not admitted that you have quoted scientists who are not the approp ones in the field you are discussing - and you have not apologised for it. I would expect you to know of such deficiencies coz you have been intensively arguing and should know such things.

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2009, 02:35 PM
Jono, you have not admitted that you have quoted scientists who are not the approp ones in the field you are discussing — and you have not apologised for it. I would expect you to know of such deficiencies coz you have been intensively arguing and should know such things.
Stop whinging AC. Can you find any errors in the above posts? If not, go and troll somewhere else.

antichrist
07-02-2009, 02:34 PM
Stop whinging AC. Can you find any errors in the above posts? If not, go and troll somewhere else.

I think it was one of your so-called experts who was not propely qualified in the field that you were quoting him (if at all qualified in that field). I sure RW or KB can find examples of this. Then will you apologise and list all the instances when you have done such.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2009, 02:36 PM
I sure RW or KB can find examples of this.

KB can't be bothered if you can't be more specific.

antichrist
07-02-2009, 02:39 PM
KB can't be bothered if you can't be more specific.

I feel RW can rattle them off by memory. One only about a week ago. The Creationist media campaign is full of such. Full of lies and deceptions. Just as the religion they propagate is.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2009, 02:41 PM
Oh, I've questioned the credentials of a fair few supposedly relevant experts cited by Jono here now and then. But if you're using that argument against the links he posted above you need to say why, instead of just making a generic attack of unclear relevance and hoping that it sticks.

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2009, 12:58 PM
The Creationist media campaign is full of such. Full of lies and deceptions.
So do you believe that Darwin recanted, and that Inherit the Wind was an accurate dramatization of the Scopes Trial?

antichrist
08-02-2009, 03:40 PM
Oh, I've questioned the credentials of a fair few supposedly relevant experts cited by Jono here now and then. But if you're using that argument against the links he posted above you need to say why, instead of just making a generic attack of unclear relevance and hoping that it sticks.

And has Jono ever apologised for submitting "dodgey" experts?

upldiscovered
04-05-2009, 10:32 PM
Please refer to my posts in upldiscovered.with reference to your post(third relative to this thread) reflecting my respectful responses.

Rincewind
04-05-2009, 11:54 PM
Please refer to my posts in upldiscovered.with reference to your post(third relative to this thread) reflecting my respectful responses.

No. No offense but your posts seem almost entirely without reason and ultimately fall back on very peculiar linguistic analysis.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that linguisitics possess some sort of mystical ability to discern ultimate truths based on a literal interpretation of the Tower of Babel story. No serious linguist thinks the Tower of Babel is anything more than a fairytale and certainly not the origin of the multiplicity of languages that have developed.

Respectfully.

antichrist
09-05-2009, 04:39 PM
No. No offense but your posts seem almost entirely without reason and ultimately fall back on very peculiar linguistic analysis.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that linguisitics possess some sort of mystical ability to discern ultimate truths based on a literal interpretation of the Tower of Babel story. No serious linguist thinks the Tower of Babel is anything more than a fairytale and certainly not the origin of the multiplicity of languages that have developed.

Respectfully.
Doesn't the Bible say that they almost reached Heaven, if so the planes would all be going through heaven without paying flyover fees etc, do they get permits from god for doing such?

What this has to do with the thread topic?