would Darwin still believe in godless evolution if he had the science information we have today?

Answer 1

Absolutely. Why do you think the overhwelming majority of scientists continue to accept "godless" evolution as the best scientific theory for explaining the diversity of life? Do you think they accept it just because Darwin was "hot"?

All the things discovered *after* Darwin ... the science of genetics, the discovery of DNA, the discovery of thousands of new species (both existing and extinct) and tens of thousands of new fossils, the discovery of new things about how bacteria and viruses evolve, or how insects evolve resistence to pesticides, the discovery of all sorts of physical commonalities between species, the way that evolution and speciation has been observed in nature and in the laboratory ... all of these have made Darwin's theory *far* more convincing. So he would be delighted!

Oh and by "godless" I just mean that evolution does not require supernatural assumptions like God. However while it does not *require* God, evolution does not disprove God either.

Evolution is NOT atheism. (I know ... I'm a firm supporter of evolution, but I am not an atheist ... and as Mata Hari has correctly pointed out, the Catholic Church doesn't think so either.) Evolution is quite agnostic (no opinion either way) about the existence of God.

Answer 2

I'm not sure Darwin believed in "godless" evolution whatever that might be. Most of the real science of today supports the concept of natural selection and evolution. There is very little, if any, verifiable data to support the 144 hour model of creation contained in the King James version of the Bible. The subject of evolution is one of those things that you either believe or do not believe. If you do not believe, there is no changing your mind inasmuch your belief is based on faith and faith is believing is something without verifiable evidence. If you believe, you have all ready made a decision to reject any other system.

Answer 3

I think he would be even more convinced. Every branch of science supports evolution. From geology, medical science, archaeology, dentistry, radiography to DNA mapping. He would be in evolutionary heaven.
The main objections to evolution are faith based, as they were when Darwin first postulated his theory. There is no real scientific evidence to refute evolution. Just opinion, conjecture and the Bible incorrectly used as a science book.

Answer 4

Every university biology course teaches evolution as well as the defects observed in the theory, since Darwin's time. That does not negate the theory or give any credence whatsoever to creationism, a fairy tale of Genesis. All of Genesis is a fairy tale written as such millions of years after formation of the earth.

Answer 5

First let me say that I think a 'God' was needed to create the universe and the physical laws that govern it.

Darwin was just a naturalist whom wrote down his observations in a journal, and then developed theories to describe his observations. This is what science is; it is the process of documenting God's work. It's similar to Newton whom watched an apple fall and developed theories of motion to describe gravity. These guys were just examining things that had never been studied in great detail before, and then unveiling their discoveries about the beautiful universe God created. They were not subverting God, if anything, they were paying an homage.

IMHO, it seems that the universe was created such that evolution could take place on it's own without an essential need for divine intervention. So I would answer your question "yes", although that doesn't necessarily rule out the existence of a God, or dismiss the possibility of divine intervention now and then. It just means that evolution can occur in nature, based on the natural laws alone, without any extra help from God. The amazingly profound thing is that God already did enough by forming the universe to allow the animals to form themselves!!! To me, that's even more wonderous and amazing than intelligent design of the animals, which seems trivial by comparison. It means that God's design of the universe was much more intelligent and profound than we realized. God knew that he didn't have to design the animals, he knew that he just had to design the universe and life would evolve on it's own. God created a universe with a God-like power unto itself. And the depth of that is not easy to comprehend.

Evolution just says that it's possible over many many years for a reptile to grow feathers and eventually turn into a bird. Yes, on a higher abstract level, God allows it all to happen. But on a lower level, life as it exists is fully capable of growing all kinds of bizarre appendages and protuberances, without necessarily requiring the literal, physical hand of God to put them there. Just like an apple can fall to the ground via gravity, and the literal physical hand of God is not needed to move it. God just had to create the law of gravity once in the beginning, and then all things fell of their own mass, and it was good.

These scientific discoveries don't really detract from the fundamental value of the holy scriptures. Our lives have always been somewhat different from the lives of those written about in scripture, but still, we always have been able to learn from those stories through metaphor and spirituality, and we always will be able to in the future. The main purpose of scripture has always been to teach us how to live good lives. The human element itself has not changed, just our scientific understanding of the world.

If one were to hang a child's painting next to the Mona Lisa, would it detract from that beautiful painting? In essence, I think not. God is able to see the good in all things. Many of the things humans have created are good, although not all. And it's not always easy to tell beforehand what is good and what isn't. Perhaps God can't always tell either, and that may be why we're here, in order to help sort out these paradoxes and conundrums.

Answer 6

First of all, evolution is not godless by definition. The Catholic Church supports evolution. Evolution is only in conflict with the idea of Genesis being literally true, not whether or not God exists. Second of all, he absolutely would still support evolution. The scientific information we have today has greatly strengthened his claims, not weakened them.

Answer 7

yeochief2002, I am afraid you are misrepresenting the nature of science; a "belief" in evolution is not faith-based, but evidence-based. If the evidence led us towards another theory, it would be just as easily accepted.

A for answersingenesis.com, I find that it is quite fun to point out the logical flaws and outright lies in each article; I tally an average of 7. There is no such thing as "creation science".

Answer 8

We have a lot more evidence today that no god is needed for evolution to proceed than we did in Darwin's day.

I wouldn't presume to know what Darwin might believe though.

Answer 9

There is absolutely no reason to suggest otherwise (that is, no evidence of God). So why would you expect a change in his viewpoint? I would imagine he'd be more resolute than ever, in line with the rest of the scientific community.

That said, if you're sincerely interested, The Biography channel produced a decent biography of Darwin a couple of years ago. I think you can buy it on-line.

Answer 10

I believe so.
I even would dare to say he'd be more inclined to be fanatical about his findings than back then.
Even if you were arguing against it;
you can't just ignore the evidence of natural selection, and evolution.
Farmers have been using evolution for years to improve their crops and such.