NEWSFLASH: Darwin was deeply religious

Thanks for the info. I am listening right now. As a Science Teacher, I find the entire Evolution debate ridiculous. This will be interesting.

minifastcar wrote:

Thanks for the info. I am listening right now. As a Science Teacher, I find the entire Evolution debate ridiculous. This will be interesting.

One thing I find interesting is why so many people who believe in evolution and survival of the fittest work so hard to preserve weak species on the verge of extinction. Aren't they concerned with the cool new species that they may be blocking from coming into being by helping out the weak ones that can't make it?

know1 wrote:

One thing I find interesting is why so many people who believe in evolution and survival of the fittest work so hard to preserve weak species on the verge of extinction. Aren't they concerned with the cool new species that they may be blocking from coming into being by helping out the weak ones that can't make it?

...
On the brink of extinction... due to natural selection... or Man's intervention? There is a difference, you know? Like, us killing off a Wolf population because they are eating our sheep does NOT make the Wolf a 'Weak Species'.

know1 wrote:

One thing I find interesting is why so many people who believe in evolution and survival of the fittest work so hard to preserve weak species on the verge of extinction. Aren't they concerned with the cool new species that they may be blocking from coming into being by helping out the weak ones that can't make it?

this is an ignorant statement....


then, why let all those weak babies live ???

"your baby has severe food allergies"

"oh well, get that weak shit outta here!!!"

sweetpotato wrote:

I know the battle between Evolution and "Intelligent Design" tends to insinuate that Charles Darwin was an atheist, but nothing could be further from the truth. He was actually devoutly religious, and his experiences in South America aboard the SS Beagle only deepened his faith, and they also opened his eyes to the vastness of creation.

At the time of Darwin, the reigning belief amongst most people was that God had created heaven and earth in one fell swoop and everything had always existed exactly as it was then, and would always be the same. To quote the show I'll reference below, "This social structure was held to be divinely ordained like every condition of plant and animal, fixed and static and eternal. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century had brought biblical certainties to laypeople in their own language. And they read the story of creation more literally than the classic theologians had."

What Darwin saw on his journeys flew in the face of the idea that species were stagnant creations. THAT is what he wrote in Origin of the Species. People resisted it so vehemently because the effects of evolution are soooooo sloooooooow that it requires a certain patience that most people just didn't have. And obviously, many still haven't aquired.

If more people who fight the notion of Evolution actually READ Origin of the Species, I think this debate over creationism versus evolution would not only be more intelligent, it might not need to happen at all.

There's a fascinating radio broadcast put out by American Public Media's Speaking of Faith. It's called Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Darwin. Both the interviewer and the interviewee are religious, but they have open minds to science. Imagine that!

Here's the link: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/
You can download the podcast, or just read the transcript (http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml).

I just listened to the podcast this morning, and it was excellent. I'd be interested to discuss the show with anyone who actually takes the time to listen to or read it. There have been plenty of threads debating evolution and i.d., so let's not make this another one of those. I'd like to keep it just for those who have given the broadcast their attention.

Thanks!

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news1327.jpg

I don't understand why people keep arguing that science has somehow killed the notion of God. Science deals with the things that are and were. The penultimate question - what gave rise to the energy that caused the singularity (big bang) is probably never going to have a definitive answer.

However science deals very well with processes once matter was created. Darwin's religious beliefs are about as meaningful as slave owners writing the declaration of independence. Important moments in science, or history, in really any kind of revolution to an established order generally go well beyond the lives and personal beliefs of the people shaking things up.

Darwin caught on to something he thought had the potential to be vastly important, and thousands of scientists over hundreds of years and piled on evidence and expanded his theories in every direction. Copernicus could have thought the sun was powered by the farts of unmeltable giants, it would not take away from the fact that it was still the center of the solar system. Other important information about his theories would arrive with better instruments and more brains following up on the problem.

I can understand how people would want to refute a fallacious argument about Darwin's religious beliefs, but in the end his personal beliefs have no bearing on the freight train he started in the scientific world.

The man who synthesized LSD thought it was useless and regretted it until the day he died.

Roe v. Wade a landmark case which has polarized an entire country was made possible by a woman who later changed her mind about it.

The Egyptians built pyramids so vast that to this day we still don't know how they did it, and they thought the God Ra carried the sun out of the sky in a canoe and returned later with the moon.

The entire foundation of western science and philosophy was created by societies that sacrificed goats on altars to pray for a good harvest.

etc..etc...

Darwin's piety in my opinion (which is all I'm stating) has no bearing on the "debate" over intelligent design. Many noted biochemists (sorry I don't have the links on hand) have actually been led to a stronger belief in god after studying the complexity of DNA. But that doesn't lead them to believe that in 7 days the entire biodiversity of the universe was plopped down on the Earth, but that since the advent of the big bang, in collusion with the body of scientific evidence we've accumulated, that something was directing the course of the universe's creation, or that there were blueprints. You can't ignore the science, but you can always tailor your beliefs to include scientific discovery. Is it such a drastic change to say intelligent design started at the big bang?

The world isn't flat, the earth isn't the center of the universe, the world is older than its biblical age, religion changes its attitudes slowly, well glacially slow (that's an intentional metaphor) but it doesn't mean new science can't be incorporated into old beliefs.

Heiwa,

ETE

Cosmo wrote:

...
On the brink of extinction... due to natural selection... or Man's intervention? There is a difference, you know? Like, us killing off a Wolf population because they are eating our sheep does NOT make the Wolf a 'Weak Species'.

I don't think man's so-called "intervention" and natural selection are two different things.

MrSmith wrote:

you're right, but there are benefits to having more vaariety in the world.

Right - and whose to say there won't be more variety?

Snake wrote:

Not hard for me to believe. I could never totally understand why really religious people couldnt just think that maybe God created everything to evolve.

Bingo.

I would think that would be the most God-like approach. I'll take it one step further that God pushed the first piece of space dust in the Big Bang, and it's all history from there.

there was an interesting Time article on him and Lincoln not long ago. i dont think he was terribly religious.