1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured "Origin of the Species" is Theistic

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by IndigoChild5559, May 10, 2019.

  1. IndigoChild5559

    IndigoChild5559 Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,910
    Ratings:
    +666
    Religion:
    Judaism
    On the second to the last page of "Origin of the Species," Charles Darwin writes,

    "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
     
    • Winner x 3
    • Like x 1
    • Informative x 1
    • Useful x 1
    • Creative x 1
  2. John53

    John53 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    488
    Ratings:
    +512
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I'm not sure of your point?

    I don't think of it as theistic or atheistic.
     
  3. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    44,838
    Ratings:
    +13,649
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    No one takes his or her stance on theism from Darwin's.

    There is simply no reason to.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    3,435
    Ratings:
    +1,669
    I've never felt that Darwin believed anything that was hostile to Creationism. The Creator breathed the life into a biological organism that is self replicating and self evolving. The only sin is that ignorant and arrogant men try to make it all a random accident.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    Contrary to what some people believe, creation is not off the table.
    You might find this interesting too.

    Even the National Academy of Sciences had indicated the possibility of creation, by citing THEISTIC EVOLUTION (the belief that God created the universe and the process of evolution), as not in disagreement with science.


    "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.
    This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."


    Quotes from: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" which is available online from the National Academy Press: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024



    being what science is (which deals only with the natural), that's as far as science can understandably make claims about the supernatural. :)
     
  6. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,422
    Ratings:
    +3,642
    Religion:
    Pi π
    And there (highlighted in bold, esp in red) lies your own ignorance, and misunderstanding of Evolution.

    Evolution isn’t “random accident”. If you bother to actually read and understand the theory, randomness come into it.

    If change occur in the environment, whether it be the individual or combination of factors, eg climate, the terrains of habitat, or the availability or scarcity of food sources, then the organism must be able to adapt, survive or thrive in that environment. It must be able to pass any beneficiary gene to the future generations. This is Natural Selection at work.

    There is nothing random about Natural Selection. There is nothing random about population of species adapting to the changing environment in order to survive from extinction, by passing on genes that gives species the edge to live in that niche.
     
    #6 gnostic, May 11, 2019
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. mikkel_the_dane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    117
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Properly some form of non-revealed deism
    Science in one version is neutral as to the metaphysical, the supernatural and what not. It is called methodological naturalism. That doesn't stop some humans from claiming that science can do metaphysics, morality, religion and what not. The joke is that of the 3 versions:
    1. Science shows that there is nothing supernatural.
    2. Science shows that there is something supernatural.
    3. Science says nothing about any positive version of metaphysics, the supernatural, ultimate reality and what not.
    The 3rd one can explain the 2 others as in practice a part of reality, where the 2 others end up doing something else that science. And further the 2 first ones always end up declaring respectively the other 2 ones "wrong". The problem is that all 3 are observable human behavior and thus all real. Only the 3rd can explain all as human behavior in a neutral descriptive sense and not judge as right or wrong or what ever.
     
  8. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,729
    Ratings:
    +1,846
    Religion:
    Terminus Est.
    Why is this noteworthy?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. mikkel_the_dane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    117
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Properly some form of non-revealed deism
    Because it isn't in itself. It is a consequence of methodological can explain evolution, which leads to relativism in humans. That is a side effect of reproduction of the fittest gene as how to it ends up being played out in humans.
    It is not noteworthy to you, but it is noteworthy to me.
    Ask this instead: How is something noteworthy? It has to be noteworthy to at least one human, but it doesn't follow from there, that it is noteworthy to all humans. When you then explain that and not judge you end up with relativism.
     
  10. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    445
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Ancient people, who were herders or farmers, knew first hand about the breeding of animals and plants, which is the foundation of the theory of evolution.

    Anyone who was successful as a farmer or herder would see the trends that we now call evolution. The thesis of Darwin was not new. It existed, in essence, from the start of civilization. Darwin was a city boy who may have forgotten what the average rural farmer knew. Darwin thought that hearing the old song, for the first time, made it new to him. Science, in general, was also off the farm, and when they heard the old song, it was like a new song to them.

    Evolution does not deal with the creation of life on earth from scratch. Darwin dealt exclusively with reproduction from existing life, and the changes that occur between generations. The formation of life from scratch is the subject of a different branch of science, called Abiogenesis. This name is a derivative of Genesis. Neither are the same as evolution, since neither start with viable life that already reproduces.

    Both theories; Genesis and Abiogenesis form life from scratch. They are similar in that neither path has been demonstrated in the lab. Then differ in that Science use a god of random. This random god assumption, allows them to assume anything, but not on demand. While religion uses a god of willpower, order and reason. But in both cases, neither have successfully reproduced the original experiment of life, starting with their nothing and their respective god.
     
  11. mikkel_the_dane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    117
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Properly some form of non-revealed deism
    In practice science has a limited usage, but it says nothing about what reality really is. As a skeptic/agnostic I don't know and I don't care for claiming knowledge about that. I use what works in general in practice and what works for me in particular. The first one is science in a broad sense and not just STEM and the second includes my personal beliefs.
     
  12. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,343
    Ratings:
    +8,343
    Religion:
    None
    Like most people of Darwin of day, he had little choice but theism.

    On the Origin of Species is a book based on observations, he will of course flavoured it with his core values.

    The book was a good starting point, although by no means visionary. Since then the study of evolution has progressed considerably
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    3,435
    Ratings:
    +1,669
    I notice that the Hardcover version of the book is $111.
     
  14. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    21,504
    Ratings:
    +7,873
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Oh boy. And that means what?
     
  15. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    21,504
    Ratings:
    +7,873
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    10,139
    Ratings:
    +4,779
    Religion:
    None
    Pretty soon it turns out that everything is theistic.
    Lightning is not thrown by gods, nor are typhoons and
    earthquakes direct god -acts
    Meterology and geology are therefore thestic.
     
    #16 Audie, May 11, 2019
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  17. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,343
    Ratings:
    +8,343
    Religion:
    None

    Dont get ripped off, amazon have hardback copies for $21
    And kindle for a little over a dollar

    In the UK a hardback copy is less than £9
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,150
    Ratings:
    +5,207
    Religion:
    None
    Did you have a point apart from Darwin being a theist? The modern theory of biological evolution contains no god, needs no god, and cannot benefit in terms of explanatory or predictive power by the ad hoc insertion of one into the theory.

    Furthermore, this is a familiar phenomenon in the history of science, namely, that when the scientist reached the boundary of his knowledge, he invokes a god. Ptolemy had been studying the movements of the visible heavenly bodies and attempting to describe their movements, but hit a snag with the apparent retrograde motion of planets like Mars with orbits exterior to earth's, which appear to stop their forward motion, reverse direction for a while, then stop again and resume their original motion and direction, an illusion caused by a faster earth passing a slower Mars from with Mars' orbit.

    At this point, Ptolemy writes,
    • "I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia" - Ptolemy
    Centuries later, Newton was also working on celestial mechanics, which culminated with a theory of gravitation articulated in his Principia. Newton reached the limits of his knowledge and invoked a god to account for the stability of the solar system as he conceived it, because he couldn't do it mathematically. He thought that the effect of planets like Saturn and Jupiter ought to tug on planets like Earth and Mars with each orbit, and either eventually throw them into the sun, or out of the solar system altogether. From Newton's Principia
    • “The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
    Newton doesn't invoke a god prior to that in his classic work. He doesn't mention gods when discussing his formula F=ma, nor when discussing his universal law of gravitation. God is nowhere to be found until Newton runs out of ideas.

    Incidentally, Newton was wrong about planets being flung without a god to prevent to keep them in their orbits. He lacked the mathematics for a 3+ body gravitational system, which was provided about 130 later by Laplace, who developed a new branch of calculus called perturbation theory, and who famously (and perhaps apocryphally) quipped to Napoleon, who asked Laplace why he never mentioned the creator in his work, "I had no need of that hypothesis"

    Now we see this phenomenon again with Darwin, when he runs out of ideas to account for the existence of life. This is the god-of-the-gaps, whose job becomes smaller with each new discovery of science. The gap in knowledge that Ptolemy's god resided in was narrowed when those gods were relieved of the duty of reversing the direction of the planets, then again when Laplace removed Newton's god of the responsibility to holding the solar system intact.

    This is a one-way trend in history, always the god or gods replaced by the natural, and never the other way around, and it is reasonable to expect it to continue indefinitely until all observable phenomena are or potentially can be accounted for naturalistically. We no longer call on gods to tow the sun through the sky, nor to fashion and hurl lightning bolts. The first wave of modern scientists showed us how the world works automatically - how charge flows through a wire and gases equilibrate without any active intervention, and with this vision of a clockwork universe, the builder-ruler god was demoted to the role of builder alone. With this, the god was excused from the universe, and deism became tenable.

    Add the achievements since - the theory of evolution and modern cosmology, and the builder god is no longer needed, either. We see that the universe and the life in it can build themselves from seeds, and now atheism is tenable. We still need to account for those seeds, the singularity and the first living population of cells - the so-called origins problems. But we have naturalistic hypotheses for each, and expect them to be fruitful. If a spontaneous pathway from simple chemicals to first life can be elucidated, it might not be the actual one taken billions of years ago, but it will demonstrate that Darwin was premature to invoke a god to account for his gap in knowledge.

    The references to Ptolemy, Newton, and Laplace come from a November 2005 essay from Neil DeGrasse Tyson entitled, "The Perimeter of Ignorance"

    What you call random, the advent of life arising from non-life, is probably inevitable wherever conditions are right for it to arise - not an unlikely fluke. As I said earlier, there is a reason no gods appear in any scientific theory, and it's not an anti-religious sentiment. There simply is no need for gods in those theories, and in fact, no place for them.

    Creation will never be off the table unless it's disproven, which is probably impossible, even if it never occurred.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    10,139
    Ratings:
    +4,779
    Religion:
    None
    As a "naturalist" particularly, but as just a regular
    Joe it would be tough not to know of selective
    breeding. You are making it up that Dsrwin was
    ignorant of these.

    And making up your "science in general".

    Genesis (god-poof) and abio are not
    theories. There is no such thing as
    "god of random".
     
  20. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,343
    Ratings:
    +8,343
    Religion:
    None
    True he didnt believe the bible to be "devine revelation" that does not preclude him from being theist. Consider that more than 1/2 the worlds population dont have much truck with thbe bible

    He was something of an oddball on the religious front, he believed in a god but considered god unknowable

    Wilipedia
    Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist.
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...