Would it be best for evolutionists to just ignore creationsts?

[Man of Faith]

So you admit to not really having much substance to your argument against him.

What I will admit to is if it is important for the schools to mention Darwin, then it is important for me to also.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be fair what I said was the death of Darwin’s daughter is what caused him to abandon God in view of a naturalistic explanation of the diversity of life and how mankind got here. Sure he was working on different theories before the death of his daughter but those didn’t necessarily have to leave God out as a creator. His final published work did, which was eight years after the death of his daughter.

So you're saying that On the Origin of Species left out God as a creator? Too bad nobody told this to Darwin:

It accords better with our modesty the lowness of our faculties to suppose each must require the fiat of a creator, but in the same proportion the existence of such laws should exalt our notion of the power of the omniscient Creator. There is a simple grandeur in the view of life with its powers of growth, assimilation and reproduction, being originally breathed into matter under one or a few forms, and that whilst this our planet has gone circling on according to fixed laws, and land and water, in a cycle of change, have gone on replacing each other, that from so simple an origin, through the process of gradual selection of infinitesimal changes, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been evolved.

Edit: in On the Origin of Species, Darwin doesn't present evolution as some sort of "God-free" system. To the extent that he mentions God at all, he uses his theory to show God as an all-knowing architect who could set a process in motion and leave it than as an imperfect tinkerer who has to continually adjust his Creation to get it to run properly. In this regard, the theological picture that Darwin presents is a lot like Newton's.

 

[Photonic]

What I will admit to is if it is important for the schools to mention Darwin, then it is important for me to also.

Citing historical fact is important in school, yes. They say he initiated the idea to study evolution, and we credit him his dues as the initial postulator.

That does not mean anything however. You harp on him as if he is some sort of patron saint of evolution. But science doesn't work that way, your argument is simply unbecoming of a rational thinker.

 

[Sunstone]

The more a scientist climbs the ladder and gets funding from political liberal sources the more they are not going to let any type of creation escape their lips. It's not a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you.

Do you generally advocate conspiracy theories, or just in this one case, MOF? Just curious.

 

[McBell]

Do you generally advocate conspiracy theories, or just in this one case, MOF? Just curious.

I am waiting for him to use Expelled as a source...

 

[Photonic]

I am waiting for him to use Expelled as a source...

Seconded.

 

[Man of Faith]

So you're saying that On the Origin of Species left out God as a creator? Too bad nobody told this to Darwin:



Edit: in On the Origin of Species, Darwin doesn't present evolution as some sort of "God-free" system. To the extent that he mentions God at all, he uses his theory to show God as an all-knowing architect who could set a process in motion and leave it than as an imperfect tinkerer who has to continually adjust his Creation to get it to run properly. In this regard, the theological picture that Darwin presents is a lot like Newton's.

Although Darwin did mention the creator, he basically said that he doesn't agree that the creator had anything to do with creating life forms, hence a godless naturalistic system. And from history we know that the godless have pushed evolution as a godless system. If it wasn't considered godless, it would be thrown out of schools.

"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 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..."

 

[Revoltingest]

Although Darwin did mention the creator, he basically said that he doesn't agree that the creator had anything to do with creating life forms, hence a godless naturalistic system.

Why couldn't evolution be God's tool for speciation & change?

I ask because I challenged a Xian friend (& avid Bible reader) to find a scriptural basis to clearly preclude evolution.
He couldn't. (I'm biblically illiterate, so I go to believers for info.)

 

[Skwim]

Although Darwin did mention the creator, he basically said that he doesn't agree that the creator had anything to do with creating life forms, hence a godless naturalistic system. And from history we know that the godless have pushed evolution as a godless system. If it wasn't considered godless, it would be thrown out of schools.

"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 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..."

Actually he does included the creator in the picture. Darwin credits the creator with establishing the "laws" the govern the independent creation of each species. Can't get more hands-on than that:establishing the the manner in which evolution works. Try rereading your quote again.

 

[Man of Faith]

Why couldn't evolution be God's tool for speciation & change?

I ask because I challenged a Xian friend (& avid Bible reader) to find a scriptural basis to preclude evolution.
He couldn't.

If I consider evolution to be adaptation and change to environmental pressures then yes God does use that. However the ToE as a whole where mankind came from an ape like creature and that ape like creature came from a different creature, on down the line to a mud puddle, isn't Biblical.

Evolution states that death came before mankind.
The Bible states that death came after mankind had the capability to sin by eating a forbidden fruit.

Evolution states that thorns and thistles came before mankind.
The Bible states that those were a result of mankinds sin.

Evolution states that dinosaurs were extinct before mankind came into the scene.
The Bible says all animals and mankind were created on the same day.

Evolution states that mankind came about from millions of years of evolution.
The Bible states that all life forms, the earth and the universe were created in 6 days and the earth is approx. 6,000 years old.

 

[Man of Faith]

Actually he does included the creator in the picture. Darwin credits the creator with establishing the "laws" the govern the independent creation of each species. Can't get more hands-on than that:establishing the the manner in which evolution works. Try rereading your quote again.

I see, I'll look for that in a science book. I'll use a famous evolution tactic. "We are talking evolution vs creation, not the big bang" or the beginning of the world.

 

[McBell]

If I consider evolution to be adaptation and change to environmental pressures then yes God does use that. However the ToE as a whole where mankind came from an ape like creature and that ape like creature came from a different creature, on down the line to a mud puddle, isn't Biblical.

Evolution states that death came before mankind.
The Bible states that death came after mankind had the capability to sin by eating a forbidden fruit.

Evolution states that thorns and thistles came before mankind.
The Bible states that those were a result of mankinds sin.

Evolution states that dinosaurs were extinct before mankind came into the scene.
The Bible says all animals and mankind were created on the same day.

Evolution states that mankind came about from millions of years of evolution.
The Bible states that all life forms, the earth and the universe were created in 6 days and the earth is approx. 6,000 years old.

So the Bible got a few more things wrong.
So what?
It is not like those are the only things they got wrong.

 

[McBell]

I see, I'll look for that in a science book. I'll use a famous evolution trick. "We are talking evolution vs creation, not the big bang" or the beginning of the world.

It is not the fault of evolutionists that creationists cannot get the simple fact that evolution is not about the beginning of life through their thick skulls.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I consider evolution to be adaptation and change to environmental pressures then yes God does use that. However the ToE as a whole where mankind came from an ape like creature and that ape like creature came from a different creature, on down the line to a mud puddle, isn't Biblical.

Evolution states that death came before mankind.
The Bible states that death came after mankind had the capability to sin by eating a forbidden fruit.

Evolution states that thorns and thistles came before mankind.
The Bible states that those were a result of mankinds sin.

Evolution states that dinosaurs were extinct before mankind came into the scene.
The Bible says all animals and mankind were created on the same day.

Evolution states that mankind came about from millions of years of evolution.
The Bible states that all life forms, the earth and the universe were created in 6 days and the earth is approx. 6,000 years old.

I see that there is more than one interpretation.
Of course, I don't argue against yours.

 

[Man of Faith]

It is not the fault of evolutionists that creationists cannot get the simple fact that evolution is not about the beginning of life through their thick skulls.

Actually it was an evolutionists that combined them in a previous post, I was just straighten it out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually it was an evolutionists that combined them in a previous post, I was just straighten it out.

We evolutionists (& gravitationalists, & thermodynamicialsts, & metalurgicalists, etc) don't always get our own beliefs right.
Everyone is a work in progress.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Although Darwin did mention the creator, he basically said that he doesn't agree that the creator had anything to do with creating life forms, hence a godless naturalistic system.

No, he didn't. What he actually said, at least in the passage I quoted above, is that evolution proceeds according to laws of God's design.

He kept God, but one step removed. It's as if instead of saying "we have widgets because God made every widget with his own hands", he said, "we have widgets because God made an automated widget factory that never breaks down."

And from history we know that the godless have pushed evolution as a godless system. If it wasn't considered godless, it would be thrown out of schools.

I don't think that's true. If God had scientific support, he'd be right at home in a science classroom.

"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 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..."

Can you not see the contradiction in citing a passage that basically said "God set evolution in motion according to natural laws he designed in order to effect Creation" as support for the idea that Darwin proposed a "godless" system?

 

[Man of Faith]

We evolutionists (& gravitationalists, & thermodynamicialsts, & metalurgicalists, etc) don't always get our own beliefs right.
Everyone is a work in progress.

Well I'm glad you give evolutionists a pass. Maybe there is hope for us creationists yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evolution states that thorns and thistles came before mankind.
The Bible states that those were a result of mankinds sin.

So... if we can find an example of a thistle or thorn-bearing plant that's older than the first human, this would prove the Bible wrong?

 

[Man of Faith]

So... if we can find an example of a thistle or thorn-bearing plant that's older than the first human, this would prove the Bible wrong?

If I accept your dating methods, sure.