The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

[Ryan]

Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well. If someone denied science or evolution is a religion and you responded, "Catholicism is a religion" then perhaps the non-sequitor nature would be more apparent.



But once again, if they are saying Darwinism is not a religion, then why are you talking about Secular Humanism and Scientology? Completely Irrelevant. I consider any mention of Secular Humanism as a religion irrelevant to the question of whether Darwinism is a religion.



This is what the Dawkins quote is supposed to support? Wtf?

The problem is evolution deniers often try to paint the Theory of Evolution with an implicit sense that it is some doctrine formulated and created to support some atheistic agenda. This is not the case. Darwin wanted to join the clergy when he started his research. Over time, his theory developed on the basis of rational consideration of the evidence he collected. He struggled with the conclusion, but could not deny a conclusion based upon his honest reasoning.

Whether that theory is now incoporated into various religious/belief/philosophical systems like Secular Humanism or Catholicism, is not relevant to any criticism of the theory. And any criticism of the man, Charles Darwin, is not relevant to any criticism of the theory, making this entire thread academic.

And while I'm on the topic, why is it almost exclusively Evolution Deniers that use the term "Darwinist"? Many people respect Charles Darwin for his contributions to science, but that was the 19th century. Scientists and the scientifically literate understand that while he may be the father of the theory of evolution, they don't hold his views to be sacred in any way. He missed on quite a few points- understandable considering that the concept of the gene for transferring information wasn't even commonplace in his time.

I wouldn't mind be referred to as an Evolutionist, since I do accept the factual basis of Evolution. But calling those who accept evolution, "Darwinists" is simply an attempt to attach a specific label which they can then use to transfer aspersions and criticisms of the man, Charles Darwin, onto those who accept his theory of evolution. It's a neat trick when one is unable to attack the theory itself, and I'm afraid is the real purpose of the OP.

Post #105 should have helped you better follow the exchange. Good job and finding the point I was called a "liar" on. As far as I am concerned Richard Dawkins assertion that, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" very much supports the point I was challenged. I do not really care whether you like it or not, if you want make the case that I am a also a "liar" in your opinion.

What is your source for stating that evolution is part of the Catholic belief system?

I do not have time for the rest of your post. Again, I refer you to my question of post #98 so I can understand the relevance of whatever point you are trying to make.

I wasn't calling you a liar. If you want to say Charles Darwin influenced several generations, you will find no argument from me. His impact on our scientific knowledge has been immense. His theory has made predictions which time after time have come true. As far as Secular Humanists claiming Evolution is proof that there is no god- I haven't heard that argument from them. You can provide examples if you like, but if they consider that alone is evidence of the absence of god, then they are wrong. It does not rationally follow, which is why Catholics can accept evolution and god.

My source for evolution and Catholicism is the Pope.

You should make time for the rest of my post, since it would save you the time of continuing this thread.

Even if I agreed with you and said Charles Darwin was a rotten bastard and his theory causes people to become genocidal maniacs, it still doesn't affect whether the theory is true or false. We don't get to pick reality according to how we think it should be. I think you read the rest of my post, but didn't want to deal with the reflection of your dishonest arguments.

So answer this: Why do you use the term Darwinist instead of Evolutionist?

This response only concerns your most recent post, I will look at the previous one separately.

You claim that your "source for evolution and Catholicism being the Pope." Now I do have to go back to an earlier post to point out what you stated in that regard.

"Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well."

So I guess your source a Pope but you did not specify which Pope although I suspect it was something John Paul II might have said in passing. I wondered if you might cite an encyclical or the Catechism but that was not the case. Since your answer was so vague I cannot address any quote that might back up your statement unless you do provide the details.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church is neutral on the question of evolution. I was born and raised in the Post Vatican II Catholic faith and my experience was the OT was rarely stressed. Anyone else that has a similar background as myself could probably confirm what I say. Prove me wrong, my understanding is the Catholic Church is less concerned about the biological origin of humans, neutral on evolution, and more concerned with the soul. In 2008, the Vatican announced that the belief in extra-terrestrial life is not inconsistent with Catholicism. The distinction just like the question of evolution is that the Church is neutral.

An example of the Catholic belief system is an official writing like an Humanea Vitea Encyclical.

I stand by my original post and I even specified my original objective of that post when questioned earlier. As I recall, I stated that my original objective was to create awareness about Charles Darwin that I felt was not included in sanitized accounts of the man. I also pointed out that Darwin's theories according to biographers Desmond and Moore were always intended to have a social application. I provided examples, then went on to point out the devastating long term consequences of that social application.

The theory of evolution is a secondary issue to the point I was making and therefore if you read my posts in good faith you would not be asking me why I used the term "Darwinist" instead of "Evolutionist." Later on as the topic expanded in due course I stated several times that I do not deny the process of evolution in general, I question the process specifically in regard to the origin of modern man. I provided several names of well respected researchers of anthropology and some of their views to clarify what I meant by legitimate questioning.

What have you provided besides your besides your misconceptions? You state at one point that you are not calling me a "liar" and then you go on to calling my "arguments dishonest." Pony up hotshot, you either prove my arguments "dishonest," retract the statement or prove yourself a "liar." Your choice.

Take out a specific quote of mine and make a specific challenge.

 

[Ryan]

Australia: the first penal colony to be recognized as an independent nation

Don't want to get off topic here but it was actually several penal colonies and one free province (mine!), became a country 1/1/1901 (and we've been squabbling every since).

Do you have any unique insight or information on the fate of the original inhabitants of the Tasmania?

My understanding is that they were the first and only case, at this point, of complete genocide.

 

[Ryan]

Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

And when did secular humanism and darwinism become synonymous? It's like saying heliocentrism and protestantism are the same thing.

No secular humanist believes in the "Theory of Magical Creation".

Do Darwin's theories provide any support to the view that Theism is a false belief system?

 

[Ryan]

Now it seems you even want to silence Darwin if his views are perceived as a questioning threat. WOW

No, you misinterpret his words and then twist your inaccuracies into something unrecognizable. If Darwin was a horrible person, but discovered the first antibiotics in the world and cured countless bacterial infections, the fact that he was a horrible person does in no way discredit the fact that antibiotics can kill bacteria.

Similarly, attacking ANY personal belief of Darwin in no way disproves or otherwise refutes his supported foundation on evolution.

Let me know if you still don't understand that.


btw, win:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk]YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution[/ame]

Are you not the one that made a comment on personal attacks earlier? Did you ever answer that? If I twisted anything then why did edit the exchange?

You are blind to reason just like that other poster. All I did was question the origin of modern man and backed up those points. Do you prefer a blind following to Darwin's views as a doctrine of faith? Go back and answer that earlier post.


Evolution News & Views: The Irrelevance of Darwinian Evolution to Antibiotic Resistance

 

[Ryan]

Yeah, the first time secular humanism is used was by me and part of the SE belief system is evolution. And?

Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well. If someone denied science or evolution is a religion and you responded, "Catholicism is a religion" then perhaps the non-sequitor nature would be more apparent.

I responded to inform that religion is a far greater category then most realize with the following;
Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

But once again, if they are saying Darwinism is not a religion, then why are you talking about Secular Humanism and Scientology? Completely Irrelevant. I consider any mention of Secular Humanism as a religion irrelevant to the question of whether Darwinism is a religion.

The well respected naturalist, Charles Darwin, has influenced the world view of several generations with his theories of evolution through natural selection. Darwin is a particular favorite among the "secular humanists" who cite his theories as proof that Theism is a false belief system.

This is what the Dawkins quote is supposed to support? Wtf?

The problem is evolution deniers often try to paint the Theory of Evolution with an implicit sense that it is some doctrine formulated and created to support some atheistic agenda. This is not the case. Darwin wanted to join the clergy when he started his research. Over time, his theory developed on the basis of rational consideration of the evidence he collected. He struggled with the conclusion, but could not deny a conclusion based upon his honest reasoning.

Whether that theory is now incoporated into various religious/belief/philosophical systems like Secular Humanism or Catholicism, is not relevant to any criticism of the theory. And any criticism of the man, Charles Darwin, is not relevant to any criticism of the theory, making this entire thread academic.

And while I'm on the topic, why is it almost exclusively Evolution Deniers that use the term "Darwinist"? Many people respect Charles Darwin for his contributions to science, but that was the 19th century. Scientists and the scientifically literate understand that while he may be the father of the theory of evolution, they don't hold his views to be sacred in any way. He missed on quite a few points- understandable considering that the concept of the gene for transferring information wasn't even commonplace in his time.

I wouldn't mind be referred to as an Evolutionist, since I do accept the factual basis of Evolution. But calling those who accept evolution, "Darwinists" is simply an attempt to attach a specific label which they can then use to transfer aspersions and criticisms of the man, Charles Darwin, onto those who accept his theory of evolution. It's a neat trick when one is unable to attack the theory itself, and I'm afraid is the real purpose of the OP.

Again, you did not pat attention to the exchange or maybe you are just being "dishonest."

I do not recall anyone before you stating whether Darwinism is a religion or not but I am sure the case could be made by the blind unquestioning types on this thread. I addressed the rest of this to my satisfaction. Take a specific quote of mine and make a case. What did I say specifically about evolution that you take object to?

I am "afraid" the original post must have traumatized your core view and that explains the reaction you and others are suffering from. I am unqualified to help you with this particular problem, so sorry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darwinism is not a religion.

It is not an explanation for the origins of life.

It is a system that offers a theory for the origin of species.

It cannot be attacked scientifically by religious doctrine, for the latter is speculative in nature and unverifiable empirically. Creationism and ID can dispute Darwinism philosophically and legitimately only in liberal arts or humanities classrooms.

 

[editec]

Darwinism is not a religion.

It is not an explanation for the origins of life.

It is a system that offers a theory for the origin of species.

It cannot be attacked scientifically by religious doctrine, for the latter is speculative in nature and unverifiable empirically. Creationism and ID can dispute Darwinism philosophically and legitimately only in liberal arts or humanities classrooms.

Exactly.

It's a goofy notion to think that science and faith are at odds with each other.

Now politically, religious people might be at odds with non-religious people, but that's an entirely different matter.

I'm not less a believer than any of you bible thumping fundies and I have absolutely no problem with Darwinism in principle. (the details are questioned by science itself, ya kow?)

You know the expression?

Faith is the knowledge which surpasseth all understanding.​

I think it should read​

Faith is the knowledge which IGNORETH all understanding.​

Science is no relevant to faith.​

They aren't in conflict because they don't remotely have anything to do with each other...in a SECULAR society.​

The problem comes from the fact that many of my fellow believers insist that we should not live in a truly SECULAR society.​

Many of my fellow believers want to IMPOSE OUR VALUES on people who do NOT share our values.​

That's because (and I say this in loving christian fellowship with them) many of my fellow believers are freaking IDIOTS.​

God bless them, anyway.​

As Jesus told us:​

The STUPID will always be with us.
​

Oh, he didn't say that?

Well, he should have but he was probably busy.​

 

[Setarcos]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church is neutral on the question of evolution

A recently published statement on current scientific knowledge on cosmic evolution and biological evolution from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concludes: "The extraordinary progress in our understanding of evolution and the place of man in nature should be shared with everyone. ... Furthermore, scientists have a clear responsibility to contribute to the quality of education, especially as regards the subject of evolution." The statement appears in the proceedings of "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life," a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held from October 31 to November 4, 2008....

Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories," noting that there was also wide agreement among the participants on the common ancestry of life on earth. "Evolution," he added, "has acquired the status of established fact...."

The latest on evolution from the Vatican | NCSE

 

[N4mddissent]

Again, you did not pat attention to the exchange or maybe you are just being "dishonest."

I do not recall anyone before you stating whether Darwinism is a religion or not

Are you slow? Here is a link to your own post

In it you quote someone saying Darwinist is a meaningless word. Another poster says it is an attempt to claim science is a religion. You respond by saying secular humanism is a religion. Since no one had mentioned secular humanism, it is reasonable to assume you must have felt that those terms were synonymous, otherwise you're just babbling random thoughts.

And if you want to explain what exactly I'm missing in the exchange, feel free. I've went back and read and I just don't see how my comments are wrong. You keep suggesting I don't understand the exchange but offer no clarification. I have tried to be very clear about my interpretation, linking to the quote in question and explaining my interpretation of the portions you quoted and your response.

but I am sure the case could be made by the blind unquestioning types on this thread. I addressed the rest of this to my satisfaction. Take a specific quote of mine and make a case. What did I say specifically about evolution that you take object to?

Blind unquestioning types who keep posting page after page summarizing physical evidence for evolution?

What I object to specifically is that this thread is pointless. As I stated earlier, even if Darwin was an evil person and his theories forced people to become atheists and eugenicists, it doesn't affect the validity of Evolution. So what's your point?

The usual purpose when people attack the character of Charles Darwin is to try to transfer any flaws in Darwin or in his intial conception of Evolution onto the modern Theory of Evolution and its proponents. This is clearly dishonest since more than 150 years of research and understanding lie between Darwin and modern Evolutionary Theory.

I am "afraid" the original post must have traumatized your core view and that explains the reaction you and others are suffering from. I am unqualified to help you with this particular problem, so sorry.

No, my "core view" is reality. Historically, views of superiority and inferiority were commonplace during Darwin's time. He was a product of his culture, and no one realistic believes he was perfect or idolizes his personal views.

While you're commenting on Darwin's views of certain groups as sub-human, let's remember that this is the mid 1800's. You know, while America still enforced slavery. The Founding Fathers considered slaves so inferior, they only counted as 3/5ths of a human being in our Constitution. Obviously the Constitution is just useless drivel then. Views about races being "superior" and others being "savage" were not exactly uncommon in the 19th century. And while we still beat slaves and forced them to work in our fields in America, how did Darwin feel about slavery?

In his own words:

It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children -- those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own -- being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty;​

Religious views were most commonly put forth as reasons to keep the institution of slavery. After all, nowhere in the bible is slavery forbidden, and in places it is given implicit approval.

 

[Fatality]

yep, adolph hitler was definitely a darwinist

 

[Setarcos]

yep, adolph hitler was definitely a darwinist

And a Catholic

 

[Father Time]

yep, adolph hitler was definitely a darwinist

And a Catholic

and a german, and a painter, and a politician, and he had a mustache.

Also I think Godwin might've been a Nazi.

 

[Setarcos]

yep, adolph hitler was definitely a darwinist

And a Catholic

and a german, and a painter, and a politician, and he had a mustache.

Also I think Godwin might've been a Nazi.

Or was he on our side?

 

[theHawk]

I don't think many people refute that "evolution" can and does happen in the natural world through natural selection. But Darwin's theories go much further than that. He claims all life originates from one single cell organism. Yet Darwin(and all scientists of his time) had zero comprehension of just how complex a single cell is. He also never even explains what the orgin of spieces is. How did we get from an all inorganic world to one with one living cell? If it was a simple mix of some primordial "soup" of chemicals then why hasn't the creation of single cell life from all inorganic parts been replicated in a lab? Or maybe life was first created on the "backs of crystals" like Richard Dawkins said.


Until Darwinist can scientifically replicate the creation of life from inorganic materials its a moot point to talk about evolution from monkeys to men.

 

[Setarcos]

. He also never even explains what the orgin of spieces is.

Really?

The Origin of Species

How did we get from an all inorganic world to one with one living cell? If it was a simple mix of some primordial "soup" of chemicals then why hasn't the creation of single cell life from all inorganic parts been replicated in a lab?

Why hasn't the production of gold from muons, gluons, and quarks been reproduced in a lab?

Why couldn't man fly until ~100 years ago?

Do you see the silliness of your question yet?

Also ToE isn't concerned with abiogenesis

Until Darwinist can scientifically replicate the creation of life from inorganic materials its a moot point to talk about evolution from monkeys to men.

until you can discern abiogenesis from evolution, it';s a moot point to acknowledge your presence in this thread,

 

[Setarcos]

I don't think many people refute that "evolution" can and does happen in the natural world through natural selection.

Until Darwinist can scientifically replicate the creation of life from inorganic materials its a moot point to talk about evolution from monkeys to men.

 

[theHawk]

So you believe its "silly" to ask how we got from an all inorganic world to one with a single living cell? Maybe it should be you who leaves this thread.

 

[theHawk]

yep, adolph hitler was definitely a darwinist

And a Catholic

Hitler has never a practicing Catholic in his adulthood.

He typically only referred to Christ as a "warrior" who was the first to "fight the Jews" in his speeches to rally Christian Germans.

 

[Setarcos]

yep, adolph hitler was definitely a darwinist

And a Catholic

Hitler has never a practicing Catholic in his adulthood.

He typically only referred to Christ as a "warrior" who was the first to "fight the Jews" in his speeches to rally Christian Germans.

His antisemitism was taken from Martin Luther

would you feel better if i called him a Catholic with Lutheran tendencies?

 

[theHawk]

His antisemitism was taken from Martin Luther

would you feel better if i called him a Catholic with Lutheran tendencies?

Don't need you to say anything to make me "feel better".

I am simply pointing out that it is disingenuous to call someone a Catholic when he clearly didn't adhere to its beliefs nor did he ever state that he did.

There are plenty of people in this country who were raised Christian, then in their adulthood turned toward other belief systems, such as darwinism and/or aetheism. Christianity is a belief, not an ethnicity or race. If someone abandons that belief system they cannot be acurately called a Christian, or in this specific case a Catholic.