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.
.
Catechism
159. 159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283.
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....
Pope John Paul II on evolution:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines.
The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
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.
So you meant this to just be a bland history lesson? Your entire point was that Darwin was not above thinking like his contemporaries in regards to race? Anyone with a concept of historical perspective and takes the total body of Darwin's work would realize that he was a bigot by today's standards, but tolerant and compassionate by the standards of his time. He was a staunch abolitionist who believed that all human beings were related.
I notice you didn't provide a lot of examples of Darwin actually advocating the application of his theory to social systems. He never intended his theory to be used that way. He meant his theory to explain the origin of species, thus the title of the book. It's true that he drew upon Malthus' social selection theories for inspiration, but that is not the same as advocating for the application of those theories in society.
For one thing, natural selection is a passive system. If at any point you are culling the weakest from your ranks, then you are engaging in artificial selection, not natural selection.
And if you don't accept the evolutionary origins of man, then you reject the Theory of Evolution, part of which is the common descent of all living things. Can you explain shared endogenous retroviral insertions between man and other animals?
The term Darwinists still doesn't make sense. If you intend it to refer to people who believe in common descent, then you are misusing the term evolution. If you want to selectively choose what you believe, then that makes you the anamoly. The general understanding of an Evolutionist is someone who accepts common descent. I have never met a "Darwinist" since I have never met anyone who believed that Darwin was 100% right on every aspect of his understanding.
So instead of confusing everyone, why don't you define your terms, so that everyone knows exactly what the hell you're talking about.
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
I have taken a specific quote and challenged it a number of times. You just don't respond. I even linked to the damn thing.
One can be dishonest without telling a lie. For example, if you make what you believe are true statements criticizing Darwin as a racist, and your real purpose is to try to paint everyone who accepts Evolution with the same brush, then you are acting dishonestly without telling a lie.
And your thread is pointless. I have never met any educated person who respects Charles Darwin who doesn't realize that he shared some Victorian views that today we would find appalling. No one believes he was a saint by today's standards.
In contrast, I have only seen those who are critics of Darwin due to religious beliefs who continually, through ignorance or intentional deceit, emphasize his unsavoury views without placing them within historical context. That is not an intellectually honest endeavor and hints at motivations other than simply "educating" people as you seem to claim was your intent.
