Are there any creationists here who have actually read the Origin of Species?

Question

Most of the atheists answering here have read the Bible, and I suspect quite a few have read the Qu'ran.

Have any of you opened your minds enough to look at it from the other side?

Or have you, more relevantly, read any book by Richard Dawkins or any evolutionary biologist?

(Books by fringe scientists who have produced no significant scientific research who have published anti-evolution books do not count because they do not count as opening your mind).

Sorry - to clarify something for byhisgrace70295:

The last section of a Brief History of Time does NOT state that Hawking believes in an intelligent designer. Have you actually read the book? When he talks about knowing the mind of God when the grand unified theory is proven. He is being metaphorical.

Hawking is an atheist. I have seen Hawking speak on a number of occasions and on one occasion he was asked about this by a member of the audience. He replied (after the rather long interval that it took him to key this into his computer) that he just thought it sounded like a controversial ending and worked well in a book.

Answer 1

And Darwin's The Origin of Species is available online, for free (just like the Bible):

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

(And I wonder how many will actually click that link and read it, first hand)

Answer 2

I have read Darwin's "Origin of Species" as well as books by Stephen J. Gould, Stephen Hawking and other scientists who you may or may not consider to be "on the fringe." I have also been a faithful subscriber and reader of National Geographic since long before you could buy it on the newsstand, and peruse Scientific American and the New England Journal of Medicine.

While I am a creationist, I don't dispute forms of evolution that do occur. The primary dispute I have (and have always had) is that Darwin claimed in his theory that all life on earth originated with by a random spark that created amino acids out of the primordial ooze (hydrochloric acid, methane & ammonia). Miller's experiment was an unveiled hoax & there still no clear understanding of how self-reproducing RNA was first created (which in itself represents a quantum leap from amino acids being randomly generated out of inhospitable chemicals).

So the entire evolutionary theory is built on a basis that to date is unrealistic at best. Even if (a huge if, since it hasn't been reproduced in lab settings) an amino acid was created once as a random act, the odds against it repetitively recurring enough to build the basis for all life is beyond astronomical. You'd have better odds hitting all 6 numbers of the lottery jackpot every day in a row or a week than of this occurring. So the question itself is, did life emerge from the primordial ooze? Based on the facts available and the doubts that exist, I have to say no. So do at least 600 scientists.

http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.com/view.php?StoryID=20060622-082506-9872r

So if the Darwinian model is flawed, it stands to reason that all research done with the assumption that it is true will also have to be flawed. I’m not naïve enough to say that evolution in one for or another doesn’t exist – we have ample proof of that. What I am saying, in no uncertain terms, is that the research done with the assumption that Darwin was right cannot be trusted in and of itself. And that the evidence that lends credence to evolution may have some validity, but it doesn’t preclude intelligent design. Even the avowed atheist and certified genius of our age, Dr. Stephen Hawking, closed his book “A Brief History of Time” with the observation that the universe is far to complex to have occurred randomly and that this complexity points to an intelligent designer who specifically crafted the fine balance that sustains itself.


EDIT:
Interesting that you would find, out of all the references I made, that the only critique you could make was regarding my mention of Stephen Hawking. I did not read the entire book as it was too dry for my liking but did read the section to which I referred. (Note: When I find a book to be boring I can sometimes motivate myself to finish it by reading the end - espcially if it picks up steam. That was not the case here).

I know Dr. Hawking is an atheist and even mentioned that clearly in my original post. In my opinion that does not take away from his observation, but I won't quibble over details. I am just somewhat surpirsed that all you could critique was this trivial piece of information rather than the substance of my response. Thank you for your tacit accceptance of my view.

Answer 3

The creationists I know don't seem to have any interest in looking at the matter scientifically or in being charitable about the theory. Both creation and evolution are theories, although the one is more of an easily-understood myth and the other is based on observable data. Old-time religionists say "I didn't come from no monkey" and the discussion stops there. Try to push the point any further and the old-time-religion-shotgun comes out from behind the seat of the pickup truck.
I used to play the banjo, but lost my picking ability when I got my teeth fixed.

Answer 4

I would disagree. Most atheist I've heard make very basic mistakes regarding the Bible. I also think you seem to be defining "fringe" as any scientist who doesn't believe evolution can explain how we got here. There are a number of credible scientists who hold this view - you may be familiar with Behe who's become popular of late.

I've taken an evolutionary anthropology class at college level and have done personal research. I came out of the class with even stronger beliefs that evolution can't explain how we got here in fact. The proffesors answers to my questions gave no backbone to evolution and I see too many contradictions between evolution and science as well as observable facts.

In short, I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Answer 5

Perhaps you would be interested in a quote from the introduction to the 1956 reissue of 'Origin of Species' written by the eminent biologist professor W.R.Thompson .F.R.S. (Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada for 30 years)

QUOTE; "The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haekel (the embryonic recapitulation fraudster)* and in the shifty, devious and histrionic argumentation of T.H.Huxley".
*my addition

I am a creationist because I have studied the science and have found that Darwinian evolution is not scientific. Evolution contradicts several Scientific Laws, including the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and Information Theory.

Answer 6

I am not a biologist, or a scientist. So, I guess I would not understand most of it. But I don't need to read it. I can trust what reliable people say. On the other hand, no I have never bothered to read the bible or any other religious book. I find other kinds of literature more interesting.

Answer 7

I have read origin of species.

I especially like the last paragraph where Darwin exclaims: "...There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Darwin never denied a creator. Why must his followers?

The more i study science, the more I appreciate how undeniable God is.

My guess is that athiests don't study much of anything.

Answer 8

I have rad about 6 times the book in front of me now.

Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species
with forward by Sir Julian Huxley.

I rather believe>>http://www.answersincreation.org

Answer 9

Hmmm.. no.. I have not read the Origin of Species, or at least not all of it... and I doubt many here have... including the evolutionists...

I am not trying to understand the theory of evolution... I am still working on my own salvation... which takes considerable time...

and how many books have YOU produced that I should listen to you instead of those "fringe scientists" ... at least they have something worth printing.

Answer 10

I believe in creation through evolution. I have not read 'The Origin of Species', but I know the basic tenets of evolution. I believe evolution is a fact. In fact I believe that the Quran at least supports it, if you interpret it correctly.