• 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!

Why Darwinism is a saner attitude...

74x12

Well-Known Member
...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.
So, how exactly does understanding Darwinism help you evolve? Are you suggesting the adoption of eugenics programs or what?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member

Why creationism is a saner attitude than Darwinism.
Not only Creationism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature,
because we do understand what we were (humans) and that we need to better ourselves. To grow
in our humanity.

Darwinism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Come the year 1900 and there was great optimism in Western societies - the end of religious wars,
monarchy, prejudice. All this was shattered with the deaths of nearly quarter of a billion people, killed
through ideology, Marxism, Nationalism and Fascism. A brutal Darwinian world of nihilism, narcissism,
anarchy, broken families, contempt of authority, drug abuse and the mainstreaming of vices like
pornography, gambling, prostitution, smoking etc..
No longer is there any "fall of man", man needs no correction - he did not fall at all. It is society, govt,.
the bible, institutions that ought to be corrected.

True creationism should take on board the fact that Genesis states that God commanded the seas to
bring forth life, and that the sequence of events in that account accord perfectly with science's own
view.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
On the contrary ... it demands we improve ourselves morally.
In Europe the theory of evolution is inculcated in little children's mind as if it were the Bible.
Was I brainwashed? Probably....but I could say the same thing about Genesis.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Both are unfortunately are unsubstantiated hypothesis for the history of the earth. life and our physical existence.

God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was a cloud and ocean world
and the skies cleared
and continents rose
and life emerged on the land
and then in the sea
and finally man.

All narrated in symbolic and theological language.
Sounds okay with me. How about you?
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

No branch of science is intended to be a moral guidepost for anything.

Darwinism is a 19th century relic that has long been overshadowed by better science.
Darwinism is rather primitive and racist, and while it helped boost the scientific method, modern scientists don't much bother with it any more.

I think you conflate the works of Darwin to those who attempted to use his discoveries for unsavory purposes, such as Herbert Spencer (Social Darwinism), Francis Galton (Eugenics) and various proponents of Scientific Racism or polygenism. In fact, it was Darwin himself who introduced Monogenism.

I avoid the terms Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, because it encourages a personality cult

As well as conflating the aforementioned perversions and misapplications of his discoveries ....

OEC is streamline theory,it explains beginning of inorganic and organic matter, life and consciousness, reason why we exist.

It explains nothing. It takes explanations given by science then is absorbed into the religion and invokes god.

Darwin was a European Christian from a top colonial power.
Of course he was racist. Almost all of them were.

Yes, he was.
And no, he wasn't.
As with the current beliefs in his time, and is expressed in his writings, Darwin considered non-Caucasian races as inferior. This influenced his philosophies, but did not seem to influence his scientific research.

Darwin (and most of his family) were also ardent anti-slavery and also seemed to believe that all humans should be well treated, even the inferior ones.

For his time, he was quite progressive in his views on race.

In a letter to his sister Catherine Darwin, 22 May [– 14 July] 1833, from his travels in Brazil:

I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery.— What a proud thing for England, if she is the first Europæan nation which utterly abolishes it.— I was told before leaving England, that after living in Slave countries: all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. — it is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Hayti.

Top 10 Anti-Slavery Quotes From Charles Darwin – The Evolution Institute
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Creationist don't say, we don't need improvement, but we do need improvement.
I believe you got it backwards.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
No branch of science is intended to be a moral guidepost for anything.



I think you conflate the works of Darwin to those who attempted to use his discoveries for unsavory purposes, such as Herbert Spencer (Social Darwinism), Francis Galton (Eugenics) and various proponents of Scientific Racism or polygenism. In fact, it was Darwin himself who introduced Monogenism.



As well as conflating the aforementioned perversions and misapplications of his discoveries ....



It explains nothing. It takes explanations given by science then is absorbed into the religion and invokes god.



Yes, he was.
And no, he wasn't.
As with the current beliefs in his time, and is expressed in his writings, Darwin considered non-Caucasian races as inferior. This influenced his philosophies, but did not seem to influence his scientific research.

Darwin (and most of his family) were also ardent anti-slavery and also seemed to believe that all humans should be well treated, even the inferior ones.

For his time, he was quite progressive in his views on race.

In a letter to his sister Catherine Darwin, 22 May [– 14 July] 1833, from his travels in Brazil:

I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery.— What a proud thing for England, if she is the first Europæan nation which utterly abolishes it.— I was told before leaving England, that after living in Slave countries: all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. — it is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Hayti.

Top 10 Anti-Slavery Quotes From Charles Darwin – The Evolution Institute
I know it is a quote...but please do blur the N word.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why it has to be Darwinism (Evolution) or Creationism? I think it is likely that it could be either or both or neither.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

I certainly agree that creationism, next to being simply incorrect, adds a few things that potentially results in very dangerous attitudes. Like not caring about climate change for example. Why would we care about what we do to the earth? Jesus will return and destroy everything anyway and then we'll live in a 1000 year paradise and/or enjoy eternal life and what-not. And indeed the idea that we humans are the point of the universe and other egotistical / narcistic notions like that.

What I don't agree with, at all, is the idea of how evolution is about "making ourselves better" or anything even only remotely like that.

Evolution theory addresses the process that life is subject to, just like relativity theory addresses physical processes that regulate gravity and what not.
Or how plate tectonics addresses the processes that the earth's crust is subject to.

None of it addres how it ought to be. It just addresses how it is and attempts to explain why it is like it is.
No matter how we feel like we should be organizing society or how our social interactions should be like or whatever. Biological entities evolve through the process of biological evolution.
No matter if we organize like nomads, communists, capitalists, facists, anarchists, community hippies,... no matter even if we would all kill ourselves and go extinct.


What evolution DOES teach us, is that none of us are "special". We all come from the same source. Every human is my distant cousin. Every chimps is my further distant cousin. I'm literally connected to all life on this planet through my genetic heritage. I think there is awesome poetry in that.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was a cloud and ocean world
and the skies cleared
and continents rose
and life emerged on the land
and then in the sea
and finally man.

All narrated in symbolic and theological language.
Sounds okay with me. How about you?

Does not sound okay with me.
For starters, the earth pretty much started out as a ball of molten lava, not as a ball of water.

Furthermore, the earth was the result of matter clumping together through gravity in the accretion disque of our young sun. No gods required. Just gravity.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I'm not sure why it has to be Darwinism (Evolution) or Creationism? I think it is likely that it could be either or both or neither.

100% of evidence points to evolution.
0% of evidence points to creationism

No, it is the very opposite of "likely both or neither".

What all the evidence points to, to is extremely likely.
What none of the evidence points to, is extremely unlikely.
 
Christianity probably would be better off as a religion if it had changed and adjusted with the times...

Christianity cannot change and adjust

Wondering how anyone can believe that a 2000 year old belief system with billions of adherents that has spread to practically every country on earth has managed to achieve this without consistently changing and adjusting?

There are very few belief systems that have proved to be more adaptable

Just look at all the different 'brands' of Christianity in existence and you'll see how much it must have changed from its origins as a small Jewish sect.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

It's not saner because it has benefits, though...
And nor is it Darwinism (his initial theories have been improved upon).
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What I don't agree with, at all, is the idea of how evolution is about "making ourselves better" or anything even only remotely like that.

The science of evolution makes not such bazzarre claim.

Evolution theory addresses the process that life is subject to, just like relativity theory addresses physical processes that regulate gravity and what not. Or how plate tectonics addresses the processes that the earth's crust is subject to. [/quote]

Maybe OK, but not clear.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was a cloud and ocean world
and the skies cleared
and continents rose
and life emerged on the land
and then in the sea
and finally man.

All narrated in symbolic and theological language.
Sounds okay with me. How about you?

It's a nice story. But it has very little to do with actual history as far as I can see.
 
Top