What is Evolution? Lets define it

[IndigoChild5559]

I think it was your reply in post 516 that is causing confusion. It confused me too. Dan's point, I think, was that a creationist has to believe God put the fossils in the rocks to fool the scientists, i.e. is playing a trick on humanity, and that is a good reason for dismissing creationism.

So I think you two are agreeing with each other.

Oh okay, so we agree. My response in 516 was only meant to say that there is no conflict between evolution and a creating God.

 

[exchemist]

Oh okay, so we agree. My response in 516 was only meant to say that there is no conflict between evolution and a creating God.

I think we three all agree on that.

 

[gnostic]

I wish Christians would stop depicting evolution as an atheist philosophy.

What most literal and YEC creationists don’t seemed to understand that Charles Darwin have always been a Christian, though in later life, he has a leaning towards agnosticism, not towards atheism. Despite his agnosticism, he was still a Christian.

His background is that of Anglican and Unitarian, due to his parents. In his letter written in 1879, he rejected the idea that he was ever an atheist.

Many of his Darwin’s contemporaries, in the science circle, were mostly of Christian backgrounds, and their beliefs didn’t interfere much on their own works in science. And most of them accepted Natural Selection.

But whether it be Christians, atheists or agnostics, none of these groups have to do with evolution being a science in biology.

You are right, evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you thinking I'm a creationist for some reason?

This is all very amusing. I thought you were thinking I was a creationist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What most literal and YEC creationists don’t seemed to understand that Charles Darwin have always been a Christian, though in later life, he has a leaning towards agnosticism, not towards atheism. Despite his agnosticism, he was still a Christian.

His background is that of Anglican and Unitarian, due to his parents. In his letter written in 1879, he rejected the idea that he was ever an atheist.

Many of his Darwin’s contemporaries, in the science circle, were mostly of Christian backgrounds, and their beliefs didn’t interfere much on their own works in science. And most of them accepted Natural Selection.

But whether it be Christians, atheists or agnostics, none of these groups have to do with evolution being a science in biology.

You are right, evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

Science has no allegiance to any creed. Whether it is personal, political or religious. These latter things vary with where you were raised and where you live, but science is the same everywhere. A Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist all use, accept or deny the same science.

I find that creationists, like any group, needs someone to fight against. If they can't find that someone, they will manufacture him. In the case of Darwin, they embellish him with qualities he did not possess or remove those that would align him with them. Many, perhaps most, of the European scientists of the 19th Century were Christians or theists and probably a good majority believed in some form of creation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is all very amusing. I thought you were thinking I was a creationist.

LOL Okay.