Charles Darwin, from his autobiography (1876)
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
So God's ideas can be explained as "Evolutionist" according to Darwin:
"The favorable variations (people who believe and accept the Christ), would be preserved, and unfavorable variations (people who reject or refuse to believe in the Christ), would be destroyed. The results of this would be a formation of a new species."
The new species being reborn in Christ, now a child of God.
2007-09-09 00:56:26 · 15 answers · asked by Diver Down 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Darwin based his Evolution theory on Malthus's Theory, Malthus believed in God.
Although Malthus thought famine and poverty natural outcomes, the ultimate reason for those outcomes was divine institution. He believed that such natural outcomes were God's way of preventing man from being lazy. Both Darwin and Wallace independantly arrived at similar theories of Natural Selection after reading Malthus. Unlike Malthus, they framed his principle in purely natural terms both in outcome and in ultimate reason. By so doing, they extended Malthus' logic further than Malthus himself could ever take it. They realized that producing more offspring than can survive establishes a competitive environment among siblings, and that the variation among siblings would produce some individuals with a slightly greater chance of survival.
2007-09-09 01:00:56 · update #1
This often quoted passage reflects the significance Darwin affords Malthus in formulating his theory of Natural Selection. What "struck" Darwin in Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) was Malthus's observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive, and that Man too is capable of overproducing if left unchecked.
2007-09-09 01:50:27 · update #2
Nope ... there is not God's work in there .... It is simply the rule of society, nature, or whatever you call ..... the favorable variations need not be who accept Christ ... they are simply the people who are healthy and strong ....
Stop it somewhere, will you ??? this is getting silly!! Darwin based his findings on his observations, not on Malthus ... you fanatics will do just bout anything to PROVe God exist!!! If you really believed in God and he really existed, yo would nt need to prove .... it would have been self- evidend.
2007-09-09 01:01:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about simplifying the entire scenario with basic facts:
1. Yes, God is an "evolutionist". Creation was set in motion & from there it grows of Self.
2. We are all parts of this being we call "God"...ergo, we must return to the source...there is simply nowhere else to go. We are not humans having a spiritual experience, we are spirits having a human experience.
3. Everything is in process of growth/change...and every part of Creation is alive...even rocks have vibrational capacity...the Earth, an organism in itself, has the ability to make change & grow to effect her survival.
4. The person (human) known as "Christ", although more gifted than most had no intention of becoming a leader, but rather a grand example of the fact of #2....there were, and have been since, many who possess & example the same gifts, yet we refuse to recognize them...they are not in our "comfort zone", and we seem to do the same to them that was done to Christ.
5. Those that judge "favorable" to "unfavorable"...from what resources do they determine this duality? What is good/bad is an opinion, yes? When in fact, there truly is no good/bad except in the minds of humans...animals & plants do not adhere to such--they know how to create/survive without the added limitations...accept each day that they are, and worry not when they are no longer...they just seem to understand the circle of things.
A little food for thought...you seem to be in quite the think-mode. As with all your research & philosophies/theories...take what rings true to YOU and simply leave the rest...it's all good, just not all useful...See???
2007-09-09 01:26:43 · answer #2 · answered by MsET 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of Darwin's views, Malthus' views or any others, A modern genius of his field in science has proven the reality of this whole Question re Adam and Eve, etc., His name is Denis Towers
But let me tell you something real straight:
There would not be an entire course anything as good in all that I have seen in all creationism theory that is anywhere as good as this one ABSOLUTE genius discovery and book by Denis Towers:
The Brilliant, Adam and Eve Prover:
Book, TWO BIRDS ... ONE STONE!!, by genius Kinesiologist, Denis Towers, [Xulonpress.com], 2007??
Upon a 9 year study, the author writes this work, which scientifically illustrates that Man and the snake are diametric opposites - both, 'functionally-anatomically ... and behaviourally.
It is a Master-work among the books that have been written!
An absolute MUST for believers and Creationists alike.
If you want that elusive SCIENTIFIC proof of Adam and Eve and God, this is it!!!
A Powerful, Powerful book!
2007-09-09 01:08:54 · answer #3 · answered by dr c 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Except that "belief" is not a heritable trait. Children of Christians do not automatically become Christians. This used the be the usual case in more ignorant times but look around you now.
2007-09-09 00:59:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
this is somewhat properly established that replaced right into a theist jointly as he labored on his concept. in keeping with probability you're able to have cared to proceed the quote? “while for this reason reflecting i believe compelled to look to a ordinary reason having an clever suggestions in some diploma analogous to that of guy; and that i need to be reported as a THEIST. This end replaced into sturdy in my suggestions with regard to the time, as far as i will remember, as quickly as I wrote the beginning place of Species, and this is considering the fact that that element that it has very steadily, with many fluctuations, replace into weaker. yet then arises the doubt - can the suggestions of a guy, which has, as I totally believe, been progressed from a suggestions as a low as that possessed by ability of the backside animals, be depended on while it attracts such grand conclusions? i would be unable to faux to throw the sunshine on such abtruse issues. The secret of the beginning up of all issues is insoluble by ability persons and that i for one, ought to be content fabric to proceed to be Agnostic." So no less than, he replaced into agnostic. yet ought to we take that as absolute fact? i do no longer think of so. you ought to remember that this replaced into written at a time while the Church replaced into quite useful. If Darwin replaced into an atheist, I doubt he could have ever reported it, for worry that Church would reprimand his family contributors. So this is problematic to declare for effective, yet surely he replaced into no longer a theist while he died. Edit: "Charles Darwin made it achievable to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - purely ability that Darwin made it achievable, it did no longer state at each and every of the Darwin replaced into an atheist. “Evolutionary biology tells us loud and clean. There are not any gods” ~ lower back, this does not say something approximately Darwin's ideals, purely that right now, evolutionary biology says there is not any god. And please, for GOD's sake, end your damn costs! "In my maximum intense fluctuations I surely have in no way been an Atheist interior the experience of denying the existence of a God". He further that "i think of that usually (and further and further as I improve older), yet no longer continually, that an Agnostic could be a extra impressive description of my state of suggestions."
2016-12-16 15:28:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's the guy behind The Origin of The Species.
Let's not go around twisting facts to fiction.
2007-09-09 01:03:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Accepting Christ is not a genetic variation.
2007-09-09 00:58:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Oh Jesus...
a new species? Puh----lease!
I am a Christian, and I belong to the same sinful species that everyone else does. And so do you
2007-09-09 01:08:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very clever method of using Darwinism against Atheists bravo! Well done.
If God created the Universe, then he is an evolutionist, as he created evolution to meet those ends. QED.
2007-09-09 01:00:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
that doesnt sound like a quote from Darwin nor can I find it i suspect your being a troll
2007-09-09 01:02:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋