"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[ecco]

A magic man in the sky made everything happen 6000 years ago. Hm, let me think about that critically...

"Magic man in the sky?" Your post is too juvenile, to boot!

Do you have a more adult way of referring to an entity that, according to the beliefs of theists, created everything and resides in heaven?

On the other hand, I shouldn't put your mythological God in the same category as extremely talented people like Penn & Teller and Harry Houdini.

After all your god did mess up a lot. He created A&E without a good sense of morals and then blamed them for disobeying Him.
Things got so bad He killed nearly everyone and everything and then regretted it.
He sent a sliver of himself to earth to absolve us all of the sins He heaped upon us - that didn't work either.
Then there is the whole thing about creating a devil so that there would be evil.

How about Mystical Messup in the Sky? That would be a more mature way of referencing Him

 

[Milton Platt]

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."

Well, that statement can be viewed as theistic. Darwin was a Christian. That does not make the theory of evolution theistic.
Darwin is also a bit outdated by now.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, that statement can be viewed as theistic. Darwin was a Christian. That does not make the theory of evolution theistic.
Darwin is also a bit outdated by now.

Darwin may have been theistic as a child but when he wrote the Origin of Species there is ample evidence that he was more agnostic at that time. Again the word creator was not in the first printing in 1859 but added afterwards The addition of creator was to clearly to pacify the Christian dominant society of his time. His disagreement with Alfred Wallace who proposed that humans were spiritually created is an example of the Darwin's true viewpoint on the concept of a creator. The concept that man was spiritually created was clearly against Darwin's beliefs that humans are separated by degree and not kind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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."

There are three points that I think are important here.

1. Darwin grew up in a time when life was generally attributed solely to creation by God or, if not Abrahamic, some god. Darwin was a product of that period and was, at least to a point, a theist. Inclusion of a passage like the one that you cite reflects that theism, whether it still existed on not. That inclusion does not make the "Origin of Species" a work based in theism, since the passage discusses the creation of life and not the subject of the book, which was the evolution of life. A scientist can have any belief or none, but holding a belief and even acknowledging that in some capacity in his work does not make the scientific work, theistic.

2. Darwin appears to have lost his theistic beliefs over time and largely maintained them outwardly in deference to his wife, who was devoutly Christian. From what I have read of the man, I think this was written at a time when his beliefs were fading, but he had not yet reached a point where he had lost them entirely or nearly so.

3. The third point I have already made. Clearly, when Darwin formulated the theory, he recognized that the origin of life was a separate concept from the evolution of life. As illustrated by that passage speaking of the origin of life followed by a separate and distinct reference to the evolution of living things. Despite this, many fundamentalists still cling to the erroneous notion that the two are in a dependent relationship where evolution demands a specific origin of life in the form of natural abiogenesis.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

Did you read the whole publication or only this single statement and ignore the rest. You either only read the very short and I mean tiny presentation of creationist views. The other possibility you intentionally quoted a section that was opposite to the rest of the publication. The section you chose was titled and followed by your quote as
"Creationist Views of the Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life
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."

You seemed to have missed this quote

"Don’t many famous scientists reject evolution?
No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution."

and this quote

"Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence."

So did you read only the one title with a few sentences that followed or did you intentionally misrepresent the pulblication?

This is another example of dishonesty in creationist misuse of information which by the way was discussed in the publication,

 

[Bear Wild]

Sure Darwins views evolved over time. None of us are static (at least it would be unusual). The point is, his one time theism at the time of proposing evolution shows to anti-theists and hard core creationists that there really isn't this artificial war between evolution and theism.

You are misinterpreting the information. The addition of creator as already pointed out was for public acceptance and not Darwin's theistic belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin may have been theistic as a child but when he wrote the Origin of Species there is ample evidence that he was more agnostic at that time. Again the word creator was not in the first printing in 1859 but added afterwards The addition of creator was to clearly to pacify the Christian dominant society of his time. His disagreement with Alfred Wallace who proposed that humans were spiritually created is an example of the Darwin's true viewpoint on the concept of a creator. The concept that man was spiritually created was clearly against Darwin's beliefs that humans are separated by degree and not kind.

Very much agree with you. Darwin was gradually losing the theism he was raised with. However, much he believed at the time of publication and from that period forward, I can only speculate on, but he was clearly becoming agnostic at the least.

Even if he had remained devoutly Christian, that would not make his work theistic. It was still a work of science and I think creationists do not get that or want to get that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In and of itself, Evolution does not dispense with god(s). It dispenses with the need for god(s) insofar as the origins of humans.

There are many other things that dispense with god(s).

Evolution explains how life, once it exists, evolves. It does not explain the origin of life from non-life.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hmm. That depends on which theist you're talking to. Anyone who believes in a literal bible, or, near to that, thinks that the stories in the bible are essentially accurate reports, is already of the view that Darwin has outraged theism by doing away with Genesis biological creation; just as at the start of the 19th century when geology was beginning to reckon the age of the earth in years incompatible with Ussher, the same people had similar views, though they were not far from all Christians back then.

On the other hand, those who understand science and take the bible figuratively haven't had, and don't have, problems of that kind. But these days they're the majority of Christians.

As to those who take Genesis 1-3 a historical scientific accounts, I do not speak for them. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, being forced to reject real science, based on evidence, in favor of what are essentially creation myths.

Now don't mistake me for a minute here -- when I say myth, I don't mean it in a demeaning way at all. Myths are the most powerful form of literature we have. They teach us our deepest values and truths about ourselves.

The Genesis myths teach us critical things about human nature, and the nature of God. But they were never intended to be historical narratives, much less anything like modern science.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are misinterpreting the information. The addition of creator as already pointed out was for public acceptance and not Darwin's theistic belief.

Are you saying that Darwin lied?

 

[blü 2]

As to those who take Genesis 1-3 a historical scientific accounts, I do not speak for them. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, being forced to reject real science, based on evidence, in favor of what are essentially creation myths.

Now don't mistake me for a minute here -- when I say myth, I don't mean it in a demeaning way at all. Myths are the most powerful form of literature we have. They teach us our deepest values and truths about ourselves.

The Genesis myths teach us critical things about human nature, and the nature of God. But they were never intended to be historical narratives, much less anything like modern science.

Hmm. I tend not to respond to stories with the same care I respond to facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are similar in that neither path has been demonstrated in the lab. Then differ in that Science use a god of random.

I was with you up until the bolded part.
Why would you say something like that? It makes no sense.

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.

Which doesn't mean that they are of equal worth.

Right out the gates, we can say that the abiogenesis is more likely then the creationist model.

For the simple reason that the abiogenesis model does not require any laws of physics to be violated.
Abiogenesis doesn't require assuming the existance of magical forces, of the supernatural, of god entities.

And let's not even mention falsifiability, testability, predictability, etc of these models.

So even if abiogenesis is still a puzzle to be solved, if you are going to investigate the origis of life, then abiogenesis is your best bet.

For starters, you'll actually have something to study.

 

[tosca1]

Did you read the whole publication or only this single statement and ignore the rest. You either only read the very short and I mean tiny presentation of creationist views. The other possibility you intentionally quoted a section that was opposite to the rest of the publication. The section you chose was titled and followed by your quote as
"Creationist Views of the Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life
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."

You seemed to have missed this quote

"Don’t many famous scientists reject evolution?
No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution."

and this quote

"Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence."

So did you read only the one title with a few sentences that followed or did you intentionally misrepresent the pulblication?

This is another example of dishonesty in creationist misuse of information which by the way was discussed in the publication,

No dishonesty here.
Did you go read the whole pamphlet from the NAS? Have you?
If you have - you better read it again!

What's a common trait with evolutionists is that so many of them don't understand what they read!


Read the whole pamphlet. I urge you!
The only beef that the NAS has with Creationism (referring to literal creation narrative from the Book of Genesis, and Intelligent Design), is that they are not scientific, and therefore they shouldn't be taught in SCIENCE classrooms!

Science has not debunked the Book of Genesis!
According to the NAS, the literal creation narrative does not belong in a SCIENCE class! Do you understand why?


The consensus doesn't matter.

I quoted you the views of the NAS (taken from the FAQ section of NASA) - that's the official stance of the National Academy of Sciences.

It speaks as an organization - it speaks for all its members!

And it did single out, Theistic Evolution.

Lol. That it's even posted in the FAQ section means, it's for the public to understand! It is written in layman's terms.

 

[metis]

As to those who take Genesis 1-3 a historical scientific accounts, I do not speak for them. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, being forced to reject real science, based on evidence, in favor of what are essentially creation myths.

And many theologians, such as Maimonides (the RAMBAM), felt that in the first dozen or so chapters in Genesis is where a substantial use of allegories are used. Many such theologians believe that it is likely that the Creation narratives in Genesis are a reworking of a much older Babylonian epic, the latter of which is polytheistic, so as to show where that is wrong and that all was created by the One God, thus reflecting Jewish beliefs.

 

[Audie]

There are three points that I think are important here.

1. Darwin grew up in a time when life was generally attributed solely to creation by God or, if not Abrahamic, some god. Darwin was a product of that period and was, at least to a point, a theist. Inclusion of a passage like the one that you cite reflects that theism, whether it still existed on not. That inclusion does not make the "Origin of Species" a work based in theism, since the passage discusses the creation of life and not the subject of the book, which was the evolution of life. A scientist can have any belief or none, but holding a belief and even acknowledging that in some capacity in his work does not make the scientific work, theistic.

2. Darwin appears to have lost his theistic beliefs over time and largely maintained them outwardly in deference to his wife, who was devoutly Christian. From what I have read of the man, I think this was written at a time when his beliefs were fading, but he had not yet reached a point where he had lost them entirely or nearly so.

3. The third point I have already made. Clearly, when Darwin formulated the theory, he recognized that the origin of life was a separate concept from the evolution of life. As illustrated by that passage speaking of the origin of life followed by a separate and distinct reference to the evolution of living things. Despite this, many fundamentalists still cling to the erroneous notion that the two are in a dependent relationship where evolution demands a specific origin of life in the form of natural abiogenesis.

Fundys have the hardest time catching up with the 19th
centurry!

Of course one reason they bitterly cling to the abio
thing is that they have nothing at all with which
to actually discredit / disprove ToE.

So, they have to make the most of what little they
do have to work with, which in this case is the
supposed logic that ToE must include abio.

That auto mechanics must then include the big
band is somehow not the same logic.

 

[Audie]

The Genesis myths teach us critical things about human nature, and the nature of God. But they were never intended to be historical narratives, much less anything like modern science.

Critical? They do? Like what?
Anything about human nature that is not
stone obvious?
As for god, teaching about a non existent
psycho monster does not seem so good.

 

[Bear Wild]

Are you saying that Darwin lied?

Lied - no. Conceded to outside pressure for his work to be accepted yes. It was not in the first printing which was how he wrote the book. It got added most likely to appease his wife and allow the idea to take hold. His arguments against Alfred Wallace's stance of spiritual involvement supports this.

 

[metis]

Some believe that Darwin was upset with the religious community in general making fun of him, thus leading him to leave the church and religion altogether in his latter years. The irony is that his body today is entombed in Westminster Abby, the central focal location of the Anglican Church. Even though he wasn't the first by any means to theorize the concept of "evolution", he nevertheless was a giant of an intellectual who studied and began to systematize what we now call the "ToE".

 

[ecco]

In and of itself, Evolution does not dispense with god(s). It dispenses with the need for god(s) insofar as the origins of humans.

There are many other things that dispense with god(s).

Evolution explains how life, once it exists, evolves. It does not explain the origin of life from non-life.

Yes, that is something we all know. What is your point?

 

[ecco]

Myths are the most powerful form of literature we have. They teach us our deepest values and truths about ourselves.

Actually - No.

myth
/miTH/
noun

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
   synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More
   
   • 
     
2. 2.
   a widely held but false belief or idea.
   "he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"
   synonyms: misconception, fallacy, mistaken belief, false notion, misbelief, old wives' tale, fairy story, fairy tale, fiction, fantasy, delusion, figment of the imagination; More