Darwin's theory of evolution is often cited as an argument against creation. To be an "evolutionist" means to deny the creation of the world by God. The following citation from Darwin's book (On The Origin of Species, 6th edition, p.429, the closing paragraph of the Conclusion) will probably come as a shock to evolutionists: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..."
Darwin himself believed that life on earth was started by "the Creator". As it says in Genesis (ch.2, v.7): "...and He (God) breathed into him a breath of life." Everything else is minor variations and details.
How did his students and followers go so far astray with their anti-religious propaganda?
2007-11-20 03:25:22 · 12 answers · asked by brandlet 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Jokes & Riddles
>"To be an "evolutionist" means to deny the creation of the world by God."
No. It doesn't.
It is creationists who have taken that interpretation. They accuse us of atheism ... with absolutely *NO* basis for that accusation ... and then condemn us for an atheism we do not profess.
As an 'evolutionist' (and NOT an atheist, much less an anti-religion propagandist) I can tell you that it does NOT "come as a shock to evolutionists" to read that quote by Darwin. It is the 'evolutionists' who have actually *read* Darwin! We already know about his religious views. In fact, it is one of the points I keep trying to impress upon creationists (see my profile).
Please, please, please ... share that quote with other creationists!
There is *NOTHING* in evolutionary theory ... not a single word ... that says anything at all about a denial of God. Not one word.
* Fact: About 40% of the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept evolution ... also believe in God.
* Fact: The Catholic church, home to over 1.1 billion of the world's 2 billion Christians ... does *NOT* see any conflict between evolution and faith in God.
* Fact: Most of the world's religions do not see any conflict between evolution and faith in God.
* Fact: The 11,000 Christian clergy members (preachers, ministers, deacons, bishops, priests, nuns) who have signed the Clergy Letter Project in support of evolution do not see a conflict between evolution and faith in God.
So where is all this "anti-religious propaganda" you speak of?
If you're referring to Richard Dawkins, that is *one man*. In fact, you are only referring to *one book* (the God Delusion) ... he does not address the concept of God at all (as far as I have read) in any other of his eight other books.
One book does not represent all 'evolutionists'.
Read Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Lewontin, Jonathan Miller. Read Darwin, Wallace, Lyell, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Maynard Smith, Myer. Heck ... read any other book by Dawkins! You will find no trace of this "anti-religious propaganda" from evolutionists that creationists say exists.
No, it is creationists who have declared war on evolution. Not the other way around.
2007-11-20 03:30:58 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 11⤊ 0⤋
You might be interested to know that Darwin was actually a clergyman, not a scientist...
He was on board of the Beagle, because he was chosen to be there as dinner company for the captain - who was a religious man. It just so happened that Darwin had a keen interet in nature so started collecting specimens along the way.
So of course Darwin would claim that there was indeed an almighty Creator.
As a Christian and a scientist myself, I remember asking my sunday school teacher when i was quite young about the whole God created the world in 7 days thing, and I asked her but what about the dinosaurs and the millions of years thing. Her answer was quite lovely and I often think of it - she told me that not everything in the Bible has to be taken literally, word for word, it comes from a different time. She said to consider that a day could have been much longer, over many thousands of years, and if I think of it as seven STAGES rather than seven DAYS then thats ok.
There is a certain amount of balance with science and religion. Religion simply cannot ignore the facts that science present. And scientists just have to be able to admit they cannot explain everything, there will always be some things they don't know. so faith can provide an answer there if we look.
2007-11-20 03:46:00 · answer #2 · answered by Emma R 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
1) People don't "follow" Darwin.
2) Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive concepts - if you knew anything about either you'd see where you're wrong on that.
3) Evolution theory did not just start and stop with Darwin, it's progressed a lot further than he ever got. He didn't even know about DNA, did you assume that information was around back then?
2007-11-20 23:20:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only thing that evolution irrefutable disproves is a literal interpretation of the bible which is what gets creationists in an uproar. But then, Astronomy, Geology, and well, most fields of science disprove a literal genesis but hey, let's throw a fit over evolution. What Darwin realized when he formed his theory...which was the theory of Adaptation through Natural Selection (not evolution..the idea of evolution had already been around for a long time) was that god need not play any part of it. Nature could take care of itself. This is what he understood would be controversial and why he waited many many years to publish his work. He dreaded the controversy. Ultimately, another scientist (I can't recall his name, my bad) discovered Natural Selection independently. It was only when Darwin heard about this that he published his work so that he could get credit for having the idea first.
Evolution is not an attack on religion. But certain extremist, fundamentalist religious sects are determined to wage holy war on evolution because anything that caused anyone to question their dogmatism is anathema. Our society tiptoes around any subject that might upset the religious folks..which has lead "controversial" subjects like evolution to be taught very poorly/lightly in school...just enough for it to be terribly misunderstood.
I hate to break this to you, but evolution is a fact based in reality. Scientific Theory basically = fact. Anything lesser is called a Hypothesis.
2007-11-20 04:13:29 · answer #4 · answered by aarowswift 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First, we need to make a few distinctions. Evolution is science. Belief in a creator is religion. They are not mutually exclusive, because they don't have a thing to do with each other.
People who insist on putting evolution and religion at odds with each other don't understand science, don't understand religion, or both. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that offers evidence for or against God, because God is an unprovable supernatural phenomenon. By definition, science can't touch that.
Nor is there anything in the book of Genesis that disproves evolution because Genesis was written by man (yes, I said by man) thousands of years ago based on superstitions of the time. To accept Genesis as literally true is foolishness; I believe that it has always been meant as an allegorical tale.
And one more thing: the Theory of Evolution does not does not DOES NOT explain how life on Earth began. It only explains how life has changed through time, using mountains of fossil evidence (as well as other forms).
2007-11-20 03:36:42 · answer #5 · answered by Lucas C 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing anti-religious about evolution, and there is nothing shocking about your quotation.
God, if He exists, does so outside the normal, physical universe, and therefore science can say precisely *nothing* about Him.
What it *can* say is that the bible (particularly the Old Testament) cannot be *literally* true: the earth is much older than ~6,000 years, for example. This doesn't stop the Old Testament tales being the equivalent of *parables*: lessons on how to live your life.
If by "students and followers" you are referring to Richard Dawkins, then he is an unusual and outspoken evolutionist who happens to also be an atheist. 40% of all scientists in the US believe in both evolution and God.
Also - the origin of life is nothing to do with evolution. Evolution describes how life changes and has changed; not how it began.
2007-11-20 04:08:40 · answer #6 · answered by gribbling 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
There are many people who do not see a conflict between science and religion. To be an evolutionist does not mean that one has to deny the existance of god. Evolution science is not anti-religious propaganda, it is science. There are many fields of science where our understanding of the universe is at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible. If you study astronomy, genetics, physics, biology, archeology, material science, geology, or other branches of science, there is plentiful evidence that the universe has been around for much more than 6000 years. The choices you make about what to believe are your own.
Good luck to you in finding the answers you are looking for.
2007-11-20 03:46:51 · answer #7 · answered by Gary H 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The key is in the quote:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been ORIGINALLY breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..."
Originally...
With this quote you can have both worlds - a world that had a greater influence, as well as life going its own way...
2007-11-20 06:56:52 · answer #8 · answered by ₪ Rabidus-Odonata ₪ 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think I would say that 'evolutionists' spread 'anti-religious' propaganda!
It is obviously in opposition to 'creationism' where God made Adam and Eve, blah blah blah, but evolution makes to attempt to explain where it all came from.
I would say that it is fundamentalists who spread anti-science and anti-Darwin propaganda, not the other way around.
2007-11-20 03:34:34 · answer #9 · answered by MelBel 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
How can any sane person deny that evolution is real? Answer this then.... When a collie and a german shepard mate and have an offspring. Why is it neither a collie or a german shepard, but rather a new third breed consisting of both parents genetics? Evolution.
2007-11-20 03:40:58 · answer #10 · answered by chabnormal 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋