No, it isn't, its only your comprehension of it that makes it so. But that is because yo don't grasp it for what it is, but what you want to think it is so you can rip it up like the typical straw man.
We KNOW Darwin was a Christian during his life, but there is no direct evidence of him ever being an atheist.
There is nothing incompatible between Christianity or Creationism as properly understood as a philosophical concept as opposed to evolution as a concept of biology.
The contention is either based on one side not understanding the other side or deliberate misrepresentation and lies.
Again, being an atheist back then was highly controversial, so you shouldn't expect outright admission of atheism, as this was grounds ex-communication and thus, becoming a social outcast, which was too high of a price for most people.
People left churches to join others or simply refrain from any church activity. If such cause Darwin to pose as a borderline agnostic then he was a coward, and I do not believe that plausible given the criticism he willing accepted when he advanced the theory of evolution.
For some reason it is simply the fad among atheists and other 'victim' groups to go through history and claim some notable person as a member of the victims group. Its almost like feeling normal or something.
So you leap from a 'more correct' label of agnostic, to out right atheism? And you wonder why some here think you are not being objective?
Sounds to me like he was a good scientist who had the unfortunate condition of being born Anglican and it being the most vivid representation of Christianity in his life. Hell, I would plausibly have become an agnostic with him in such a communion of snakes and fakes.
No, plenty of people back then were openly atheist, so there was no need to pose.
He denied specific parts of what was generally perceived as revelation similar to Thomas Jefferson. That is not a complete rejection of all revelation.
In regard to origin myths.
It does however have direct relation to my contention that there is no contention between Christianity and evolution if Christians themselves came up with the concept to begin with.
And you demonstrate again your inability to try to grasp the intent and meaning of the person you are responding to. You desperately want to cast science and Christianity as being mutually incompatible, why I don't know. But there is no basis for it among those on both sides who understand the limits and scope of both areas of knowledge.
As for my "misunderstanding" of creationism: you said it yourself. "It is possible that god did it." How is this different than "god dun it?" It isn't.
Lol, one is an assertion, while the other is simply an observation of possible alternatives.
You don't get that because you don't want to get it.
You admitted it yourself. You confirm your own position as being a one-dimensional appeal to the supernatural to handle all theodicies which you can't otherwise explain. This is especially weak apologetics.
And your straw man horde you presented in your response demonstrates my actual contention; that the only people who assert that science and religion are incompatible are either ignorant of some part of one or both, or these people are deliberately dishonest.
You do not understand Creationism. As a person raised in such beliefs and who studied it far more than most when I converted to Catholicism, I assure you that what you think it is has nothing to do with the vast majority of Christians of all denominations on this planet.
So why don't you stop the slander and try to gain a true grasp of what Creationism is according to the actual majority Christians and leave the fundamentalists to speak only for themselves?
