I have more to add later, but for now why reinvent the wheel…excerpt from www.christiananswers.net
- Charles Darwin was a tragically mistaken man who drifted from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism. While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ’s marvelous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out ofblackness of darkness for ever.” Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer “
- Darwin’s unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did.
Are you implying that because Darwin was not a believer in God, his theory must be false?
What do you think about all the scientists out there that are religious and do accept evolutionary theory?
By: airtightnoodle on May 14, 2008
at 1:18 pm
No…not implying…stating that he was and is mistaken. He allowed his nonbelief to determine his science…not the science to determine his outlook.
By: Lee McFatridge on May 23, 2008
at 2:46 pm
Why is he mistaken, and what leads you to believe he let his beliefs affect his outlook on science?
By the way, you didn’t answer my second question from my first comment.
By: airtightnoodle on May 26, 2008
at 4:20 am
First, I believe in God and am a Scientist both by degree and by occupation and there is nothing wrong with having both.
Darwin is old news, and yes he was very intelligent, but he was NOT the inventor of Evolution nor of “Darwinism”. He was though, the one that history gave the credit to. Evolutionary studies can be traced back to the Greeks (BC time frame). Forget the French that completed experiments as early as the mid 1600’s disproving spontaneous life or Darwins’ cohort ,Mr. Wallace, who inspired Darwin to write “The Origins of Species”. NOTICE IT DOES NOT SAY THE ORIGIN OF LIFE !!!Sorry…I’ll move on.
What Darwin and Wallace did bring to the table was a creditable theory for “Natural Selection” as the mechanism for evolutionary change.
-Evolution, a theory about genetics, that has never been connected to the origins of life. Therefore, still theory in this respect.
-None the less, they did a superb job with natural selection given that they did not even have the slightest clue about sperm and eggs and DNA. Bottom line is that natural selection is real. Species do adapt to their environment and those that are weak generally die off or become food. Please take note though, that genetic mutations are a weakness and not an advancement in natural selection.
- Want an example using humans, study the years of Bubonic Plague. Fact, genetics played a role in survival. Or at the microlevel, leave the US and go to a third world country and just drink the water..hang onto your guts
-Creationism, is not a scientific theory, but a belief. And as such, is not subject to the same methodical processes. As a “belief” it does not require a set of facts to prove its existence.
- So, as a scientist, I do believe in natural selection, and evolution. * See note below.
- However, as a Christian who believes that God created all living creatures from “the earth”, I do not concern myself with “proving” creationism. Because I already believe !!!
* Genesis 2:7″And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breadth of life; and man became a living soul.” Now brothers, that is some serious evolution…from nothing came, not just life, but a living soul. >
I am out off town for the next week…look forward to your comments when I get back.
By: Dcrabtree on May 27, 2008
at 4:31 pm
Yes I agree Darwin is old news…the fact is that people who don’t have science of their own are still throwing him up as if he is their “god”.
And even as you say, “As a “belief” it does not require a set of facts to prove its existence.” Isn’t it great that science is actually proving (to those that will take the time to check it out) that this “belief” actually has facts to prove it.
By: Lee McFatridge on May 29, 2008
at 4:02 pm
Absolutely… isn’t ironic that the science community that fails to consider all possible inputs, refer to themselves as the “true” scientist. But yet they fail to follow the most elementary steps.
So, what is your answer to airtightnoodles question, “What do you think about all the scientists out there that are religious and do accept evolutionary theory?”
By: Dcrabtree on May 30, 2008
at 11:38 am