Simple question, 3 parts
Part 1. Did you know this line is in Darwin’s “The origins of Species”?
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally BREATHED by the CREATOR into a few forms, or into one.”
Part 2. If you believe that Darwin got it right on evolution, and he stated a belief in a Creator, why do you deny the possibility of one?
Part 3. Considering you accept the rest of the book, but do not accept the possibility of a Creator, do you ignore and disregard what you do not like or find inconvenient to your belief system in the rest of your life?
I just wanted to hear your explanation of why he wrote this, and why you do not accept this sentence with the rest of the book. You may read for yourself his own words, which are left out of most modern reprints. It is the last paragraph, of the last chapter, here is the link.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter15.html
2007-06-13
07:46:40
·
30 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
In reply to dana1981, As a matter of fact, Yes, I do believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, or as you say, 100%, As to eating shellfish, if you do just a little bit of research, you will find as bottom scavengers, shellfish contain traces of mercury, lead, and a host of trace elements that far out weigh any nutritious benefit. And please read the book before you try to quote from it, it does not say gays are evil, only that the act of homosexuality is deprived and a abomination. Not evil, just a sin.
2007-06-13
23:02:56 ·
update #1
They absolutely do. I have seen people state they believe the entire concept of Evolution even those parts that haven't technically been proved yet. The same folks refuse to believe that Jesus lived because some of the non Bible historical accounts can't be proven. Talk about hypocrisy.
2007-06-13 07:53:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Brian 7
·
4⤊
11⤋
I think the issue with Darwinism and evolution is that Darwin says it took billions of years, not thousands, for the world and life on it to develop, and that things evolved from simple systems into complex system. This is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches, where animals and humans, not to mention intergalactic space, were made in seven days. As for so-called "Creationism", I won't even go there.
There are some theologians who suggest that a day in God's time could be billions of years in our time. This, and other ad hoc explanations for the Bible, are equivalent to being able to hit the bulls eye every time with a bow and arrow by first shooting the arrow, and then painting the target around it.
P.S. Darwin also opined that it was beyond comprehension why god would create a cat to torture a mouse.
2007-06-13 14:58:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Many people who accept the facts of evolution also accept the possibility of, or express belief in, a higher power. The two are not mutually exclusive. For those who do not accept it, but do accept the rest of evolution, that is because, unlike the rest of Darwin's theory, there is no way to scientifically support the existence of a creator.
Darwin made attempts to harmonize science and religion, which is natural considering how powerful a force religion was in society in those times. We live in an age where logic and reason do not have to take such a conciliatory approach, however.
One last thought. Judging by your question, I imagine that it is safe to assume that you are one of those who accepts both God and evolution, correct?
2007-06-13 14:55:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Darwin was a religious man who actually was invited on the journey because the captain believed his staunch Christian views would put an end to the crackpot theory of evolution. Of course if a religious man writes a book he is going to include thoughts of a creator. He was a devout Christian after all. One can't expect someone to throw away all beliefs simply because they have been given a turn. No, instead he would see that a creator made life and helped it evolve until it became man.
2007-06-13 14:59:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by Memnoch 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
1) No.
2) I don't deny the possibility of an omnipotent 'god'. I just don't believe there is one. Just because Darwin was a deist and he was correct on evolution doesn't mean he was correct on deism or that I have to agree with him on everything.
3) Darwin presented evidence for his theory of evolution. He is not presenting evidence of a god, but merely stating that he was a deist. I'm swayed by scientific evidence, not personal belief.
Let me ask you this - do you believe every word in the Bible is 100% true? Even the parts that say you can't eat shellfish and that gays are evil? I hope not, but that's what your argument is tantamount to, except replace Bible with The Origin of Species.
2007-06-13 15:01:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Nope didn't know that was in the book. Darwin's contribution was on speciation and the mechanisms operating to produce new species, hence the title "On the origin of species". He didn't really address creation with scientific method. Others after him extended his theories to the beginning of life.
He probably wrote it because he believed in a supernatural creator. Many nonscientists like yourself think science came from the contributions of one or a few people. That's just not how it happens.
2007-06-13 14:59:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dastardly 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
1. Darwin was a religious man. He just had a brilliant observation for a mechanism for the origin of species.
2. I don't know about a creator, but it is obvious our physical bodies, and ALL life on Earth today, evolved from a common ancestor.
3. It is nonsense and offensive to imply that you have to accept every word of some book or you are a complete atheist. That is a sort of brain washing or propaganda.
2007-06-13 14:53:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by bravozulu 7
·
7⤊
1⤋
Having a belief in evolution does not in any way mean that I think every word in Origin of Species is gospel.
Not believing one part does not mean the rest is false or should be disregarded.
Darwin is human and is allowed to make mistakes. That was one of them.
2007-06-13 14:55:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by beren 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
1. Yes, I was aware.
2. I don't deny the existence of a creator; in fact, I think it's possible for evolution and creationism to co-exist peacefully.
3. Again... I accept the possibility of a creator. I don't think it's an old guy on a cloud with a white beard, holding a thunderbolt. Nature can be a creator just as a "god" can.
2007-06-13 14:53:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bush Invented the Google 6
·
5⤊
2⤋
1, 2, and 3. Darwin could not shake the religious shackles but he sure has confidence in his evolution theory.
If this is a religious question, I will say atheists do not blindly agree totally with the author of any theory. We use the information to build our knowledge and logic.
2007-06-13 15:02:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by ShanShui 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe in evolution and I don't see it precluding the non-existance of a "superior being/ creator " at all. I certainly don't believe the Old Testament word for word either. Those are stories designed to give moral guidence much like Aesop's fables were, I think Aesop did a better job actually.
2007-06-13 14:59:35
·
answer #11
·
answered by booman17 7
·
1⤊
1⤋