Was Charles Darwin a creationist?

Post Reply
Gelin_

Was Charles Darwin a creationist?

Post by Gelin_ » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:39 pm

Darwin's own words seem to indicate that he believed the universe was created:

...Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the <I>laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled...

Source: C. Darwin - The origin of species, Chapter 14 - Recapitulation and conclusion. Available at: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-14.html


Does this mean anything to anybody...?

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:31 pm

Well, apparently, Darwin believed that there was a Creator and so do many scientists. That is a matter of faith. The existence of God has not so far been proven on a rational basis.

Some leading evolutionists believe in God, others do not. However, the faith that the universe was created [a great many scientists say as a single point of extraordinary density which exploded in a "Big Bang"; while some also maintain that this is so for our own universe, but that there are a great many other universes parallel to our own], that faith in a Creator, does not per se make any believer a creationist, in the generally accepted sense of the word (that is the belief that God distinctly created every species from... "scratch"). From the passage that you quoted, it is obvious to me that Darwin believed that God created matter and that he impressed the laws of evolution into the matter. I am staying out of the debate as to whether that sort of faith in God or the belief in intelligent design is justified or not. But it is very clear that Darwin was not a fool, he knew what he was writing about, and that is the Evolution of Species on Earth. By calling him a creationist, you are just making of him a babbling idiot. Darwin believed that species evolved according to natural laws. He painstakingly described those laws and sought the evidence for them. He even conjectured about the existence of some species, that had not yet been discovered, based on a set of evolutionary and environmental patterns.

Did Darwin believe in God, the Creator? Apparently... but that does not make him a creationist. This sort of reasoning would lead one to demonstrate that Gelin is really an atheist. Don't make Darwin somebody that he is not, just to comfort yourself in the belief that God created every living species from scratch, like a great Magician.

In another post, you asked whether any of us had observed evolution? This had to be a humoristic question, because you know well that the evolution of species takes place over tens and hundreds of thousands of years (according to the theory of Evolution). However, this leads directly to another question: How many species have you witnessed the Lord create, Gelin? Your "observation" of creationism would be as powerful as our "observation" of evolution, wouldn't you say?


Guy

Jonas
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:53 am

Post by Jonas » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:15 am

Aye, Aye, Guy

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:04 am

...By calling him a creationist, you are just making of him a babbling idiot...

Read me again, I did not call Darwin a creationist; all I did was bring the question up for debate on the basis of his own words.

Did Darwin believe in God, the Creator? Apparently... but that does not make him a creationist.

Guy my friend, If you believe that God created the universe, you are automatically a creationist - not necessarily in the religious sense of the term, though.

Don't make Darwin somebody that he is not...

That would be the least of my concerns...again I brought it just for debate...for mutual enrichment...

...just to comfort yourself in the belief that God created every living species from scratch, like a great Magician.

Some form of evolution does take place in nature, through adaptation, mutations, natural selection...It appears that a few 'kinds' were created from which - through the laws of nature - the various species we know today were developed with time.

In another post, you asked whether any of us had observed evolution? This had to be a humoristic question, because you know well that the evolution of species takes place over tens and hundreds of thousands of years (according to the theory of Evolution)...

That's what they say...but the fossil record does not want to fully support that view. Darwin himself said that the lack of a solid fossil record would be the most serious argument against his theory.

However, this leads directly to another question: How many species have you witnessed the Lord create, Gelin? Your "observation" of creationism would be as powerful as our "observation" of evolution, wouldn't you say?

For the sake of arguments, I can say that he does not create anymore. He created a few kinds once, and (as Darwin put it) the laws of nature impressed on matter (life forms) give us all the variety we have today.



gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:06 pm

Read me again, I did not call Darwin a creationist; all I did was bring the question up for debate on the basis of his own words.

So, you mean to tell me that when you titled this topic "Was Charles Darwin a creationist?", you were not in fact strongly suggesting, yourself, that Darwin was a creationist? This was just an idle, rhetorical question on your part?

Guy my friend, If you believe that God created the universe, you are automatically a creationist.

Gelin, that's just a play on words. In the raging debate between "creationists" and "evolutionists", the belief that "God created the universe" does not come into the equation. What we are talking about here specifically is the apparition and evolution of life on Earth. That's what the debate is about.

That would be the least of my concerns...again I brought it just for debate...for mutual enrichment...

You don't make a good Jehovah's witness, my friend. Forget about mutual enrichment, go for the guts... go for the glory... Conversion...is where it's at. And imagine if you could rake in some people like Jonas and Leonel in your makout! Dieu le Père would be oh so happy!

Some form of evolution does take place in nature, through adaptation, mutations, natural selection...It appears that a few 'kinds' were created from which - through the laws of nature - the various species we know today were developed with time.

Oh, so you are both a creationist and an evolutionist. [W ap boule 2 bò, my friend... Ou pa bezwen fache, se ranse map ranse.] I guess this makes you a "creativolutionist" or a ventriloquist or something like that. But seriously speaking, do you happen to know "the few kinds" that God created? What are they? Come on, tell us even if your list is partial. And which day of the six days of Creation did God make them? By the way, is S/He still resting or did S/He ever get back to work?

That's what they say...but the fossil record does not want to fully support that view.

Oh, come on, Gelin! The fossil record was not given to Science like the Ten Commandments to Moses (according to Le Livre Sacré qui est la parole même de Dieu...) The fossil record is something that is being put together over the years, and they are still adding to it today, as they will be adding to it a few hundred years from now, and no doubt much longer than that (unless our evolution stops with George Bush somehow, which is a quite plausible proposition... imagine the Bushies and neo-conservatives that reverse the evolution of life on Earth, perhaps as a sign of punishment from God, who felt that once more Man was getting too close for comfort, first with the Tower of Babel, then with artificial insemination, cloning, genetic engineering, etc).

Much is made of the "missing links" in the fossil record. The fact of the matter is that some of those missing links were later uncovered. Some of them were trapped by cataclysmic mudslides or other natural disasters, others in sheets of ice on land or in the ocean. Theoretically, some species may not even have left a trace, again due to causes of natural deterioration. The amount of evidence that has been uncovered so far simply boggles the mind, though it obviously does not impress you, Gelin, for not being complete (though the innumerable inconsistencies and contradictions of the Bible do not seem to bother you one bit). What can I say? I can't fault you for being skeptical. Obviously, your skepticism is very choosy. That is your right, though. But, at least, let's agree to keep the Bible (a matter of faith) and Science (a matter of rationality) distinct. Biblical science or "creationism" is just a feeble attempt by literal believers of The Bible to sound scientific. That is pseudo-science at its best.

Darwin himself said that the lack of a solid fossil record would be the most serious argument against his theory.

Well, Darwin is right on that score, too. The fossil record has improved considerably over the last two centuries. Darwin was far-seeing enough to formulate his own challenge to this Theory of Evolution. Talk about confidence!! Someone who tells you, guys, this is where you will find the proof or disproof of my theory. You have to admit, the guy had guts! No, Gelin, it takes a special kind of scientist to tell you exactly how you can prove or disprove his theory. Albert Einstein did practically the same thing with his Theory of General Relativity, and some of the experiments that he de
scribed, that were quite impossible to do at the time that he lived, are getting performed (or are being measured) today as we speak, by a new generation of astronomers and physicists.

Please, if you have the opportunity, read the current issue of DISCOVER magazine, which addresses current scientific thinking about the Theory of Evolution. Please, please read it. It says emphatically "YES, Darwin was RIGHT" on more solid grounds TODAY than it was when Darwin was alive.

Gelin, you have got to stop reading about science in the pages of "Avant Garde" or "Awake" magazines. [Anmwe! Kounyè a, mwen pral fè Gelin fache tout bon! Eskize m wi...]

For the sake of arguments, I can say that he does not create anymore. He created a few kinds once, and (as Darwin put it) the laws of nature impressed on matter (life forms) give us all the variety we have today.

Monchè, moun temwen Jeyova yo ap fache avèk ou, wi! Sonje, se Bondye ki kreye tout espès vi sou latè a, nan yon grenn jou oswa 2 toutopli.

Ki koze de kreyativolisyon w ap vin mete sou nou la?

And lastly, Darwin never urged anyone to capture any race of men they would consider inferior and place samples of them in a zoo. That's just one more example of pseudo-scientific junk that our very racist judeo-christian culture has put forward to deflect blame from itself. In South Africa, they were more direct. They did not go into the Theory of Evolution, they went directly in the Bible to find the justification for apartheid that they needed. I remember seeing a special with Walter Conkrite when he interviewed several leading citizens of South Africa, including Christian Pastors, and most of them were quick to point out how God himself had given specific orders to keep the races distinct, and one subordinate to the other. Apartheid had its foundations in the Bible, believe or not! And now, they are trying to blame Darwin for everything...

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:49 pm

Ala nèg make di se Guy papa...!

Now, Let's get serious. I'll try to address some of your important points here. First, being a creationist is not the same as being a religious person. One can be a creationist without adhering to any religion whatsoever. Second, if a naturalist (like Darwin, or anybody else for that matter) looks at nature and concludes that a creator - somewhere and some time ago - started the whole thing, then that makes you automatically a creationist - not a religious person but merely a creationist. That was my idea, and it's not just a play on words as you said. Also, if I could I'd change the title to something different, just to avoid the confusion about my intentions.

What we are talking about here specifically is the apparition and evolution of life on Earth. That's what the debate is about.

I am glad you fix the limits of our discussion. All we know for now is
that non-living things do not come together by themselves to create a life-form. There must be an outside force putting, directing, and arranging "information" so that all the non-living parts can be put together into a living entity (like a single cell for example). That's why you can find some evolutionists who tend to agree with the idea of an original creation.

Oh, so you are both a creationist and an evolutionist. [W ap boule 2 bò, my friend... Ou pa bezwen fache, se ranse map ranse.] I guess this makes you a "creativolutionist" or a ventriloquist or something like that.

Not so fast my friend...maybe I should bring back the quote from Darwin himself: "...Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of <U>the laws impressed on matter by the Creator..."</B></U>

Guy, wouldn't you agree with me that something - once created - can evolve, mutate, adapt....according to the laws of nature? That's what I am talking about.

...Darwin never urged anyone to capture any race of men they would consider inferior and place samples of them in a zoo...

I never said anything like that, did I? What we can see is that crooked men have used both science and religion (the Bible more specifically) for their own crooked purposes. As I said earlier (under Ota Benga), the term race has been used both by evolutionists and creationists. That would tell us that maybe the problem is neither in science nor in religion, right?

Apartheid had its foundations in the Bible, believe or not!

Actually, no. People have used the Bible to establish and support Apartheid.....almost anything can be used for anything. Those who have the Bible use the Bible, those who have some scientific training use science - although quite improperly.

Now, guy.....pa teke pye-m....:-)
M'pa temwendjehova, ni m'pap chache konvenk okenn moun de anYen...nap brase lide...nèspa?

Kenbe la gason,

gelin

Post Reply