Do evolutionists REALLY know what Darwin said?

Question

Just like the Bible is frequently torn apart by non believers, lets look at The Origin of Species. Chapter 6 2nd paragraph, Darwin says:"Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, WELL DEFINED." In addition to Darwin I could quote admitted evolutionists at how flawed their Theory is. I'll give you one more. N.H. Nilsson, famous botanist and evolutionist said,"My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed."(quote from Arthur C. Custances's book The Earth Before Man, Part 2 Doorway paper #20) The statements are astoundingly too numerous to list. Do the homework, be informed, this aint all an accident. Is evolution a form of religion to you? Because if "something"(gasses, cells) started it all, then that "something" always existed just like God. Peace.

Answer 1

This is why I think evolutionists have more faith than many creationists. It just takes more faith to believe that everything in existence came from nothing.

Answer 2

Firstly whilst Darwin and Wallace where the original theorists of evolution by natural selection, the theory of evolution has developed since then, many of the mistakes and puzzles in the original work have been corrected since then. This point applies to nearly any quote by any scientist, it may have seemed true at the time, but it does not mean it is accepted now or will be accepted in the future.

Likewise whilst there are still problems with the theory, (the two you list have actually been resolved, just read The Ancestors Tale, by Richard Dawkins) the whole point of science is to continually correct and update theories to fit in in with new evidence, as yet there has been no evidence which would disprove evolution, and much that confirms it.

Finally there may be the need for something eternal to exist, however it does not follow that this something is God.

Answer 3

Nope I don't. I have never read the Origin of Species or any of Darwin's works. However, the whole theory isn't based on EVERYTHING Darwin wrote, unlike your dogma which is based solely on the bible. Darwin simply put forth a theory that has been accepted for the most part by the scientific community. Since then that theory has been modified and tweaked with each piece of new scientific evidence. I'm sure you can't say the same thing about the Bible.

And accepting evolution as a sound theory isn't a religious belief. I have been to school and got my degree in the realm of biology. I have read all the latest empirical evidence that supports this theory. The scientific community is a large one, and although you can find a few in relevant fields believing in creationism (about 1%) most willingly accept evolution.

Answer 4

You seem to be falling into the trap that most evangelicals fall.If something is unknown, God must have done it.

I personally agree with this idea to a certain degree. Evolution is a theory, but so is most of science. Much cannot be proved directly. However, one can analyze the known facts and come up with the best theory that matches empirical evidence. That doesn't make it true, but it doesn't make it false either.

Science plods along at a snail's pace, slowly solving the unknowable in infinitesimal steps. That's why we have theories. Scientists give their best answer based on what they know at the time.

They can certainly be proved wrong in the future.

In the meantime, we can all say that if we don't know something, God probably did it.

That oddly illogical conclusion has some merit for the ill informed.

So, you should go with that.

In fact, I subscribe to that idea myself, to a point. I personally give the scientists the benefit of the doubt if there seems to be overwhelming evidence from numerous sources that backs up their conclusions.

However, there is more that is unknown than is known. I'll give God the leeway on those issues.

Answer 5

Who ever said that Darwin's book is holy writ? It's a theory, like any other, it will develop and change over time as more knowledge is obtained.
Take the theory of gravity for example. At first no one knew anything about gravity except that things that go up must come down. Sir Isaac Newton then studied it, formally theorized it, and even came up with a way to 'theoretically' put satellites in orbit (though it was technologically infesible in his day). Expanding on the same principals, we have discovered how the planets orbit the sun, how the moon orbits the Earth. In our day, we have even figured out how to use these orbits to 'slingshot' space probes around planets to reach the outer solar system without using very much rocket fuel. And with the addition of Einstein's work in relativity, we have even begun to figure out what exactly gravity is made of and how it works.
Of course, as the years pass, we'll discover more and more until all the above sounds outdated.

So too with evolution.

Answer 6

'Do the homework' means 'read answersingenesis.com and drdino.com ,' does it?

Isn't it interesting that Darwin didn't just pull a complete unified theory out of his a*se and say 'Here it is; accept it all?' Strange that, when Darwin wasn't sure about something, he said he wasn't sure? Isn't it amazing that Darwin approached biology as a _process_ of learning and not a complete thing to be decided by fiat?

I'm wondering if Ken Hovind mentioned that the Origin of Species was written 150 years ago. Unlike some forms of 'belief' that can stay static for 2000 years, science is actually the quest for new knowledge (not the suppression of it). Evolution has come a long, long way in 150 years. Christianity still hasn't.

Even more shocking - we still don't know everything about natural selection. Some of us understand life as a quest for new knowledge and not just an arbitrary fill-in-the-blanks.

Some of us see life as a quest to condemn new knowledge. What a pity.

Answer 7

It is funny you ask that I personally think the original title of the book "The the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" is very accurate view of Darwin. HAHA its hard to miss the racism that is being hinted at here. Then if you take into account some of the circus style content that made it into text books as a result of his book its enough to make to make normal people get angry. What am I saying that evolution is equal to racism....well yes at its inception, at least, that is most definitely the case. However this fact has been well hidden by popularizing the other name of the book and the forward looking intellectuals who were not so short sided as Darwin and Huxley and Company. Lastly that is why I take Creation even at its old earth created to evolve state. Anything but the blatant racism incited by Darwin.

Answer 8

In response to Jade: You just said it, the "theory" has be expanded upon. It is still a theory and nothing more. None of the "proofs" of evolution has proved anything. All of your "proofs" are either assumptions or based upon assumptions and flaws can easily be shown. I will concede to you that there is no proof for Creation either (every religion has "proof"). This is why there is so much disagreement, there is no proof for either side. You just pick what you believe in and support it. To you, your "proof" is real but the oppositions "proof" is a bunch of crap. So, since evolution, like religion, is based upon faith in what you believe, evolution is a religion.

To cheese 8171: You are confusing evolution and adaptation. Evolution is a fundemental change in the DNA which creates a new species. Those dogs are still dogs and the cows are still cows. If they were a different species they could not mate together.

Answer 9

First, your Darwin quote is completely out of context. Christians really seem to have a knack for that... you know I've actually seen preachers make a sentence out of individual words from *completely* different books and verses and try to pass it off as the "word of god"? Sick. Secondly, if you don't understand why a 40 year experiment is NOT sufficient to test evolution, then you have no idea what evolution is in the first place and really shouldn't try to discuss it.

Answer 10

It's not just what Darwin said. He just started the ball rolling. It is what all the other scientists and scholars have studied and found in the past 150 years that have added to and refined. The more research is done - the more it is understood how perfect Evolution is.

Answer 11

I see nothing wrong in Darwin's statement. You are taking his point waaaay out of context. He is explaining the nature of species, and through Natural selection, that species have moved away from each other....not that there is a divine masterplan, as you obviously believe.

As for the second statement...There are those who have "evolved" animals in relatively short periods of time....look at all of the dog species, fish with long fins, cattle and sheep capable of producing huge amounts of milk.....these are all examples of evolution......or in this case unnatural selection. Even humans are taller than they were just 200 years ago.

Open your eyes.