User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Darwin.... his impact on christianity

  1. #11
    V.I.P. V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    SharetheHedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    9,039
    Thanks
    1,206
    Thanked: 8,534
    Rep Power
    13248600
    Quote Originally Posted by RMNIXON View Post
    There is one significant point where Darwin was wrong. While there is evidence for biological evolution there is no evidence this was a random accidental process. Darwin tried to fit evidence for a theory that does not explain the very complex biology we now know that exists. Every cell in your body is an engineering wonder!

    The ET's planned it that way
    "If you think they hate Trump now, wait till his policies start working." (Dennis Miller)

    "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society." ​(Aristotle)


    "For the Lord will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the TRUMP of God..." 1Thess.4:16

  2. #12
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Mr. Independent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked: 262
    Rep Power
    1722291
    I can sympathize with his spiritual struggles with the problem of good/evil, etc. but it doesn't really convince me negative on God's existence.

  3. #13
    Alumni Member & VIP Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 55.0%

    Canadianeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    15,857
    Thanks
    15,959
    Thanked: 17,463
    Rep Power
    21474859
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankenvoter View Post
    That's why people dont like scientists
    Just words. Long before Galileo was imprisoned by the church...there were brilliant men who deduced the earth revolves around the sun. There first one was probably 300 years before Christ, and a 1000 years after Moses.

    Jerome and Hus burned at the stake for heresy.

    Do you need a list of those who suffered at the hands of the church, to address the point being made about some stupid Christians?

    Those atrocities were carried out by people representing your God, and, they were dangerously stupid Christians.
    The Progressives have become full blown NAZIs, to thwart a Hitler that doesn't exist...since that is the only way they can express, and self justify, their fascism.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Canadianeye For This Useful Post:

    Quark (11-13-2019)

  5. #14
    V.I.P. V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 36.0%

    Frankenvoter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    8,821
    Thanks
    13,181
    Thanked: 14,628
    Rep Power
    21474848
    Quote Originally Posted by Canadianeye View Post
    Just words. Long before Galileo was imprisoned by the church...there were brilliant men who deduced the earth revolves around the sun. There first one was probably 300 years before Christ, and a 1000 years after Moses.

    Jerome and Hus burned at the stake for heresy.

    Do you need a list of those who suffered at the hands of the church, to address the point being made about some stupid Christians?

    Those atrocities were carried out by people representing your God, and, they were dangerously stupid Christians.
    Catholics I believe.

    Kind of like the reformation that's being asked right now of the muslims.

    Protestants are protest-ants, protestors, of the catholic church.

    That's kind of lumping all christians together in the way people are demanded not to do with various ethnicities or even other religions, or is it that you've got a grudge against the church in general and dont want to bother differentiating between who actually did what to who?
    "Hello all".......I would have said "good evening ladies and gents", but you all know what you are.......Moe Howard
    (what I'm sure was an inside joke to all the Hollyweird actors in the scene at the time, as Hollywood was Weinstein before Weinsten ever was)

  6. #15
    Alumni Member & VIP Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 55.0%

    Canadianeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    15,857
    Thanks
    15,959
    Thanked: 17,463
    Rep Power
    21474859
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankenvoter View Post
    Catholics I believe.

    Kind of like the reformation that's being asked right now of the muslims.

    Protestants are protest-ants, protestors, of the catholic church.

    That's kind of lumping all christians together in the way people are demanded not to do with various ethnicities or even other religions, or is it that you've got a grudge against the church in general and dont want to bother differentiating between who actually did what to who?
    You mean like lumping, as in a statement that says:

    This is why people don't like scientists?
    The Progressives have become full blown NAZIs, to thwart a Hitler that doesn't exist...since that is the only way they can express, and self justify, their fascism.

  7. #16
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Created Blog entry50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 38.0%

    S-N-A-F-U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    4,572
    Thanks
    2,162
    Thanked: 7,196
    Rep Power
    21474845
    IN THE early 19th century, religion and science enjoyed a fairly amicable relationship. Just two years before The Origin of Species was published, biologist and Harvard professor Louis Agassiz wrote that the living world shows “premeditation, wisdom, greatness” and that a major purpose of natural history was to analyze “the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe.”

    Agassiz’ viewpoint was not uncommon. Many people viewed science and religion as compatible. Discoveries of science were often perceived as evidence of a Grand Creator. But a subtle rift was developing between religion and science.

    Skepticism Takes Root

    Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the first volume of which appeared in 1830, cast doubt on the Bible’s creation account. Lyell claimed that the creation could not possibly have occurred in six literal days. Physicist Fred Hoyle wrote: “Lyell’s books were largely responsible for convincing the world at large that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought.”*

    A foundation was thus laid for skepticism. In the minds of many, science and the Bible could no longer be harmonized. Faced with a choice, many opted for science. “Lyell’s work had thrown the early chapters of the Old Testament into doubt,” Fred Hoyle wrote, “and Darwin’s book was there to replace it.”

    The Origin of Species came at an opportune time for those who did not want to accept the Bible as the Word of God. A romance had already blossomed between man and science. An infatuated public was wooed by the promises and accomplishments of science. Like a gallant suitor, science showered man with innovative gifts​—the telescope, the microscope, and the steam engine and later, electricity, the telephone, and the automobile. Technology had already fostered an industrial revolution that was providing the common man with unprecedented material advantages.

    In contrast, religion was perceived as a roadblock to progress. Some felt that it held people in a stupor, unable to keep up with the rapid advances of science. Atheists began to proclaim their views loudly and boldly. Indeed, as Richard Dawkins wrote, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Science was becoming mankind’s new hope for salvation.

    At first, religious leaders opposed the theory of evolution. But as the decades passed, the clergy in general yielded to popular opinion, accepting a blend of evolution and creation. A 1938 New York Times headline announced: “Church of England Report Upholds Evolutionary Idea of the Creation.” The report, by a commission under the Archbishop of York, stated: “No objection to a theory of evolution can be drawn from the two creation narratives in Genesis I and II, since it is generally agreed among educated Christians that these are mythological in origin and that their value for us is symbolic rather than historical.” The archbishop’s commission concluded: “You can think what you like and still be Christian.”

    For many, such attempts to reconcile the Bible with evolution only diluted the Bible’s credibility. It resulted in widespread skepticism of the Bible, and this still exists today, even among some religious leaders. Typical are the comments of an Episcopal bishop in Canada who asserted that the Bible was written in a prescientific age and therefore reflected prejudice and ignorance. He said that the Bible contained “historic errors” and “blatant exaggerations” regarding Jesus’ birth and resurrection.

    Thus, many, including members of the clergy, have been quick to discredit the Bible. But where has such skepticism led? What alternative hope has been offered? With weakened faith in the Bible, some have looked to philosophy and politics.

    Effects on Philosophy and Politics

    The Origin of Species offered a fresh outlook on human behavior. Why does one nation succeed in conquering another nation? Why does one race prevail over another race? The Origin of Species, with its emphasis on natural selection and survival of the fittest, gave explanations that stirred the leading philosophers of the 19th century.

    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Karl Marx (1818-1883) were philosophers who had a profound effect on politics. Both were fascinated by evolution. “Darwin’s book is important,” said Marx, “and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history.” Historian Will Durant called Nietzsche a “child of Darwin.” The book Philosophy​—An Outline-​History summarized one of Nietzsche’s beliefs: “The strong, brave, domineering, proud, fit best the society that is to be.”

    Darwin believed​—and wrote in a letter to a friend—​that in the future “an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” He used as a precedent the European conquest of others and chalked this up to “the struggle for existence.”

    The powerful were quick to latch on to such statements. H. G. Wells wrote in The Outline of History: “Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding. And they believed further that they had to be strong, energetic, ruthless, ‘practical,’ egotistical.”

    Thus, “survival of the fittest” took on philosophical, social, and political overtones, often to an absurd extent. “To some war became ‘a biological necessity,’” said the book Milestones of History. And this book noted that during the next century, “Darwinian ideas formed an integral part of Hitler’s doctrine of racial superiority.”

    Of course, neither Darwin, Marx, nor Nietzsche lived to see how their ideas would be applied​—or misapplied. Indeed, they expected that the struggle for existence would improve man’s lot in life. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.” Twentieth-​century priest and biologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin agreed with this, theorizing that eventually there would occur an ‘evolution of the minds of the entire human race; everyone would harmoniously work toward one goal.’

    Degradation, Not Improvement

    Do you see such improvement occurring? The book Clinging to a Myth commented on De Chardin’s optimism: “De Chardin must have been quite oblivious of the history of human bloodshed and of racist systems such as apartheid in South Africa. He sounds like a man who is not living in this world.” Rather than progress toward unity, humanity in this century has experienced racial and national division on an unprecedented scale.

    The hope held out in The Origin of Species, that man would progress toward perfection, or at least improvement, is very much unfulfilled. And that hope keeps receding with time, for since the general acceptance of evolution, the human family all too often has descended into barbarism. Consider: More than 100 million people have been killed in the wars of this century, some 50 million in World War II alone. Also consider the recent ethnic slaughter in such places as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

    Is this to say that there were no wars and brutalities in past centuries? No, there certainly were. But the acceptance of the theory of evolution, this brutal struggle-​for-​existence mind-​set, this survival-​of-​the-​fittest idea, has not served to improve man’s lot. So while evolution cannot be blamed for all of man’s ills, it has helped push the human family into ever greater hatred, crime, violence, immorality, and degradation. Since it is widely accepted that humans descended from beasts, it is not surprising that more and more people act like beasts.


    It wasn't Darwin, or other aspiring cranks that placed doubt in the minds of others about the existence of superior entity at work in the universe, they were only the instruments of the "god of this world." (2 cor. 4:4)

  8. #17
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    9,027
    Thanked: 24,536
    Rep Power
    21474867
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankenvoter View Post
    That's why people dont like scientists
    "People" don't like being burned at the stake.

    Doctrine, sir. That's what we"re dealing with, and yes, the stupid people who swallow it.

    I'm very sorry but I don't care in the least if the stupid people are offended. I said "stupid Christians", I didn't say all Christians are stupid.

    But if you're complaining about it, it must mean you're sensitive to the concept.

    You don't have to suffer from terminal uniqueness, there are stupid scientists too. Plenty of 'em. They live for acceptance, and they only care about grant money insofar as it gets them stature.

    Any time you're dealing with an institution, they're going to try to sell you a "package", and you don't have to swallow the whole thing. Institutional truth is what's good for the institution, which is not necessarily what's good for its membership.

    I don't know about you, but I don't want stupid people taking over our vital institutions. Some of them are important, like the government, and the churches. We've all seen what happens when stupid people take over the government, why would you think churches are any different?

    No one is immune from stupidity, but swallowing snake oil can definitely make you more susceptible.

    Do you realize there are actually missionaries on the Galapagos islands?

  9. #18
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    9,027
    Thanked: 24,536
    Rep Power
    21474867
    Quote Originally Posted by RMNIXON View Post
    There is one significant point where Darwin was wrong. While there is evidence for biological evolution there is no evidence this was a random accidental process. Darwin tried to fit evidence for a theory that does not explain the very complex biology we now know that exists. Every cell in your body is an engineering wonder!
    Darwin never said it was a random accidental process.

    No scientist has EVER said that.

    Only dumbass Christians say stuff like that, because they don't understand the science, and they're scared of the unknown.

    No one ever said evolution was random. The very fact that it violates the second law of thermodynamics (locally) is proof of its inherent non randomness.

    However the underlying mechanism is based on noise, without which it wouldn't work at all. Same as your brain, same thing there. Same as quantum chemistry, same thing there.

    NOISE does not mean "random". Chaos theory shows us how very elegant structures arise from "noise", and sometimes they're even stable. There are several whole branches of mathematics built around "noise".

    Randomness is something different, it's a whole different concept. There are flavors of noise, there is white noise and pink noise... noise has structure even in its noisiness.

    So like, the accusation that scientists say the universe came from nothing is simply false. It's a scurrilous accusation, it has no basis in fact.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (11-14-2019),Quark (11-14-2019)

  11. #19
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    9,027
    Thanked: 24,536
    Rep Power
    21474867
    Quote Originally Posted by Canadianeye View Post
    You said something in a different thread, about 10% of humans knows true north, and it is just genetic. It follows genetically.

    Does it follow that Darwin was coded to atheism, or agnosticism or even just a genetic push to not believe in the supernatural?
    There has been some theorizing to that effect.

    Just as there is an area of the brain that specifically processes social morality which is dysfunctional in psychopaths, it has been postulated there is an area of the brain required for spiritual experience.

    People have looked, no one has ever found it. The area that keeps popping up is the anterior cingulate cortex, but that's very generic, it's involved in almost everything.

    It does make sense though, that some people are simply incapable of spiritual experience.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Canadianeye (11-15-2019),Quark (11-14-2019)

  13. #20
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    9,027
    Thanked: 24,536
    Rep Power
    21474867
    Quote Originally Posted by S-N-A-F-U View Post
    IN THE early 19th century, religion and science enjoyed a fairly amicable relationship. Just two years before The Origin of Species was published, biologist and Harvard professor Louis Agassiz wrote that the living world shows “premeditation, wisdom, greatness” and that a major purpose of natural history was to analyze “the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe.”

    Agassiz’ viewpoint was not uncommon. Many people viewed science and religion as compatible. Discoveries of science were often perceived as evidence of a Grand Creator. But a subtle rift was developing between religion and science.

    Skepticism Takes Root

    Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the first volume of which appeared in 1830, cast doubt on the Bible’s creation account. Lyell claimed that the creation could not possibly have occurred in six literal days. Physicist Fred Hoyle wrote: “Lyell’s books were largely responsible for convincing the world at large that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought.”*

    A foundation was thus laid for skepticism. In the minds of many, science and the Bible could no longer be harmonized. Faced with a choice, many opted for science. “Lyell’s work had thrown the early chapters of the Old Testament into doubt,” Fred Hoyle wrote, “and Darwin’s book was there to replace it.”

    The Origin of Species came at an opportune time for those who did not want to accept the Bible as the Word of God. A romance had already blossomed between man and science. An infatuated public was wooed by the promises and accomplishments of science. Like a gallant suitor, science showered man with innovative gifts​—the telescope, the microscope, and the steam engine and later, electricity, the telephone, and the automobile. Technology had already fostered an industrial revolution that was providing the common man with unprecedented material advantages.

    In contrast, religion was perceived as a roadblock to progress. Some felt that it held people in a stupor, unable to keep up with the rapid advances of science. Atheists began to proclaim their views loudly and boldly. Indeed, as Richard Dawkins wrote, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Science was becoming mankind’s new hope for salvation.

    At first, religious leaders opposed the theory of evolution. But as the decades passed, the clergy in general yielded to popular opinion, accepting a blend of evolution and creation. A 1938 New York Times headline announced: “Church of England Report Upholds Evolutionary Idea of the Creation.” The report, by a commission under the Archbishop of York, stated: “No objection to a theory of evolution can be drawn from the two creation narratives in Genesis I and II, since it is generally agreed among educated Christians that these are mythological in origin and that their value for us is symbolic rather than historical.” The archbishop’s commission concluded: “You can think what you like and still be Christian.”

    For many, such attempts to reconcile the Bible with evolution only diluted the Bible’s credibility. It resulted in widespread skepticism of the Bible, and this still exists today, even among some religious leaders. Typical are the comments of an Episcopal bishop in Canada who asserted that the Bible was written in a prescientific age and therefore reflected prejudice and ignorance. He said that the Bible contained “historic errors” and “blatant exaggerations” regarding Jesus’ birth and resurrection.

    Thus, many, including members of the clergy, have been quick to discredit the Bible. But where has such skepticism led? What alternative hope has been offered? With weakened faith in the Bible, some have looked to philosophy and politics.

    Effects on Philosophy and Politics

    The Origin of Species offered a fresh outlook on human behavior. Why does one nation succeed in conquering another nation? Why does one race prevail over another race? The Origin of Species, with its emphasis on natural selection and survival of the fittest, gave explanations that stirred the leading philosophers of the 19th century.

    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Karl Marx (1818-1883) were philosophers who had a profound effect on politics. Both were fascinated by evolution. “Darwin’s book is important,” said Marx, “and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history.” Historian Will Durant called Nietzsche a “child of Darwin.” The book Philosophy​—An Outline-​History summarized one of Nietzsche’s beliefs: “The strong, brave, domineering, proud, fit best the society that is to be.”

    Darwin believed​—and wrote in a letter to a friend—​that in the future “an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” He used as a precedent the European conquest of others and chalked this up to “the struggle for existence.”

    The powerful were quick to latch on to such statements. H. G. Wells wrote in The Outline of History: “Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding. And they believed further that they had to be strong, energetic, ruthless, ‘practical,’ egotistical.”

    Thus, “survival of the fittest” took on philosophical, social, and political overtones, often to an absurd extent. “To some war became ‘a biological necessity,’” said the book Milestones of History. And this book noted that during the next century, “Darwinian ideas formed an integral part of Hitler’s doctrine of racial superiority.”

    Of course, neither Darwin, Marx, nor Nietzsche lived to see how their ideas would be applied​—or misapplied. Indeed, they expected that the struggle for existence would improve man’s lot in life. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.” Twentieth-​century priest and biologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin agreed with this, theorizing that eventually there would occur an ‘evolution of the minds of the entire human race; everyone would harmoniously work toward one goal.’

    Degradation, Not Improvement

    Do you see such improvement occurring? The book Clinging to a Myth commented on De Chardin’s optimism: “De Chardin must have been quite oblivious of the history of human bloodshed and of racist systems such as apartheid in South Africa. He sounds like a man who is not living in this world.” Rather than progress toward unity, humanity in this century has experienced racial and national division on an unprecedented scale.

    The hope held out in The Origin of Species, that man would progress toward perfection, or at least improvement, is very much unfulfilled. And that hope keeps receding with time, for since the general acceptance of evolution, the human family all too often has descended into barbarism. Consider: More than 100 million people have been killed in the wars of this century, some 50 million in World War II alone. Also consider the recent ethnic slaughter in such places as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

    Is this to say that there were no wars and brutalities in past centuries? No, there certainly were. But the acceptance of the theory of evolution, this brutal struggle-​for-​existence mind-​set, this survival-​of-​the-​fittest idea, has not served to improve man’s lot. So while evolution cannot be blamed for all of man’s ills, it has helped push the human family into ever greater hatred, crime, violence, immorality, and degradation. Since it is widely accepted that humans descended from beasts, it is not surprising that more and more people act like beasts.


    It wasn't Darwin, or other aspiring cranks that placed doubt in the minds of others about the existence of superior entity at work in the universe, they were only the instruments of the "god of this world." (2 cor. 4:4)
    The part about the 100 million, that was the Communists. (Well 90 of 'em anyway).

    I think it's awfully arrogant to assume God's purpose is to improve man's lot in life. Sounds to me like s snowflake looking for a safe space. Just sayin..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •