What is so Anti-Christian about Darwinism?

[elshiva]

Darwin never said there was no God, he remained a believer all his life. He thought that God created the universe.
I just don't understand the hub-bub about Creationism and/or Intelligent Design.
Please Discuss. Thanks!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. I don't understand it

I grew up in a town where everyone was either Lutheran or Catholic (just like Lake Wobegon), and the only time I ever heard an objection to the teaching of evolution was from a kid who was a Jehovah's Witness.

Whenever we had to give reports in science class, his was always against evolution, even in ninth grade where the emphasis for the year was on simplified chemistry and physics.

When I was doing my undergraduate work at a Lutheran college, I took a course in the Book of Genesis. The prof was expecting trouble when he talked about the allegorical and mythological nature of the book, but we were all cool with it. This was in 1971.

[elshiva]

2. Yeah. I have a B.A. in Religious Studies

and we always talked about the mythological truths of Genesis, which doesn't contradict scientific truths.

The problem might be a lack in proper Religious and Scientific education. A lot of these mega-churches teach Biblical literalism that robs the Bible from its real meanings.

[Left Is Write]

3. Nothing, as far as I am concerned.

I was not raised to be a Bible literalist, nor was I raised to believe in Creationism as a correct and literal concept. My father, a man strong in his religious faith, is also a man of science and mathematics. He never had trouble reconciling the two.

Bible literalists seem to be very firm in their belief that the Bible is the inerrant, literal Word Of God. They do not approve of any view of the Bible that allows for symbolism or allegory, nor do they appear to use the historical context of the times in which the books of the Bible were written.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. At some point along the way, school boards became afraid of the

fundamentalists.

I was dismayed back in the early 1990s to hear that my oldest niece, then nine, could not celebrate Halloween in her affluent suburban school because some parents thought it promoted devil worship.

I told her about the Halloween celebrations we had had in the 1950s: normal school during the morning, going home for lunch (it was the 1950s, after all) to change into our costumes, coming back for pumpkin cupcakes and juice, and then assembling on the playground for the "Halloween Parade," in which we marched along the perimeters of our attendance district, waving at people who passed by. At some point, we met groups from another school that was doing the same thing, and then we would cheer for each other's schools.

"That sounds like fun," she said wistfully.

[RevCheesehead]

5. Nothing.

I was lucky. I had a fantastic biology teacher. When we got to the topic of "where did we come from," he offered three possible explanations: Evolution, Creation, Big Bang theory. He then let us discuss the three theories, or add any others, not just for the rest of the hour, but throughout the entire semester.

Of course, this was in 1978.

Thank you, Mr. Fuller, for enlightening the minds of Cheeseheads! You always were one of my favorite teachers! :toast:


This is the same guy who let us discuss abortion openly. Rather than framing the debate as right/wrong, he asked "what would you do, and why?" He always picked on me, because my answers were always "It really would depend upon the situation. It's not enough to say something is right or wrong."

I was a major introvert in High School. It took college to bring out the smart-ass in me. :)

[justgamma]

6. Listening to a Catholic radio station today

They were talking about this. The man (I forgot who it was) said that God breathed life into dust. He said it was Creationism.

I thought yes, but that's also evolution. I always thought that God's days and our days might not be the same thing. His "day" may be a few million years to us.

[elshiva]

7. YES! Some Bible verse says something about

a day is a thousand years in his sight. So billions and billions (Carl Sagan is the bomb) of years is legit as far as the Bible?

[RevCheesehead]

12. Psalm 90

You turn us back to dust, and say "Turn back, you mortals." For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a watch in the night.

- Psalm 90:3-4

Also quoted in the hymn, "O God, our Help in Ages Past" (which is, of course, Psalm 90) - paraphrase by Isaac Watts, 1719.

"A thousand ages in thy sight is like an evening gone;
short as the watch that ends the night, before the rising sun."

[elshiva]

13. Thanks for the quote Rev!

[Left Is Write]

10. Exactly.

The Bible was written by men and couched in language people could grasp and relate to. I have never ever taken the "6 days" as six literal 24-hour days. This is one prime example of why I am not a Bible literalist. The story of Adam and Eve is just that - a story used to illustrate a greater concept.

[Dookus]

8. Actually

Darwin did NOT remain a believer his whole life.

Here's an excerpt from his autobiography:

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,--and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,--that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost uncomprehensible by us,--that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,--that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses;--by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can be hardly denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

"But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.

You can read more about his writings on religion at http://www.origins.tv/darwin/religion.htm

[elshiva]

11. Oops! Sorry! I don't know too much about Darwin.

I just saw some special on him on PBS.

[regnaD kciN]

9. Three points:

1) This is not "anti-Christian," but "anti-fundamentalist" -- namely, that for Darwinian theory to be true, the first three chapters of Genesis have to be metaphorical or symbolic. While I don't have a problem with that (hey, even I can spot that those chapters contain two different, and partially-contradictory, creation stories), there are many in the "old time religion" school that believe that the Bible is "inerrant" and literally true. Anything that contradicts the Bible, read literally, would therefore be considered a deliberate lie being spread by "the forces of unbelief" to destroy Christian faith.

2) Conversely, the same point has been taken by secularists from the other direction. Many (particularly in the century after Darwin) were quick to claim that evolution "disproves" the Bible; moreover, that the apparent randomness of mutation "disproves" the notion of any divine plan -- not just "fails to prove" it (which would be logically defensible), but out and out "disproves" it (which is unjustifiably jumping from science to metaphysics).

3) In the popular imagination, and fired in particular by the appeal of Social Darwinism to suit the political agenda of the leaders of the Industrial Revolution, the slow, gradual process of evolution by natural selection was often recast in conventional wisdom as a "struggle for 'survival of the fittest'" in a "nature red in tooth and claw." In other words, the natural world was portrayed as an especially brutal place where only the powerful survive and the "unfit" are pitilessly exterminated. If one jumps to imagining what sort of divine being would create such a harsh, unforgiving world, one would have a hard time reconciling it with the God who is Love portrayed in Christianity.

[KittyWampus]

14. ElShiva, Darwinism Is Based Upon Materialism. It's Reductionist

It posits the notion that Reality is rooted in the Physical and that Consciousness is some sort of incedental epiphenomenon.

To a Science Fundie, Physical Matter preceeds Consciousness and Consciousness is, to them, not able to be studied Empirically.

Those who insist on adhering to Darwinism, when trying to find the Mechanism behind HOW Evolution works, simply are unable to consider:

Consciousness/Intelligence is the Root of Physical Matter
Consciousness/Intelligence is NOT dependant upon a Time or Space
Consciousness/Intelligence is inherent in all of Nature

[regnaD kciN]

16. "Science Fundie"...???

While I don't doubt that there are such people, your description doesn't fit them. They believe in the primacy of physical matter? That's good, that's what science is supposed to do...work with the physical universe. That's why "science" is not identical to "knowledge" as a whole -- it's a subset of it limited to very specific areas and concerns.

If there's a "science fundie," it's one who goes beyond the limits of science and tries to base conclusions in other areas of knowledge which are not limited to physical matter on the same scientific standards. For example, a scientist who insists that, because you can show how evolution can work without God directing it every step of the way, that "proves" God doesn't exist. That's every bit the same rationale as the "religion fundie" who claims that, because the Bible says the universe was created directly by God in six days, any scientific evidence that shows otherwise has to be false and/or demonic.

But complaining because a scientist concerns him- or herself exclusivly with physical matter? That's a bit like complaining that a plumber only concerns him- or herself with the actual pipes under your sink, instead of factoring in whether the "feng shui" of the plumbing might be causing the blockage.

:crazy:

[RevCheesehead]

15. I don't believe it's a black/white issue.

Sometimes people get worked up about "the Christian response" to Darwinism. What people often do not realize is that there were at least two responses of the Christian Church in America:

1. Fundamentalism. Forgive my blunt words, but I see fundamentalism as a reaction of fear... fear that maybe things really weren't what they believed all along. The fundies began to use the Bible as their ONLY source of reason and knowledge, and shut down any other attempts at discussion. IMO, fundies have chosen to stop thinking critically about their faith.

I remember an old Sunday School song: "The B-I-B-L-E, yes, that's the book for me; I stand alone on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E." It is my opinion that fundies worship the book at the expense tradition, reason, and experience.

2. Christian Liberalism. 19th Century America was in turmoil. After reeling from the pain of Civil War, the rise of scientific thinking scared some, but also brought forth thoughtful responses. Xtn liberals began thinking about the implications of their faith, not the content. Social outreach became the way to demonstrate the Love of Christ to the world. We saw a rise in missionary efforts, at home and across the world. Locally, the focus was on true liberal values: medicine/hospitals, education, immigration, poverty, child labor, and the role of women, to name just a few.

I think that the danger of extreme liberalism is the temptation to focus on the actions (works) of humanity, apart from the Gospel message. "Personalism" was the name of one movement, and I believe its theology was that a heartfelt response to Christ's love was inextricably bound to good works, done on behalf of others.

Eventually, "personalism" came to mean something private: Do the good work, but don't talk about your faith. My suspicion is that this notion of "personal" was a reaction to the fundies and their worship of the Bible above all. People began to look for peaceful coexistence amid a diverse culture.

This topic is of great interest to me, because I believe that our American culture has not yet found ways to acknowledge the hatred and intolerance done in the name of religion. We need to closely examine our past in order to move ahead, thoughtfully, about ways that religion and culture meet. There has been much harm, but there also has been much good.

I want to reclaim the good.

[GOPBasher]

17. Let me suggest an awesome book about this.

The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder is an excellent read. He's trained in both science and seminary studies and really merges the two wonderfully in this book.