ID and God-guided evolution?

[The_Catholic]

It’s a denial of Divine Providence. It’s also theologically incorrect to imagine God “allowing chance to take over” in the development of life, species and human beings.

Christ taught us that every hair on our heads is counted and no sparrow falls without God’s knowledge. “For in him we live, and move, and have our being”. (Acts 17:28)

Darwinism proposes that mankind emerged by accident.

As Fr. George Coyne claimed “God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution”.

Or as Kenneth Miller’s textbook falsely taught:

This is the kind of serious theological error that is widespread in the evolutionist culture today. Sadly, many Catholics (even so-called “orthodox” Catholics like Kenneth Miller) have compromised their faith by spreading this false teaching.

If these are kenneth miller’s words then he has now-a-days changed his mind. read Finding Darwin’s God. And i know this also because i have spoken with mr. Miller. He in no way thinks we are just a bunch of neurons or purposeless accidents.

 

[The_Catholic]

“So… however “chance” works in evolution, God is still in control. God keeps, protects, and guides all things. I don’t think a Catholic is allowed to say God released his will, since the Catechism tells us “God willed” human beings into existence. “Willed” is used as the synonym or meaning of “created””

Some of this is difficult for me to comprehend. Ok, let me explain, and realize I’m not looking for a debate, I just want Truth and understanding.

If God is in control of EVERYTHING, first of all, how free does that make us? Does it not reduce us to puppets of God, if He controls our every day lives and everything in the universe? When a man hits a patch of black ice, skids off the road, hits another car, crashes and bursts into flames, with all people burning alive, did God do that? When it heavily storms in an area that already has more than enough rain, but 30 miles away, where there’s a drought, it doesn’t rain at all and severe consequences strike, is that God’s doing? Does God determine the outcome of a coin when flipped between two buddies for the last slice of pepperoni pizza? If i take a car engine apart, work on it for hours, put it back together only to realize i messed up on something and now have to redo it again, was that God guiding me?

I’m serious by these questions. I want to know if the Church thinks that He’s in control in this way all the time. If so, then I can’t comprehend us as being free creatures, but mere puppets of God and the entire idea of free will is a paradox.

Also, if God created everything, is He therefore responsible for the “red and tooth in claw” of nature?" Is he responsible for the instincts within the sadistict cat that tortures a mouse and sometimes never eats it? Or the Ichneumonidae wasps? The mother wasp inserts a paralyzing chemical into the nervous system of a caterpillar and then places her eggs inside the still-living host, where they hatch and then gradually devour the paralyzied caterpillar from the inside. The hatched baby wasps emerge with preprogrammed instincts to consume the internal organs of the caterpillar in a sequence that keeps their caterpillar host aliveas long as possible. Or how about the Hanuman Langur monkeys in Northern India? Which kill the children of other females and claim the now motherless as their own to mate with?

And surely you know that many of our traits are not to intellegently designed, even the human eye, our spines, knees and a hundred other things that all bare a somewhat poor design.

I’m being serious, so i appreciate for none of the mean spirited Catholics among this forum to not leave me any nasty remarks for asking these unorthodox questions.

perhaps it is as mr Miller said in FDG: “Freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of Divine direction attached to every living creature.”

Or is there another reason behind it. Am i not understanding God?

 

[reggieM]

If these are kenneth miller’s words then he has now-a-days changed his mind. read Finding Darwin’s God. And i know this also because i have spoken with mr. Miller. He in no way thinks we are just a bunch of neurons or purposeless accidents.

That’s what his book said, quite clearly. I’d like to see Miller’s repentance for his sin on this matter.

Apparently, you’ve read “Finding Darwin’s God” but you learned nothing about this infamous textbook from Mr. Miller where he taught atheism to students in over six years of editions of this book.

Nowhere in this book about “Darwin’s God” did you read about where Miller “changed his mind”. Suddenly, he claims that now we are not actually neurons or purposeless accidents. Perhaps it was politically expedient for him to suddenly “change his mind”.

It certainly didn’t help Mr. Miller that his testimony in the Kitzmiller court case proved that he gave false information about the textbook also (he claimed that the atheistic text was only in one edition, when it was actually in six subsequent editions). Mr. Miller claimed “ignorance” to this matter – even though he wasn’t ignorant about the royalties he gained by selling atheistic doctrine to students.

That’s the kind of “Catholic” that is held up as an example of those who accept Darwinian theory.

But putting Miller aside – this is what was found in a mainstream Biology textbook that students were forced to read and learn from. That’s Darwinism – although suddently people are trying to cover this up and hide it because it looks quite ugly for them.

 

[The_Catholic]

"Apparently, you’ve read “Finding Darwin’s God” but you learned nothing about this infamous textbook from Mr. Miller where he taught atheism to students in over six years of editions of this book.

Nowhere in this book about “Darwin’s God” did you read about where Miller “changed his mind”. Suddenly, he claims that now we are not actually neurons or purposeless accidents. Perhaps it was politically expedient for him to suddenly “change his mind”"

No, I did not read this from his book, the version I have does not contain it nor would make sense for it to contain it. In FDG he is always calling God “the Creator” and having captials on the"H" for “He.” Mr. Miller seemed very respectful in that book. And according to his own words, many times he would be approached by his students after one of his classes and asked if he believed in God. He would always answer “yes.” Obviously he was teaching or saying something that caused those students to think he might be a believer.

And no, Miller never states that we are “purposeless beings” but what God wanted.

I don’t know why you have such a problem with him, but if you reject evolution, and believe in the myth of a 6 day creation, then I can understand. And if Miller did teach, or imply an atheistic evolution, claiming that there is no God, then shame on him, yes!

But as of yet, I have not witnessed that.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The point of the blooming flower was to show that at one time it was said to be a mystery that only God knew, that God caused, and yet we have come to understand how it naturally occurs. How did the genes come to be in the first place? Well, quite simple, through a process of evolution that God initiated, or guided.

No science cannot reveal all, that is true. But it has revealed many wondrous things among this realm.

That’s the problem with ID - if He is an explanation for processes in nature, He ceases to be necessary when the process is understood. ID makes Him a “god of the gaps”. Philosophically, ID is dangerous nonsense ​

 

[The_Catholic]

That’s the problem with ID - if He is an explanation for processes in nature, He ceases to be necessary when the process is understood. ID makes Him a “god of the gaps”. Philosophically, ID is dangerous nonsense ​

Yes, exactly!

 

[reggieM]

Some of this is difficult for me to comprehend. Ok, let me explain, and realize I’m not looking for a debate, I just want Truth and understanding.

If you’re interested in understanding and not merely arguing about things, then start with this passage from Scripture:

“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble.
Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above the ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious.
For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid.
In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive.
For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men.
And the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

Do you accept what the Sacred Writer offers here? This is a warning against worldly analysis of the ways of God. It’s telling us that secular science is guilty of arrogance towards God – by imagining that the ways of God can be known by man through the study of matter.

I’m serious by these questions. I want to know if the Church thinks that He’s in control in this way all the time. If so, then I can’t comprehend us as being free creatures, but mere puppets of God and the entire idea of free will is a paradox.

I will suggest that you’re very far from understanding such matters. God’s ways do involve paradox. In dying you are born. In giving you receive. In emptying yourself, you are filled. Blessed are they that mourn.

If you’re trying to understand God’s ways by using a scientific framework, you will only end up farther from knowledge and end up in more confusion and disorientation. Science analyzes at the superficial, material level – it cannot see the whole. It breaks apart – and secular science proposes that the ultimate reality at the core of living things are molecules and matter. But this is false and the more you think like that the farther from reality you will go. Philosophy looks at the bigger picture. It’s like poetry – seeing the beauty, balance, order and meaning of life. It takes hours of humble contemplation. Humility is the first virtue – you can’t make any progress without it.

Are you able to understand beauty? Can you explain it, or recognize it? That is something that is beyond science. God wants to teach us through nature.

Or how about the Hanuman Langur monkeys in Northern India? Which kill the children of other females and claim the now motherless as their own to mate with?

The evolutionist’s position will somehow equate the consciousness and behaviors of a monkey with the emotional and moral values of a human being. I can understand that, but it’s completely wrong.

And surely you know that many of our traits are not to intellegently designed, even the human eye, our spines, knees and a hundred other things that all bare a somewhat poor design.

A poor design as compared to what?

I’m being serious, so i appreciate for none of the mean spirited Catholics among this forum to not leave me any nasty remarks for asking these unorthodox questions.

I don’t want to sound mean-spirited but I question your approach. You’re filled with a confusion of ideas – probably most of which come from atheistic Darwinism (do you read a lot of that kind of thing?). What kind of spiritual reading have you done? Have you read the Catholic spiritual classics?

Or is there another reason behind it. Am i not understanding God?

There is a reason behind suffering in the world, yes. When you strive as much as possible to live a holy life – a life of perfect moral virtue and sanctification in Christ (I suggest that you work on that with all of your strength and give far less time to the writings of Darwin and his followers) – the first thing that will happen to you is that you will be attacked by Satan.

You will be tempted severely and you will recognize the need you have for God in order to avoid sin.

Divine Providence is involved in every moment and in every place of the universe. God has created a way for human beings to experience free choice – a choice for God or a choice for Hell. But even there, our freedom is limited and we need God’s help to make choices and fulfill them.

Through prayer and meditation we can learn what we truly need to know – we can overcome questions that arise out of useless curiosity and vanity. But it takes steady prayer and a mortified life – consistently and patiently, with a loving heart towards God.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know why you have such a problem with him, but … if Miller did teach, or imply an atheistic evolution, claiming that there is no God, then shame on him, yes!

But as of yet, I have not witnessed that.

I already explained that he taught and published atheistic evolution and I quoted from his book. So, shame on him. You then ask why I have a problem with him.

Additionally, you claim you have not “witnessed” what I already quoted from his book. This does not make sense.

 

[reggieM]

He ceases to be necessary when the process is understood.

Therefore, if the entire process is understood (as Darwinism claims) then God is unnecessary. Thus, Darwinism eliminates the need for God. That is what Darwin was trying to do.

 

[The_Catholic]

I already explained that he taught and published atheistic evolution and I quoted from his book. So, shame on him. You then ask why I have a problem with him.

Additionally, you claim you have not “witnessed” what I already quoted from his book. This does not make sense.

Maybe you are right regarding his past, but am I suppose to take your word on it? Even so, you are neglecting what I said a bout him as well, so we have two conflicting statements about Mr. Miller. I wish he himself were here to defend himself.

 

[The_Catholic]

Therefore, if the entire process is understood (as Darwinism claims) then God is unnecessary. Thus, Darwinism eliminates the need for God. That is what Darwin was trying to do.

Come on give me a break, that was in no way what Darwin was trying to do. You’ve been taught by anti-Darwin haters, probably creationists as well. Darwin discovered a scientific fact (though at the time a theory). He never intended to slam down Christianity. He himeself set off on the Beagle believing in God, and basically,an “intellegent designer.”

 

[PhilVaz]

The << Also, if God created everything, is He therefore responsible for the “red and tooth in claw” of nature?" Is he responsible for the instincts within the sadistict cat that tortures a mouse and sometimes never eats it? >>

Good points! But I think the same could be asked about:

Is God responsible for the 9/11 hijackers flying commercial planes into buildings killing thousands? These “evil men” believed in and called upon “Allah” after all? Is God still in control of everything? Yes. What about the Tsunamis, Hurricanes, and other natural disasters? Is God directly responsible? This is the old “problem of evil.”

This quotation comes from Alfred Lord Tennyson’s In Memoriam A. H. H. (1850) in Canto 56 and refers to man:

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed

The phrase is “red in tooth and claw.” ← red in tooth and claw face

The << Or the Ichneumonidae wasps? The mother wasp inserts a paralyzing chemical into the nervous system of a caterpillar and then places her eggs inside the still-living host, where they hatch and then gradually devour the paralyzied caterpillar from the inside. >>

Evolution happens, and sometimes evil happens. Evilution I guess. We live in a fallen world that allows “evil” both in human beings and (what appears to be) in nature. This is not to say everything that human beings do is “evil” or anything that appears “evil” in nature is (metaphysically) “evil.” We don’t have to see God as directly responsible for that “evil” but He does permit or allow it to happen. The two propositions we need to keep in tension: (A) a good God exists, (B) evil exists.

A fuller answer here, because it’s getting late :yawn: : The Problem of Pain (complete mp3) by C.S. Lewis

A debate on this topic I need to listen to again:

William Lane Craig vs. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on evil and human suffering (mp3)

Phil P

 

[reggieM]

Thanks to Wolseley for this post …

*“I had gradually come by this time, * to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”
(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 277)

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

**“I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” **
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658)

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, pp. 10, 318)

“Formerly I was led… to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 281)

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

Much of what was released in Darwin’s autobiography was “cleaned up” and G-rated for public consumption; Ian Taylor, in his book In the Minds of Men (TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984), informs us that many of Darwin’s views on the Bible and Christianity “were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, ‘its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc.’…the uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles’s granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles’s irreligious nature, and which ‘might embarrass the Darwin name’.”**

 

[The_Catholic]

If you’re interested in understanding and not merely arguing about things, then start with this passage from Scripture:

Do you accept what the Sacred Writer offers here? This is a warning against worldly analysis of the ways of God. It’s telling us that secular science is guilty of arrogance towards God – by imagining that the ways of God can be known by man through the study of matter.

I understand.

Also, there are scientific mistakes in scripture that the writers could of never dreamed was wrong, but that was the general view of the world back then. Doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong.

I will suggest that you’re very far from understanding such matters. God’s ways do involve paradox. In dying you are born. In giving you receive. In emptying yourself, you are filled. Blessed are they that mourn.

**He gives all logical reasons for these, but Him being in control of everything and free will is something different, it’s illogical. **

If you’re trying to understand God’s ways by using a scientific framework, you will only end up farther from knowledge and end up in more confusion and disorientation. Science analyzes at the superficial, material level – it cannot see the whole. It breaks apart -

Agree-

and secular science **(yes, secular **science) proposes that the ultimate reality at the core of living things are molecules and matter. But this is false and the more you think like that the farther from reality you will go. Philosophy looks at the bigger picture. It’s like poetry – seeing the beauty, balance, order and meaning of life. It takes hours of humble contemplation. Humility is the first virtue – you can’t make any progress without it.

Are you able to understand beauty? Can you explain it, or recognize it? That is something that is beyond science. God wants to teach us through nature.

**Agree **

The evolutionist’s position will somehow equate the consciousness and behaviors of a monkey with the emotional and moral values of a human being. I can understand that, but it’s completely wrong.

My point was if God made all things, why something as this?

A poor design as compared to what?

Respectfuly, this indicates you know little of science, biology and anthropology. Unless God has another purpose behind it, for a Holy Deity, many things among creation are not 'intellegently" designed.

I don’t want to sound mean-spirited but I question your approach. You’re filled with a confusion of ideas – probably most of which come from atheistic Darwinism (do you read a lot of that kind of thing?). What kind of spiritual reading have you done? Have you read the Catholic spiritual classics?

I am an ex atheist, former protestant, to Catholic. I have lots of theological works, I’ve read lots os spiritual books, I have 7 different Bible, the Douay Rheims is my favorite, and I also used to be a creationist. But now I acknowledge evolution. Creationism (a 6 day literism) is absolute nonesense.

There is a reason behind suffering in the world, yes. When you strive as much as possible to live a holy life – a life of perfect moral virtue and sanctification in Christ (I suggest that you work on that with all of your strength and give far less time to the writings of Darwin and his followers) – the first thing that will happen to you is that you will be attacked by Satan.

**Ah boy, here we go again with Darwin, Satan and Darwin’s evil followers. **

You will be tempted severely and you will recognize the need you have for God in order to avoid sin.

I’ve been through many trials. I’m not as young and naive as you think.

Divine Providence is involved in every moment and in every place of the universe. God has created a way for human beings to experience free choice – a choice for God or a choice for Hell. But even there, our freedom is limited and we need God’s help to make choices and fulfill them.

Through prayer and meditation we can learn what we truly need to know – we can overcome questions that arise out of useless curiosity and vanity. But it takes steady prayer and a mortified life – consistently and patiently, with a loving heart towards God.

I respect your post, it was well written, though I obviously disagree with some of the things you’ve said, respectfuly that is.

 

[The_Catholic]

Thanks to Wolseley for this post …

“I had gradually come by this time, * to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”*
(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 277)

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

**“I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” **
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658)

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, pp. 10, 318)

“Formerly I was led… to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 281)

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

Much of what was released in Darwin’s autobiography was “cleaned up” and G-rated for public consumption; Ian Taylor, in his book In the Minds of Men (TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984), informs us that many of Darwin’s views on the Bible and Christianity “were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, ‘its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc.’…the uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles’s granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles’s irreligious nature, and which ‘might embarrass the Darwin name’.”

read this all before

 

[The_Catholic]

The << Also, if God created everything, is He therefore responsible for the “red and tooth in claw” of nature?" Is he responsible for the instincts within the sadistict cat that tortures a mouse and sometimes never eats it? >>

Good points! But I think the same could be asked about:

Is God responsible for the 9/11 hijackers flying commercial planes into buildings killing thousands? These “evil men” believed in and called upon “Allah” after all? Is God still in control of everything? Yes. What about the Tsunamis, Hurricanes, and other natural disasters? Is God directly responsible? This is the old “problem of evil.”

This quotation comes from Alfred Lord Tennyson’s In Memoriam A. H. H. (1850) in Canto 56 and refers to man:

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed

The phrase is “red in tooth and claw.” ← red in tooth and claw face

The << Or the Ichneumonidae wasps? The mother wasp inserts a paralyzing chemical into the nervous system of a caterpillar and then places her eggs inside the still-living host, where they hatch and then gradually devour the paralyzied caterpillar from the inside. >>

Evolution happens, and sometimes evil happens. Evilution I guess. We live in a fallen world that allows “evil” both in human beings and (what appears to be) in nature. This is not to say everything that human beings do is “evil” or anything that appears “evil” in nature is (metaphysically) “evil.” We don’t have to see God as directly responsible for that “evil” but He does permit or allow it to happen. The two propositions we need to keep in tension: (A) a good God exists, (B) evil exists.

A fuller answer here, because it’s getting late :yawn: : The Problem of Pain (complete mp3) by C.S. Lewis

A debate on this topic I need to listen to again:

William Lane Craig vs. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on evil and human suffering (mp3)

Phil P

regarding the evil in this world, i was not complaining about it, such as the car accident i mentioned, i merely meant if He is in control of everything, did He will that to happen? I more so would think these are free acts of evil commited by man because of our evil choices.

but also, you didn’t answer my question, if God is the creator of all then He created the sadistic cat and method of the baby wasps, right?

 

[The_Catholic]

Thanks to Wolseley for this post …

“I had gradually come by this time, * to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”*
(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 277)

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

**“I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” **
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658)

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, pp. 10, 318)

“Formerly I was led… to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 281)

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

Much of what was released in Darwin’s autobiography was “cleaned up” and G-rated for public consumption; Ian Taylor, in his book In the Minds of Men (TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984), informs us that many of Darwin’s views on the Bible and Christianity “were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, ‘its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc.’…the uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles’s granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles’s irreligious nature, and which ‘might embarrass the Darwin name’.”

What was your purpose for posting this? To slam the satanic evil Darwin (who you probably think is burning in Hell)? This is old news. Charles Darwin started off as a believer, and eventually became agnostic. But it was never because of his theory, it had to do more so with the thought that his father was burning forever in hell, and the death of his 11 year old daughter Annie.

If you’re going to slam him you should at least make the notion that unlike many mean spirited atheists and even “christians” Darwin was a devoted family man, and loved his children.

Christianity is NOT fundamentally about how God created the world, rather, it’s about the extraordinary claim that God loves His creatures and cares deeply about our welfare and being, He died for us! And THAT’S the main reason that drove Darwin sadly away, because of the death of Annie.

I like to think he got a second chance, but only the Lord knows that.

 

[reggieM]

I said:

“Thus, Darwinism eliminates the need for God. That is what Darwin was trying to do.”

You said:

Come on give me a break, that was in no way what Darwin was trying to do. You’ve been taught by anti-Darwin haters, probably creationists as well.

Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[131] His belief dwindled, and his grief at the death of his daughter Annie in 1851 made him more certain in his scepticism.[132] He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.[133] He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.[134] When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”[135]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

What Darwin wanted was Design without suffering, teleology without agony, purpose without pain.

…Imbedded in this refusal to follow Gray is the question of theodicy to which I referred earlier. How could an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God set up a process that led to “injurious deviations of structure”? How could such a Being design a struggle for existence, a survival of the fittest-- war for all and death for some? For Darwin, a doctrine of design that included evil and suffering was not worth embracing.
asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

"Darwin’s work … put the world of life into the domain of natural law. It was no longer necessary or possible to imagine that every kind of animal or plant had been specially created, nor that the beautiful and ingenious devices by which they get their food or escape their enemies have been thought out by some supernatural power, or that there is any conscious purpose behind the evolutionary process. If the idea of natural selection holds good, then animals and plants and man himself have become what they are by natural causes, as blind and automatic as those which go to mould the shape of a mountain, or make the earth and the other planets move in ellipses round the sun.
blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Darwin.htm

Darwin also introduced the idea of randomness and the non-necessity of assuming any divine overseeing Creator as the driving force behind the variety of types in the natural world.
public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html

In [Darwin’s] conception, Nature as selector took on all of the traits of the recently departed deity
: infinite creative ability, far-sightedness, concern for creatures, ever more improved organisms, slow patient operation, and the great final cause, the production of a moral creature.
darwin-chicago.uchicago.edu/origin-of-species.html

Rather, Darwin couldn’t conceive of how God, as then currently understood within the Christian church, and with which Darwin would have had some familiarity, could be the agent responsible for creating life as Darwin obeserved it to be. For Darwin, there were just too many “un God like” behaviors and systems in biology for him to accept that God (again, as understood within a particular Christian theology) would have had anything to do with the messiness of biological life as we actuallly observe it.
telicthoughts.com/both-sides-of-the-mouth/

The new critics of Darwinism properly perceive that, if the implications of Darwinism are fully accepted, this would indeed mean a basic change in our outlook of who we are, what we are, and also how we ought to live. Darwin’s “most dangerous idea” is that natural selection and other causal factors provide a more adequate explanation for the descent of humans than the postulation of divine fiat or design. The efforts to re-crucify Darwin now underway, in my judgment, are motivated by fear. I submit that it is important that scientists and skeptics defend naturalism, not only as a method of inquiry, but as a scientific account of the cosmos and our place within it, and the basis for a new humanistic ethics appropriate to the world community. “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves,” says Humanist Manifesto II. To realize this and accept it with courage could be the harbinger of a new, creative, moral future for humankind.
secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_18_2.html

 

[reggieM]

but also, you didn’t answer my question, if God is the creator of all then He created the sadistic cat and method of the baby wasps, right?

You’re anthropomorphizing cats and wasps.

 

[reggieM]

What was your purpose for posting this? To slam the satanic evil Darwin (who you probably think is burning in Hell)? This is old news. Charles Darwin started off as a believer, and eventually became agnostic. But it was never because of his theory, it had to do more so with the thought that his father was burning forever in hell, and the death of his 11 year old daughter Annie.

Those quotes indicate his religious opinions which influenced his science. I don’t see how quoting his actual words “slam” him – that’s what he believed. The fact that this is covered-up by the Darwin industry is a real problem as I see it. How and why he lost his faith is another issue. I’m not prepared to judge him on that matter.

If you’re going to slam him you should at least make the notion that unlike many mean spirited atheists and even “christians” Darwin was a devoted family man, and loved his children.

I just wanted to provide a counter-balance to the adulation that Darwin usually receives here. Believe it or not, one of the most ardent pro-evolution Catholics here claimed that those quotes came from “Darwin haters” (so blinded by love of Darwin he was). But the fact is, those are Darwin’s own words – and they shocked a Darwin-apologist who had never seen them before.

Christianity is NOT fundamentally about how God created the world, rather, it’s about the extraordinary claim that God loves His creatures and cares deeply about our welfare and being, He died for us!

I agree with that – I’d only say that the relationship between Creator and creature is very important and shouldn’t be obscured by false-science.

I like to think he got a second chance, but only the Lord knows that.

True – I would not be happy if he was lost.