Ignorance and evolution

[itinerant1]

Like the creationists, when your argument collapses, you fall into mere name-calling. That’s not why you seem to be a creationist, however. It’s because you have copied their arguments. A prime example:

Your post indicates that you are still unable to stick to the issue at hand and provide a serious answer to the problems inherent in Darwin’s position that (1) man’s mind differs in degree only from that of higher animals, and (2) the human moral sense is a product of natural biological processes.

In the “Antiquity of Man”, Lyell argued that the appearance of man required something more than a continuous development from his closest animal relatives. Darwin was not pleased to read this. He said this part of Lyell’s book made him groan.

Darwin’s endeavor was to show that the mental powers of humans and animals was a difference in degree and not a difference in kind. Darwin reduced the causes of human mental powers to that of nature alone, in the same natural processes of evolution that gave rise to the “mental” powers of anthropoid apes. Wallace disagreed.

The only issue, the one you keeping running from, is the one stated in my first paragraph above.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of providing a serious and relevant response to the subject presented. Instead, you continuously resort to non-pertinent matters with retorts involving your contrived imaginations about me copying from creationist sources. That’s not very scientific of you. You are out of context. You lose! Game over!

Any other respondents to the problems described in my first paragraph above are most welcome.

 

[itinerant1]

As a Jew(ess), I’ve always had a sneaking feeling that the genius of Christianity lay in inventing an illness and announcing itself to be the only cure (only then, of course, to split into various groups all of which said that not only had they the only cure but that all the other cures would make the illness worse).

I rather think that ‘itinerant1 Science’ has similar features.

Oh, but I made it clear that I was not making an argument from the natural sciences. I would present a philosophical critique of valid scientific method, as it exists, from the standpoint of the philosophia perennis as represented by Jacques Maritain. Perhaps you think a defense of the true validity of scientific method is some new science that can be labeled “intinerant1 Science” or that it is specific to Christianity. Nah! If what I were to say is in fact true for the Christian, then it is true for the Jew, Moslem, and pagan. Defending the human mind and its ability to attain truth is never popular in any culture heavily influenced by skepticism. Fortunately, I have no need to be popular.

Cheerio, my good Jewess interlocutor. It’s been nice talking with you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your post indicates that you are still unable to stick to the issue at hand and provide a serious answer to the problems inherent in Darwin’s position that (1) man’s mind differs in degree only from that of higher animals,

If that bothers you, I think everyone would be pleased to see your evidence that human mental processes are essentially different from those of his closest relatives. If you can’t think of any, what are the “problems?”

If it bothers you that God might produce man in part by natural means, isn’t that just your dissatisfaction with the way God does things?

The only issue, the one you keeping running from, is the one stated in my first paragraph above.

I’ve shown you evidence for the fact that man’s mental capacities differ from apes primarily in degree. Would you like some more evidence for that?

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of providing a serious and relevant response to the subject presented.

I’m thinking you would have been much wiser to marshal some evidence that supports you, than to obsess on how evil the Barbarian is.

Instead, you continuously resort to non-pertinent matters with retorts involving your contrived imaginations about me copying from creationist sources. That’s not very scientific of you. You are out of context. You lose! Game over!

And the final creationist ploy; declare victory, and run for the bunker. I’ve noticed that the guys who actually do well in internet discussions never feel the need to tell others that they won. Can you guess why?

 

[edwest2]

Why do you label people? “creationist ploy” Do you think people do not think for themselves? That they always follow someone else’s playbook?

I see you’re back to the “We’re all just animals.” concept. Of course, science is limited in what it can discover but other forms of reason tell us that man is unique among God’s creatures.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

…it is the implications of your theory for human development that need a closer look.

It is not my theory, but the overwhelming consensus of modern evolutionary biology.

I stated that the philosophical and theological position that man has a spiritual soul is consistent only with the view that says man’s difference is a difference in kind that is radical

. The view assumes no particular scientific position about emergence.

The issue pertains to applying a particular version of the contiuum to the appearance of man. If a Catholic scientist says man does not represent a radical difference in kind, then he needs to explain the inconsistency of what he maintains as scientist with what he believes as a Catholic. To re-restate the problem, the truth in science cannot contradict the truth of philosophy or theology. The God of evolution is also the God of philosophy and theology. God cannot contradict Himself. Truth cannot contradict truth. So, the evolutionist who says man diifers only in degree, or differs in kind that is not a radical difference in kind, but superficial, needs to state who is wrong, himself, the Christian philosopher, or the Christian theologian. To restate a scientific position, as you have, does not explicitly answer the question.

Others have taken the view that you have posed a false dichotomy. I do not plan in this post to address that point, which others are better qualified to answer than I am. However, in this thread, you have consistently taken the position that there is a flaw in Darwin’s thinking that has survived in current neo-Darwinian biology. That flaw, as you see it, is the proposition that human cognition is different only in degree (or in superficial kind) from that of other animals. One argument that you advance in support of this contention is that a right understanding of traditional theology and philosophy leads us to the conclusion that the origins of human cognition (you use the specific examples of the moral sense, reason and propositional speech) lie outside the province of the natural sciences and are not a proper study for them, because human attributes are radically different in kind from other animals.

You have, rather insultingly, compared scientists to artisans and philosophers to architects, but artisans know the difference between wood and straw, and this artisan will show in this post that you are wrong to claim that you have identified a flaw at the heart of neo-Darwinian biology. I will show that a study of the emergence of human cognition does lie within the province of the natural sciences. Further, I will illustrate that there are robust scientific findings that support the hypothesis that human cognition has its origins in an evolutionary development from the cognitive capacities of species ancestral to humans and that human cognition is different in degree but not in kind from that of other animals. (I will not, of course reproduce those findings here, but will refer you to them.)

The object of the natural sciences is to gain an understanding of the natural world. Evolutionary biologists have reached a robust conclusion, from a large quantity of evidence, that the human body has evolved from ancestral species, which include the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Almost all anatomical and physiological attributes of the human species can be shown to have their origin in ancestral species. Human cognition represents a class of attribute specific to humans. It is evident that human cognition in general (of which various elements include the ability to reason, a moral sense, propositional speech, and so on) depends on the existence and the characteristics of physical attributes of humans, especially with regard to neurophysiology and the brain. There is ample evidence for the need for a physical platform on which human cognition operates: the effects of physical trauma to the brain and stroke can be shown to severely disrupt or destroy various aspects of human cognition – and the location within the brain of the trauma or stroke determines which aspect of cognition is affected in a rather precise way. PET scanning demonstrates that particular regions of the brain are used in particular cognitive tasks. It can be shown that certain genetic mutations cause defects in cognition. It is evident that there is a physical foundation for human cognition in the physical brain and in neurophysiological processes. Conversely, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of functional cognition of any kind in the absence of a physical platform. Since we have ample evidence for the involvement of a physical platform in human cognition, and a complete lack of evidence for the existence of cognition in the absence of a physical brain (thereby leading us to the strong hypothesis and scientific conclusion that the proper operation of a physical brain is a necessary condition for the operation of cognition), the investigation of the origin of human cognition is a perfectly valid scientific enterprise. There is no philosophical or theological consideration that has the power to override the conclusion that a study of the emergence of human cognition from the primitive prototypic capacities in the ancestors of modern humans, as they are inferred from the observations of extant non-human animals, is a valid enterprise, grounded, as this is, in direct evidence.

To be continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

We observe various aspects of human and animal cognition, we observe that they all depend on a physical platform, and so we can ask perfectly valid scientific questions – how is the cognition of humans and other animals related and how, in human evolution, did human cognition evolve from the cognition of ancestral species? To help us, we have an increasingly sophisticated view of the nature of human cognition – see for example the work of Lena Cosmides and John Tooby, of Dan Sperber, Noam Chomsky, Paul and Patricia Churchland, Steven Mithen and many others. In addition, we have the work of naturalists who specialise in non-human animal behaviour who not only explore the limits of the cognitive processes of non-human animals but who also explore ways in which animal cognition can be seen to represent a direct precursor to human cognition. Such researchers include Jane Goodal, Frans de Waal, Andrew Whiten, Tetsuro Matsuzawa and others. Finally, particular problems such as the evolution of morality, altruism and co-operation have an enormous scientific literature describing both a theoretical framework for co-operation problems based in game theory and an empirical basis (R D Alexander, Robert Axelrod, Richard Dawkins, Robert Wright, Matt Ridley, David Sloan Wilson, Richard Joyce, W D Hamilton, R L Trivers, Karl Sigmund, Martin Nowak, Claus Wedekind, David Stephens, Lee Dugatkin, Michael Mesterton-Gibbons and many others).

To conclude, the study of the origins of human cognition falls squarely within the competence of the natural sciences. I leave others to decide what consequence then follows for a theology or philosophy that erroneously claims that it does not.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why do you label people?

Calling a spade a spade is habitual for scientists.

“creationist ploy” Do you think people do not think for themselves?

I think many people would prefer not to. Not as many as the professional creationists would like, of course.

That they always follow someone else’s playbook?

As you see, itinerant certainly has it memorized.

I see you’re back to the “We’re all just animals.” concept.

That’s funny. I just did a post in which I pointed out that we aren’t just animals. We are animals of course, but animals is not all we are.

 

[hecd2]

Darwin’s metaphysical vision of materialism, reflected in his “certain” view of man’s mind differing in degree only from that of “higher animals”, the evolution of the human moral sense, and in many other places, is only corrected by a sound, traditional epistemology that sees immateriality as an essential component of every physical thing.

And given that there is strong evidence for the proposition that the moral sense of modern humans evolved from a prototypical moral sense in our non-human ancestors, and that there is NO evidence for immateriality as an essential component of anything at all, never mind of everything, how do you propose to persuade us that your conception of traditional epistemology is sound? It seems from what we have seen on this thread that your epistemology is flawed, whimsical, superstitious, prejudiced, authoritarian, superseded, question-begging, partisan and otherwise thoroughly unreliable.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

(Barbarian shows that Darwin attributed the orgin of life to God in The Origin of Species)

Hi Barbarian Darwin didn’t attribute the orgin of life to God (Creator) in the first edition of Of The Origin of Species. And as you have mentioned he was agnostic. This is why HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS is printing **On the Origin of Species **A Facsimile of the First Edition by Charles Darwin.

Harvard University Press is a first rate publisher and has this to say regarding Darwin’s book:

*It is now fully recognized that the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 brought about a revolution in man’s attitude toward life and his own place in the universe. This work is rightly regarded as one of the most important books ever published, and a knowledge of it should be part of the intellectual equipment of every educated person. The book remains surprisingly modern in its assertions and is also remarkably accessible to the layman, much more so than recent treatises necessarily encumbered with technical language and professional jargon.

This first edition had a freshness and uncompromising directness that were considerably weakened in later editions, and yet nearly all available reprints of the work are based on the greatly modified sixth edition of 1872. In the only other modern reprinting of the first edition, the pagination was changed, so that it is impossible to give page references to significant passages in the original. Clearly this facsimile reprint of the momentous first edition fills a need for scholars and general readers alike. *
hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DARORX.html
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DARORX.html
You did mention Thomas Huxley in another message. He married Henrietta (Hettie) Anne Heathorn. True they as you had mentioned that they had a long life together after spending eight years apart before they married in 1855. I found a beautiful poem she wrote.

BROWNING’S FUNERAL

December 31, 1889

*This day within the Abbey, where of old
Our kings are sepulchred, a king of song,
Browning, among his peers is laid to rest,
Borne to the tomb by loving hearts, and stoled
In shining raiment that his genius wove.
No lingering illness his, with swift surprise
Death flashed the Light Eternal in his eyes
And blinded Life. In this way he was blest.
Perhaps in some far star he now has met
His rose of love, his ne’er forgotten wife,
In life past death the passion of his life,
And they again as once in spirit blent
Look thro’ the veil this day and hear the fret
Of many feet, the swelling music spent
On mourning listeners. With voices low,
Chanting their hymn, the boys sing as they go,
“He giveth his Beloved sleep.” What tho’
The perishable forms these two once wore
In different lands lie sundered by the sea;
Their spirits smile at this our fond regret:
“What matters anything since we have met,”
They radiant sing. Together! oh, what more
Can love, long parted, from the Eterrnal crave?

And if there be no meeting past the grave,
If all is darkness, silence, yet 'tis rest.
Be not afraid, ye waiting hearts that weep,
For God still giveth his belovèd sleep,
And if an endless sleep he wills, – so best.
*http://www.poemspoet.com/henrietta-anne-huxley/browning-s-funeral

 

[wildleafblower]

Continuation

We observe various aspects of human and animal cognition, we observe that they all depend on a physical platform, and so we can ask perfectly valid scientific questions – how is the cognition of humans and other animals related and how, in human evolution, did human cognition evolve from the cognition of ancestral species? To help us, we have an increasingly sophisticated view of the nature of human cognition –
[pls. refer to the original posting of Alec’s (msg. 504) because I am restricted by space contraints within my posting. THX]

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thanks artiste Alec Superb writing in your two part essay.

Relating to cognition we have for an example:

**Learning From Others’ Mistakes? Limits on Understanding a Trap-Tube Task by Young Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Children (Homo sapiens) ** byVictoria Horner and Andrew Whiten, August 1, 2006. Here is a snippet of the paper:
*Children from the control group rarely inserted the tool into the apparatus, but instead of trying in vain to insert their hands into the tube (as the chimpanzee control participants had done), they tended to reproduce the irrelevant actions of the demonstrator.

These observations indicate interesting species differences. It seems that when chimpanzees have an incomplete understanding of an observed behavior, they tend to ignore much of the demonstration and try to achieve success by using their own alternative strategy. In contrast, when human children have an incomplete understanding, they tend to copy a large proportion of the actions that they see, irrespective of their causal relevance. This finding fits with a number of studies that have found children to imitate in situations in which chimpanzees, although capable of imitation, rely more heavily on emulation. * (Horner & Whiten, 2005; Nagell, Olgin, & Tomasello, 1993; Whiten, Custance, Gomez, Teixidor, & Bard, 1996).

and

The monkey in the mirror: Hardly a stranger Contributed by Frans B. M. de Waal, June 9, 2005 to the National Academy of Sciences.

Relating to biological we have an example:
** Aging and Fertility Patterns in Wild Chimpanzees Provide Insights into the Evolution of Menopause**, December 18th, 2007 issue of Current Biology. Here is a snippet from that article:
*The study shows that chimpanzees do not experience the extended “postreproductive” period that women do. That is to say, women will cease to produce eggs long before their overall health deteriorates, whereas the evidence indicates that the lack of reproduction in older chimps is most likely indicative of overall health. Only about 10 % of chimpanzees live past the age of 40. *"

I might as well add Darwin too. **Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (Chapter III, “Struggle for Existence”) ** Here is a snippet:
*We began this series by insectivorous birds, and we have ended with them. Not that in nature the relations can ever be as simple as this. Battle within battle must ever be recurring with varying success; and yet in the long-run the forces are so nicely balanced, that the face of nature remains uniform for long periods of time, though assuredly the merest trifle would often give the victory to one organic being over another. Nevertheless so profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an organic being; and as we do not see the cause, we invoke cataclysms to desolate the world, or invent laws on the duration of the forms of life!

I am tempted to give one more instance showing how plants and animals, most remote in the scale of nature, are bound together by a web of complex relations. I shall hereafter have occasion to show that the exotic Lobelia fulgens, in this part of England, is never visited by insects, and consequently, from its peculiar structure, never can set a seed. Many of our orchidaceous plants absolutely require the visits of moths to remove their pollen-masses and thus to fertilise them. I have, also, reason to believe that humble-bees are indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. From experiments which I have tried, I have found that the visits of bees, if not indispensable, are at least highly beneficial to the fertilisation of our clovers; but humble-bees alone visit the common red clover (Trifolium pratense), as other bees cannot reach the nectar. Hence I have very little doubt, that if the whole genus of humble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear. The number of humble-bees in any district depends in a great degree on the number of field-mice, which destroy their combs and nests; and Mr. H. Newman, who has long attended to the habits of humble-bees, believes that “more than two thirds of them are thus destroyed all over England.” Now the number of mice is largely dependent, as every one knows, on the number of cats; and Mr. Newman says, “Near villages and small towns I have found the nests of humble-bees more numerous than elsewhere, which I attribute to the number of cats that destroy the mice.” Hence it is quite credible that the presence of **a feline animal **in large numbers in a district might determine, through the intervention first of mice and then of bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district! *
oh Darwin, how I do love thee. You’ve given me all the critters found within my garden of Love:heart: especially the CAT!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Hi Barbarian Darwin didn’t attribute the orgin of life to God (Creator) in the first edition of Of The Origin of Species.

True. He did it in a later edition. I don’t think that it represents a great change from his earlier years. He admitted, for example, that the ship’s officers on the Beagle twitted him about his religious orthodoxy.

And as you have mentioned he was agnostic.

As an old man, he said he was “leaning toward agnosticism.”

He was a confirmed Christian when he wrote his book.

 

[wildleafblower]

As an old man, he said he was “leaning toward agnosticism.”

National Geographic has an article written by David Quammen entitled Was Darwin Wrong? Here is a snippet from the article that states that DARWIN was agnostic:

“As an undergraduate at Cambridge, he had studied halfheartedly toward becoming a clergyman himself, before he discovered his real vocation as a scientist. Later, having established a good but conventional reputation in natural history, he spent 22 years secretly gathering evidence and pondering arguments—both for and against his theory—because he didn’t want to flame out in a burst of unpersuasive notoriety. He may have delayed, too, because of his anxiety about announcing a theory that seemed to challenge conventional religious beliefs—in particular, the Christian beliefs of his wife, Emma. Darwin himself quietly renounced Christianity during his middle age, and later described himself as an agnostic. He continued to believe in a distant, impersonal deity of some sort, a greater entity that had set the universe and its laws into motion, but not in a personal God who had chosen humanity as a specially favored species. Darwin avoided flaunting his lack of religious faith, at least partly in deference to Emma. And she prayed for his soul.”
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.htm

National Geographic Magazine

National Geographic stories take you on a journey that’s always enlightening, often surprising, and unfailingly fascinating.

www.nationalgeographic.com

National Geographic’s article supports Letter 12041 — Darwin, C. R. to Fordyce, John, 7 May 1879 which I posted to the topic National Academies book on evolution (1) that you participated in Barbarian. Here is part of my message from that topic:

Dear Sir
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. [darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html](http://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html)
http://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html

1.**National Academies book on evolution **( REFERENCE message 220)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209575
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209575

Quite frankly, I’ll believe in God for all those who don’t or are iffy about God. That’s how strong my FAITH is in the power of loving JESUS! :yup: Mere mortal words can’t begin to express the depth of my endless love for Jesus.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin was, as I said, and as your article admits, tending toward agnosticism late in life.

He was a dedicated Anglican when he wrote The Origin of Species.

 

[anthony022071]

Of course you are quite wrong. How can it be possible to have such a confused conception of evolutionary theory and genetics and still think that you have identified a fundamental flaw that all the specialists have overlooked.

What did I say that was wrong? It is a fact that we descend by reproduction.
It is a fact that speciation is complete only when there is a genetic barrier to reproduction. It is a fact that where there is a genetic barrier the result at best will be a hybrid that can’t reproduce.

First of all, you overlook the fact that genetic barriers occur not just between individuals but between populations of individuals.

No,I don’t overlook that. Anyway,populations are made up of individuals which are the products of reproduction from other individuals.

At the beginning of a speciation, the populations represent a single viably interbreeding species. At some point in time populations are separated geographically or ecologically. Over time those populations evolve independently through random drift and in response to different adaptational pressures. At some later point in time the populations no longer interbreed spontaneously in the wild, and even if they were to do so they would produce no offspring through genetic incompatability.

It’s the factor of genetic incompatibility that ultimately matters to the common descent theory. In the final analysis,we descend through reproduction,not just through geographic or behavioral factors or through mutation. So unless examples can be shown of the process of speciation leading to the fact of two species which are genetically incompatible (as with cats and dogs),the theory does not work. It has to be shown from modern examples that the modern species which are genetically incompatible really must have come from species that must have been compatible. Science must show A (genetic compatibility) proceeding to B (no genetic possibility of reproduction). “Maybe” doesn’t cut it – the answer has to be a definite “yes”. Either Nature really works that way,with that kind of fluidity from one species to another,or it doesn’t. We descend by a reproductive “yes”,not what seems like an evolutionary possibility.

 

[inthecloud]

As a Jew(ess), I’ve always had a sneaking feeling that the genius of Christianity lay in inventing an illness and announcing itself to be the only cure (only then, of course, to split into various groups all of which said that not only had they the only cure but that all the other cures would make the illness worse).

I have to admit is a good critique of Christianity:thumbsup:

About Darwins faith or lack of it, that had to do more with his daugther death that with is work.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What did I say that was wrong? It is a fact that we descend by reproduction.

It is a fact that speciation is complete only when there is a genetic barrier to reproduction. It is a fact that where there is a genetic barrier the result at best will be a hybrid that can’t reproduce.

I’ve read this several times, and it makes no sense at all to me. I’m wondering; just what do you think “hybrid” means?

 

[anthony022071]

I’ve read this several times, and it makes no sense at all to me. I’m wondering; just what do you think “hybrid” means?

The kind of hybrid I was talking about is the result of a postzygotic isolating mechanism – as with a mule,which can’t reproduce. I should have that,at best,the hybrids will have offspring that can’t reproduce (hybrid breakdown).

 

[The_Barbarian]

The kind of hybrid I was talking about is the result of a postzygotic isolating mechanism – as with a mule,which can’t reproduce. I should have that,at best,the hybrids will have offspring that can’t reproduce (hybrid breakdown).

Ah, that’s the problem. You’ve confused reproductive isolation with hybridism. Two different things. Could you get with a genetics text and see what the difference is, or would you like me to explain it?

There are, of course, some instances of speciation by hybridization, but it’s not the common way.

 

[anthony022071]

Ah, that’s the problem. You’ve confused reproductive isolation with hybridism. Two different things. Could you get with a genetics text and see what the difference is, or would you like me to explain it?

There are, of course, some instances of speciation by hybridization, but it’s not the common way.

I know that they are two different things. But as I’ve said before,the kind of reproductive isolation that ultimately matters,if you’re going to argue for “common descent”,is the genetic kind,where two species are incompatible with each other,as with humans and apes. And as I said also,we ultimately descend by acts of reproduction,not just through geographic isolation and genetic mutation.

You can show me examples of speciation through genetic mutation and geographic isolation – but so what? If the species are still geneticly able to reproduce with each other,then those examples can’t be used to explain why apes and humans can’t reproduce with each other (pardon the image,but that’s what the argument boils down to). The process of speciation is one thing,but the fact of complete inability to reproduce between two groups is another,and science has not shown,except in theory, that the one fact leads to the to the other fact. Descent is vertical,and acts of reproduction,not mutation,are the real connecting links between us and our ancestors. If the theory is to be convincing,it would have to account for the fact of complete genetic incompatiblity between modern life forms which supposedly were compatible thousands of years ago.

 

[itinerant1]

I have to admit is a good critique of Christianity:thumbsup:

About Darwins faith or lack of it, that had to do more with his daugther death that with is work.

A note on Darwin’s loss of faith by Ernst Mayr:

“Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-1839, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a “materialist” (more or less equivalent to an atheist; see Chapter 2).” One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard Univ. Press, 1991, p. 75.