For many famous historical figures, a distinction often needs to be made between the man and the myth that surrounds him. This is no less true for Charles Darwin. While the mythical features of a man are often later creations by others, in the case of Darwin, he created some of his own myths through his autobiography. In his book The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, Benjamin Wiker takes a critical look at the historical Darwin: the man, the myth, and his contribution to evolutionary theory.
Wiker documents several myths have arisen regarding Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution:
- That Darwin thought up the theory of evolution. The notion that animals in the present evolved from earlier forms was not a novel idea. The idea can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosopher Lucretius in the 1st century BC, and it was particularly in vogue among the intelligentsia in Darwin’s day. In fact, his very famous grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, wrote a widely acclaimed book titled Zoonomia (1794) in which he laid out his own theory of evolution more than 60 years before Charles wrote On the Origin of Species. In medical school, Darwin studied under a radical evolutionist by the name of Robert Grant. He also read the works of other evolutionists. Darwin did not come up with evolution. He merely popularized the theory by providing a plausible, naturalistic mechanism by which it might work, backed up by some empirical observations.
Darwin hungered for originality. He was so eager to present his theory of evolution as his own theory—and the theory of evolution—that he initially failed to credit the many contributions others had made to his thoughts. For example, it was Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population that gave Darwin the idea that natural selection is driven by a competition for food sources, and that death was the key to creating new life. Other intellectual influences included James Prichard, William Wells, William Lawrence, Patrick Matthew, Edward Blyth, and Robert Chambers. Chambers published Vestiges of Creation in 1844, and his ideas differed little from Darwin’s. Indeed, Darwin was so deflated by the fact that Chambers had scooped his ideas (and that his own friends skewered Chambers’ scientific claims), that he began an intense search for better evidence to support the same basic theory. And then there is Alfred Wallace, who sent Darwin an essay in which he laid out a theory of evolution that so closely resembled Darwin’s theory that it was as if Darwin had written the essay himself. Darwin was not about to be scooped again, so when he read Wallace’s essay he finally decided to make his own views about evolution public. A joint paper authored by Lyell, Hooker, Wallace, and Darwin was presented at the Linnean Society in 1858. One year later, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was released in print. The historical evidence is clear that the articulation of Darwin’s theory did not require the existence of Darwin. Other’s came to the same conclusions at approximately the same time. Perhaps Darwin’s greatest contribution is that of a popularizer of evolutionary thought.
- That Darwin came to his views as a result of his voyage on the Beagle. Not so. His father was an atheist who imbibed his views on origins from his own father, Erasmus (who was a self-confessed Deist, but in reality closer to an atheist). Charles imbibed his views on religion and origins from both his father and grandfather. Not only is there no good evidence that Charles was a religious believer prior to his voyage on the Beagle, but there is good reason to believe that he was an evolutionist long before then. Charles read his grandfather’s Zoonomia early in his life, as well as Lamark’s works on evolution. Darwin’s acceptance of evolution developed first, and the evidence necessary to support it were sought afterward.
- That Darwin lost his faith as a result of his study of nature. Not so. Indeed, this presupposes that he had a Christian faith prior to his study of nature. While Charles did enroll in Christ’s College for his undergraduate work in preparation for a divinity degree to become a pastor in the Anglican church, he only did so because he could not succeed at medicine (the profession of his father and grandfather), and did so at his father’s behest. His father did not want him to become a clergyman because either shared the Christian faith (the only family members who exhibited a religious faith were Charles’ sisters, and they were Unitarians), but because being a clergyman was a semi-respectable job that would pay the bills and allow Charles the free time to do what he loved best: study the natural world. Becoming a clergyman was a respectable family’s last ditch effort to secure for Charles a stable income and respectable career.
- That Darwin’s theory was only rejected by Christian fundamentalists who were ignorant of the science. Not so. Darwin’s most vocal critics were fellow scientists and close friends. Some objected to Darwin’s insistence that evolutionary change be unguided (Asa Gray, George Mivart), while others objected to evolution in general (Henslow, Adam Sedgwick, Richard Owen), and others still to various parts of his theory (Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley, Charles Lyell, and Alfred Wallace). In almost all cases, the arguments against Darwinism were scientific in nature, not theological. And interestingly, many of the same arguments modern anti-Darwinists level at the theory were advanced by scientists in Darwin’s day. Darwin couldn’t answer those objections in his own day, and not much has changed in 150 years.
- That evolution must be godless to be scientific. Many evolutionists in Darwin’s day were theists who agreed with Darwin regarding the process of evolution, disagreed that it was unguided. Darwin was even criticized for setting up a false dichotomy: either one believes in an unguided, godless evolution, or in a recent special creation and fixity of the species. He did not consider the option that evolution was guided by God, or perhaps better said, he would not consider that as an option. He was bent on providing a mechanism for evolution that made God’s hand unnecessary, and was insistent that one accept both his mechanism and his presumption that the mechanism is unguided by any intelligence. The great myth of Darwin is that Darwinism is equivalent to evolution and atheism, when in fact, one can be an evolutionist and a theist without being a Darwinist.
- That Darwin’s ideas did not serve as the basis for the Nazi Holocaust. While Darwin himself would not have supported what the Nazi’s did because he thought sympathy should be shown to the unfit races, Darwin’s ideas of natural selection served as the intellectual and scientific foundation for the Holocaust. Darwin’s book On the Origin of the Species was even subtitled The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Survival. According to Darwin, racial extermination was the means by which evolutionary progress was to be obtained. In chapter 6 of his Descent of Man he wrote, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” The German intellectuals, and finally Hitler himself, took Darwin’s ideas to their logical conclusion, recognizing (as did Ernst Haeckel long before) that Darwin’s hope for “sympathy” toward the inferior races was at odds with evolutionary advancement.
January 25, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Reblogged this on Fr. Griggs.
LikeLike
January 25, 2012 at 9:28 pm
I have to laugh when I see posts like this; apparently prohibitions against bearing false witness do not apply to dead scientists with which doctrinally (and politically conservative, based on the publishers other titles) conservative churches disagree. Efforts like this, those of Discovery, AiG etc. are as throwing eggs to wage war on a castle. You may create quite a stink but in the end, you will have accomplished little. And you will wonder, where the thoughtful among you, many of whom will be your children, will have gone.
LikeLike
January 26, 2012 at 5:58 am
B. Andrew, what false witness are you referring to? All I heard from Jason were what appear to be facts, each of which I am confident he could document. Are you not interested in facts? There is not one fact in your message – only name calling.
Jason, it is true that the vast majority of the highly intelligent and educated in this world, of which it appears B. Andrew is one, disagree with you (and me). Majorities are often wrong. I have studied all this to a very great degree. I am not only convinced, but as certain as a human can be that unguided evolution is total nonsense. Why do so many highly educated and intelligent people insist it is a fact? Well, the reasons have nothing at all to do with the evidence. That the facts and evidence is so one sided on our side and yet the many are so blind only confirms what the Bible teaches – it is simply not yet their time to understand. And I am NOT saying they are condemned to an eternal blastfurnace or an eternal separation from the one true God. That myth is the shameful teaching of much of the church which only amplifies that many Christians are also often blind to the truth.
B. Andrew, you can believe what you want. Someday you too will see the truth. In this life or the next, you will one day obey and worship the true God. You will worship him voluntarily, because you will realize He deserves to be worshiped. Your worship will not be something forced upon you. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Randy
LikeLike
January 26, 2012 at 11:54 am
Jason, Randy, I have been called out to back up my assertion that this article is bearing false witness. I will do so.
I do not have the time or the certain knowledge to do so completely. Fortunately, Randy has set the bar high, ‘facts, each of which I am confident he could document.’ So I will limit the scope of these comments to three points.
1. Seeking to diminish the contribution of C Darwin – Correctly Jason points out that life evolved from simpler life was a widely held observation at least by scientists in Darwin’s day. That is why Darwin authored the idea – theory of evolution VIA NATURAL SELECTION. Without natural selection, evolution is about as useful as a car without an engine. Darwin stands alone as the integrator or prior thinkers (which unlike Jason’s claim were largely credited), developer of several novel lines of evidence for natural selection, and dismisser of several theories or sub-theories that have no demonstrable effect on evolution. When Jason uses phrases like ‘merely popularized’ and ‘Darwin’s greatest contribution is that of a popularizer’, he makes a claim that is strongly misleading about Darwin’s contribution as a thinker and as a scientist.
2. Seeking to dismiss Darwin’s work as the result of prejudice – Jason includes here the long line of evidence that Darwin might not have been a Christian or even a small ‘d’ deist. But this is to overlook the stronger evidence to the contrary. We know from Darwin’s writings that he searched for ‘centres of creation’ while aboard the Galapagos. Want to make an educated guess as to who was thought to be doing the creating in these centers? Further, from Darwin’s papers and letters we know of how he struggled with the theological implications of his theory.
3. Sloppy research and characterization – In point 6, Jason writes, ‘Darwin’s book On the Origin of the Species was even subtitled The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Survival.’ It is well documented that ‘Favored Races’ does not refer to human racial categories but to groups of similar life forms comparable to the term species. Jason then wrote ‘According to Darwin, racial extermination was the means by which evolutionary progress was to be obtained.’ Racial extermination is highly charged language, evoking images like Jews being shot over ditches, when to be correct Darwin would have meant death, of all and varied species, before reproduction. Darwin considered evolutionary ‘progress’ eventual and unavoidable. A bullet to the head is a poor test of genetic superiority.
Jason, in other of your posts, you have demonstrated an ability and a willingness to stand apart from the apologists’ echo factory and think on your own. I wish you had done so in this case.
Randy, I appreciate your praise of my intelligence, or was that snark? I am curious what examples you would give of knowledgeable, sizeable, overwhelming majorities being wrong — which is the standard which should be applied to TEVNS.
LikeLike
January 26, 2012 at 2:36 pm
B. Andrew,
No, absolutely no snark or sarcasm intended. You are obviously intelligent. Most intelligent people agree with you. That does not mean your side is correct, and I am as certain as certain can be that you are not correct. However, I do not expect to convince you of that. I am saying all of this is more of a spiritual issue than one of science – and you disagree completely. You believe it is about science. You believe that Christians cling to a hope that has no scientific basis. I completely disagree. I am convinced there is a God, that there is overwhelming evidence of His existence. I am convinced that evolution is a completely inadequate and untenable answer to the questions about why we exist.
Examples of the majority being wrong? I think there are many. Wars, for instance. I fought in Vietnam and I now know that wars are just plain wrong, although most will fight “my country right or wrong.” Randy
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 1:44 am
Might it not be a good idea to scale back and realize that Jason was merely summarizing the salient points of the book he has been reading?
Jason wrote,
“Wiker documents several myths have arisen regarding Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution…”
After this came the numbered list. I can’t speak for him, but to read only what was written doesn’t indicate that Jason personally adheres to Wiker’s ideas; merely, he is, in his own words, telling us what Wiker has to say in his book.
That’s big difference!
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 6:55 am
Aaron It is the small facts that take the wind out of peoples arguments. So that means B. Andrew has made the shocking mistake of arguing against a book review and crediting Jason with the information when it was Jason that credited Wiker. Too funny!!
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 7:09 pm
I stand corrected, I did in my thinking and in my response confuse Jason’s thinking with what Dr. Wiker has written. My bad. You may consider that my criticism is directed against Dr. Wiker to the extent Jason has correctly expressed his views.
On this the occasion of my mea culpa, I would like to invite Jason, Aaron, and css, to disavow the writing of Dr. Wiker. To repeat or endorse a slander is no smaller crime.
LikeLike
January 27, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Personally, I don’t know the facts about Darwin one way or the other. And I’m not personally interested in studying the man. I was only interested in making the point I made.
With that said, I am personally interested in avowing whatsoever is true and disavowing whatsoever things are false, in any area of life. But I don’t think I’m going to wrangle much over this one. Thanks, though.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 6:39 am
An honorable admission B. Andrew. To defend this review or the writings of Dr. Wiker would not be beneficial for either of us. You’ve not read the book nor have I. It would be an argument from ignorance on both our parts. Thanks anyway.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 4:31 pm
B. Andrew Leder,
Accusing me of “bearing false witness” is a serious charge to make. As you know, I am summarizing Wiker’s arguments, and his arguments are based on an examination of the historical data (which I find convincing, and see no reason to disavow unless counter historical evidence could be presented that would alter or undermine Wiker’s presentation of the historical evidence). Perhaps Wiker is lying about the historical record, but considering that he often presents quotes and historical details to back up his claims, I’m not sure how much room there is for lying. Misrepresentation perhaps (by only showing one side of the story), but not lying.
This is not a scientific or theological dispute, but a historical one. Wiker is attempting to set the record straight regarding Darwin’s life. People have a lot of false views about Darwin’s life: e.g. how he came to believe in evolution, and his contribution to the field. I can speak for myself, and I think I represent a lot of people when I say that I always thought Darwin was responsible for thinking up the theory of evolution, and that he came to his conclusions only after a rigorous study of nature, and that this study is what caused him to abandon his religious faith. All of that is myth, as supported by the historical record.
None of this is to take away from Darwin’s contribution to the field. And none of this is to attack Darwin as a man. Indeed, Wiker actually had a lot of positive things to say about Darwin as a person. Since those are not part of the “myth of Darwin,” however, I did not include them in the post.
You say Darwin came up with natural selection. The problem is that he didn’t—at least not alone. Alfred Wallace came up with the same idea (and Chambers came up with something nearly identical about 15 years before Darwin published On the Origin). And it was only because Wallace asked Darwin to submit his paper on evolution by natural selection to Charles Lyell that Darwin was forced to come out with his own theory—lest Wallace be credited with coming up with the idea on his own. That is why all agree that Wallace and Darwin were co-discoverers of evolution by natural selection. But I do agree with you that Darwin was responsible for synthesizing many pieces into a larger puzzle. But that is a far cry from saying that Darwin was responsible for evolutionary theory, which you well know.
And I did not say that Darwin merely popularlized evolution. I said, “Darwin did not come up with evolution. He merely popularized the theory by providing a plausible, naturalistic mechanism by which it might work, backed up by some empirical observations.” This is true. “Evolution” is the idea that existing life forms are descendents of earlier, simpler life forms. That idea is as old as the Greeks. What Darwin did is provide a plausible naturalistic mechanism to explain how such a process could work, and attempt to supply empirical evidence for his claim. That is significant, but not nearly as significant as coming up with the whole grand idea of evolution itself. So I don’t think I made “a claim that is strongly misleading about Darwin’s contribution as a thinker and as a scientist.”
tbc…
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 4:31 pm
continued….
You mention that Darwin’s papers reveal how he struggled with the theistic implications of his theory. Do you mind quoting some of them for us? Based on the evidence I have read thus far, I would be inclined to think that what concerned him is that his anti-theistic version of evolution would not be accepted by the masses; not that he found it personally problematic. After all, as you said, a lot of people believed in evolution in Darwin’s day, but most of them were theistic evolutionists. They saw God as guiding the process. What made Darwin’s view so scandalous was that it eliminated God. And Darwin was right to be concerned about this. Even some of his closest friends supported his views about common ancestry and descent with modification, but thought Darwin was out to lunch for insisting that the process had to be unguided.
As for Darwin’s crediting of prior thinkers, as I recall he only did so in the introduction of the 6th edition of Origin because he was roundly criticized for having ignored the intellectual contributions he borrowed from in his other editions.
As for “favored races,” I recall reading about the debate over what Darwin meant by this term, but it seems largely a matter of semantics. Let’s say the phrase is equivalent to “species.” What then? You still have Darwin saying that there are difference species of men—a claim that is even more racist than the racism we are acquainted with in the 60s—and that in the future some species of men will wipe out other species, creating a larger gap between the apes and humans (implying that the inferior species of humans were closer to the apes than the more evolved Europeans).
While race was not the only thing that divided the “species” of men that Darwin had in mind, surely race was one of the common elements. Indeed, his interaction with the savages in the places he visited convinced him that they were inferior to Europeans. And he knew it wasn’t just a matter of education because two of the savages went to England and were educated and socialized, but when they returned to their homeland they reverted back to their barbarous ways. Again, that’s not to say Darwin advocated killing them. He didn’t. But he clearly believed that white Europeons were superior to all of these black and brown savages, and that the only way human evolution would proceed was by one species of humans wiping out the inferior species. Ironically, while he knew evolution worked that way, he didn’t want humans to do so. He wanted them to treat other humans—even savages—with compassion. But compassion is not a virtue in nature. Compassion is not a survival value, and many who read Darwin saw the logical inconsistency and “corrected” it.
Jason
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Randy,
This post is not intended to examine the truth or falsity of Darwin’s views. Indeed, I think atheistic Darwinists as well as theists can and should equally embrace the points Wiker made since they are based on the historical record rather than one’s scientific, philosophical, or theological perspective.
Jason
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 6:24 am
B. Adrew Leder in your first comments (post #2) you accused Jason of bearing false witness against a dead scientist (Charles Darwin) and described such posts as throwing eggs at a castle. I would assume meaning that it is useless though irritating to Darwin supporters as you.
Since you have, after being corrected, acknowledged your error in accusing Jason when in fact it was not his book being summarized, I will only add to that matter the concern that you being intelligent would make such a carless error when it was so clearly stated. I can’t help but wonder how such an error was so easily made by someone as intelligent as you.
I must add that it is not uncommon however; many of my dialogues with atheist evolutionists (not that I know you are either though I suspect both) were filled with misrepresentations, misinterpretations and misapplications of what I said. The drive to refute and silence me was so strong that they seemed to be willing to make the most obvious misstatements just to discredit me. Unlike you however, they would not even acknowledge their error when it was pointed out to them. On that I commend you. I would only ask if you think it is possible that you have as well, been premature in your jump to the defense of the late Charles Darwin due to your having been in error as to his contribution as a scientist?
In post #4, you proceeded to answer the challenge to prove your assertion opening with a confession that you did not have “certain knowledge” to do so completely. Again I commend you for that honesty. You then proceeded to limit your focus to three points which I would like to briefly comments on.
In your point 1(as Jason pointed out #11), you were incorrect about Darwin’s primary role in authoring the idea-theory of evolution VIA NATURAL SELECTION.
In your point 2 you state that seeking to dismiss Darwin’s work was a result of “prejudice” without any apparent bases for making such an accusation.
You also contended for Darwin’s legitimacy as a Christian based solely on Darwin’s writings while he was aboard the “Galapagos”. Another error, I believe he was aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. The “Galapagos” was one of the locations that he conducted his observations and research. Aside from that I was wondering what criteria you use to determine just what a “Christian” was so as to be able to determine that what Darwin wrote indicated he was a Christian. If my point here seems to be unfair your next statement should redeem me.
In point 3 which you titled “Sloppy research and characterization”, (ironic in light of your comments and accusations here) you take Jason to task for his Wiker’s comment about Darwin’s use of “Favored Races” and “Racial extermination”. You correctly point out that there are arguments for alternate interpretations but you did not state why your interpretation was sounder than Wiker’s. You also fail to acknowledge the fact of Darwin’s personal accountability for what he said. He knew the climate in which he was writing and it has been demonstrated that he in fact took advantage of that sociological climate to launch himself into a place of prominence as documented by Dr. Jerry Bergman In his latest Book “The dark Side of Charles Darwin”.
So while you are to be commended for your frank acknowledgement that you do not have “certain knowledge”, you demonstrate an unsettling dedication to and advocacy for a cause which you have no certain knowledge and have not carefully examined. My question is why? Could it be that facts and accuracy is not as much your concern as is defending your world view in which Darwin is a major player, and therefore must be protected even at the cost of intellectual and literary suicide? Again, this is just a question not a conclusion. (Not Yet).
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 7:17 am
Jason, great job on you response to B. Andrew,(#11). I would like to add a few points for your consideration and comment if you have time.
To your statement:
“None of this is to take away from Darwin’s contribution to the field. And none of this is to attack Darwin as a man. Indeed, Wiker actually had a lot of positive things to say about Darwin as a person.”
First, I agree that exposure of Darwin’s errors should not be seen as an attempt to diminish his contributions to science. And I think it is commendable that Wiker included positive things about Darwin in his book. I may get the book just to see how many positive things were said about Darwin as you state that he had a “lot”.
I have only read one book so far that addressed the relatively taboo aspects of Darwin’s life and work, and unlike Wiker, the author spends little time discussing the Darwin that has been mass publicized. I speak of Dr. Jerry Bergman’s “The Dark Side of Charles Darwin”.
In his book, Bergman, as did Wiker, chose to focus on the side of Darwin that most people have never been informed about. And as with Wiker, he did so not to attack Darwin but to dispel the myth.
Says Bergman:
“Darwin was an icon of science during his own lifetime, and his icon status has grown enormously since then. This book provides some needed balance by looking at his dark side, however briefly, and is one of a handful of new books now beginning to reevaluate Darwin’s legacy.
Criticism of Darwin is rare because it goes “against the grain of conformist academic praise for Charles Darwin” that is all too common in academia, the media, and our public school classrooms.
It also goes against the common perception among scientists and academics that Darwin, “one of the greatest of our [science] figures should not be dissected.”
“More than 100 biographies of Darwin have been published in English alone since 1885, all of them favorable, and many very favorable. To understand Darwin and his work, though, the whole story must be told, especially since many people today view him almost as a god.
This work attempts to understand Darwin the man and the impact that his work has had on society for good and evil…”
Bergman not only examines Darwin’s exaggerated contributions to science, his scientific errors, his poor writing ability and his plagiarism but also Darwin’s medical history including his psychological conditions all of which should be taken into account when discussing his legacy.
Although a small book, it has over one thousand foot notes.
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 10:43 pm
“Darwin’s book On the Origin of the Species was even subtitled The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Survival.”
If you had bothered to read the book you would have noticed that it said virtually nothing about human evolution. The word “races” in the title had nothing to do with human races.
You wrote “Darwin’s ideas of natural selection served as the intellectual and scientific foundation for the Holocaust.”
You should look up the meaning of Godwin’s Law.
If your nazis used the natural selection idea to justify their atrocities, how do you explain the countless pogroms before Darwin was born? The holocaust was a religious atrocity. To blame it on the foundation of biology is just plain dishonest.
In any case, even if some people are stupid enough to use scientific facts to justify violence, that doesn’t change the truth of those scientific facts. Evolution, by the way, is the strongest fact of science, and like all other natural processes it was not guided by a god fairy waving a magic wand.
One more thing. The best way to eliminate racism in the world is teach evolution. Everyone should understand how evolution works, especially the evolution of skin color. It’s for a good reason virtually all biologists are not racists.
Another “one more thing”. Darwin is the father of modern biology. He was wrong about some things but his most important idea, natural selection, is now stronger than ever. In my opinion Darwin was the greatest and most important person in history. Your Benjamin Wiker is a nobody, a worthless professional liar who has never contributed anything to science.
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 11:11 pm
“And interestingly, many of the same arguments modern anti-Darwinists level at the theory were advanced by scientists in Darwin’s day. Darwin couldn’t answer those objections in his own day, and not much has changed in 150 years.”
Your Benjamin Wiker wrote this? Not much has changed in 150 years? Really?
Your Wiker is a science denier as you probably are. Virtually no scientific progress in biology the past 150 years? Some things are so stupid and so dishonest they are not worth talking about.
Instead of reading books written by professional idiots perhaps you should try reading a book about evolution that was written by someone who knows what he’s talking about.
There are countless books about evolution but in my opinion the best book for non-scientists is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago biologist. He writes about some of the many thousands of scientific discoveries made in the past 150 years that have made evolution the strongest fact of science. I recommend the book because it’s not tedious. The evidence he explains is easy to understand and the entire book is interesting and a pleasure to read.
“not much has changed in 150 years.” Horrible. If your Wiker really believes that he’s an uneducated moron.
LikeLike
February 8, 2012 at 10:34 am
Ape, you said:
“If you had bothered to read the book you would have noticed that it said virtually nothing about human evolution. The word “races” in the title had nothing to do with human races.”
But what did the title say ad why did Darwin (knowing the social climate of his day), use that particular title? He knew what he was doing and his published comments about religion and God makes this clear. This is nicely documented by Dr. Jerry Bergman in his book “the Dark side of Charles Darwin”.
You said:
“If your nazis used the natural selection idea to justify their atrocities, how do you explain the countless pogroms before Darwin was born? The holocaust was a religious atrocity. To blame it on the foundation of biology is just plain dishonest.”
By what logic do you insist that because of countless pogroms before Darwin was born, his book and views on natural selection and survival of the fittest could not serve as a foundation for the Holocaust?
I don’t believe you thinking is clear on this. Past atrocities do not negate the possibility of new or current ideas inspiring and driving current atrocities.
You said:
“Evolution, by the way, is the strongest fact of science, and like all other natural processes it was not guided by a god fairy waving a magic wand.”
But you have not demonstrated that here, making a claim does not prove it is scientific. On what do you base your claim? Additionally, you should define “evolution”.
You said:
“Darwin is the father of modern biology.”
What makes Darwin the father of modern biology?
As for you conviction:
“his most important idea, natural selection, is now stronger than ever”
If you have read what Jason said in his Post #11 under the thread: “What I’ve Been reading: The Darwin Myth”, you would know that natural selection was not Darwin’s idea and if you have been following developments in science you should know that NS is not stronger than ever but in fact it is known that neither NS or mutations can be the mechanism for new life forms. So in fact it is weaker than ever.
Your comment:
“In my opinion Darwin was the greatest and most important person in history.”
Is disturbing to me but it does reveal just how affective your mis-education has been.
Your statement is a religious devotion and not a scientific argument. It is also reflected in the name you chose to be addressed by here, “human Ape”.
As for your harsh words about Wiker, that is uncalled for and has no place here.a
LikeLike
February 8, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Ape, you said (post #17):
“Your Benjamin Wiker wrote this? Not much has changed in 150 years? Really?
Your Wiker is a science denier as you probably are. Virtually no scientific progress in biology the past 150 years? Some things are so stupid and so dishonest they are not worth talking about.”
Your zeal for Darwin has caused you to miscomprehend the statement. You focus on “Not much has changed in 150 years” and disconnected it from its context.
You added “Virtually no scientific progress in biology the past 150 years” but that was not said.
Look at the first part of the statement again:
4. “That Darwin’s theory was only rejected by Christian fundamentalists who were ignorant of the science.”
He is not discussing scientific advances nor is that his focus. He is discussing the inability of Darwin supporter to defend against many of the arguments against Darwinian evolution. That is what has not changed.
Note:
“Darwin couldn’t answer those objections in his own day, and not much has changed in 150 years.”
How do you get your argument out of what was said?
My experience has been that this is a common problem with atheist evolutionists seeking to discredit creation science and ID. Whether an intentional tactic or an unintentional error they present a false statement and then attack it and that is not proper or honorable dialogue.
You said:
“Instead of reading books written by professional idiots perhaps you should try reading a book about evolution that was written by someone who knows what he’s talking about.”
Your insulting attacks are unnecessary and inappropriate here. It should be embarrassing for you since you accused Wiker of not knowing what he was talking about while completely missing a point which you attacked in error.
Thanks for you recommendation of an evolution book to read, but you should have at least done some comparative research on the book before you recommended it as “the best” for nonscientist.
Coyne is not the most formidable evolutionist author around today and his book is an embarrassment to serious evolutionist who takes pride in their defense.
John Woodmorappe reviewed that book back in 2009. He points out that Coyne:
“…actually believes that, were the Earth created several thousand years ago, Africa and South America would only be a few inches apart (p. 17).”
Apparently ignorant of the catastrophic plate tectonics.
He incorrectly assumes creationists believe:
“that living things occur exactly in the same locations where they were created (pp. 92, 101, 108)”
“To him, creationists deny speciation (p. 183)—a naïveté doubly inexcusable in light of all the volume of creationist research in baraminology of recent decades. Coyne cannot even get the duration of the Noachian Deluge correct (to him, six weeks! p. 89), and he chooses to repeat long-disproved canards, such as the Ark-inadequately-small and the Ark-released-carnivores-eliminate-herbivores.”
You may wish to read the full review at this link:
http://creation.com/review-coyne-why-evolution-is-true
LikeLike
February 10, 2012 at 10:25 am
Jason & Danzil,
I stand by my assertion that Jason bore false witness. Now that he has reaffirmed his basic agreement with Dr. Wiker, I frankly feel no sting from commingling his thoughts with those of Dr. Wiker.
I am not willing to go round for round on this topic and my three points still hold and are supported by the evidence I cited. Darwin is the originator of the idea of Evolution via Natural Selection. Wallace had a pamphlet while Darwin had a book. It would be similar to confusing the theological significance of Third John with the Gospel of John. Darwin was also FIRST by a great many years.
Jason not only diminishes Darwin’s role to ‘mere popularizer’; he does so twice in point 1. “He merely popularized the theory by providing a plausible, naturalistic mechanism by which it might work, backed up by some empirical observations.” and “Perhaps Darwin’s greatest contribution is that of a popularizer of evolutionary thought.”
If Jason has correctly represented Dr. Wiker’s take on use of ‘Race’ in the title of Origins, we already know we should approach Wiker’s scholarship with great skepticism. Further, and here I will make a new point, to confuse social darwinism with the actions of Germany under Hitler is itself a clear example of bearing false witness. First, I stand by my point previously made, genocide of your political enemies is a poor way of sorting out environmental biological advantage – to the point of being contrary to scientific Darwinism (or TOEVNS). Second, it’s irresponsible, in that you would rightly reject that Christian antisemitism was a necessary driver to enable Germany in their genocide of Jews and others. Yet, it would be easier to make this case against biblical Christianity than it is to sustain the case against TOEVNS. Your treatment and, presumably, that of Dr. Wiker is unfair and inconsistent.
I do not need to take down Jason’s full argument for my charge of bearing false witness to stand. Condemnations via faint praise are still the bearing of false witness. Wrong conclusions have been reached and communicated about material aspects of Darwin’s and his theory’s reputation – that is the definition of bearing false witness.
Danzil, just for the record, quoting Dr. Jerry Bergman (or should I call him Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Jerry Bergman) has less than zero persuasive power to me.
Danzil, as to your question “Could it be that facts and accuracy is not as much your concern as is defending your world view in which Darwin is a major player, and therefore must be protected even at the cost of intellectual and literary suicide?” — No.
LikeLike
February 10, 2012 at 2:41 pm
B. Andrew Leder you said:
“I am not willing to go round for round on this topic and my three points still hold and are supported by the evidence I cited. Darwin is the originator of the idea of Evolution via Natural Selection. Wallace had a pamphlet while Darwin had a book. It would be similar to confusing the theological significance of Third John with the Gospel of John. Darwin was also FIRST by a great many years.”
But are you aware of anyone else who taught that view before Darwin? Our point is that because he is credited for being the originator of NS does not make it so. Since there is historic documentation that he was not the first, (and I am not talking about just Wallace) why then is he still credited as being such.
You seem to be unaware of and seem to could care less that much of Darwin’s material came from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin.
http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family
That evidence “has emerged that a Scottish geologist, Dr. James Hutton (1726–1797), conceived a theory of selection as early as 1794.”
That “Apart from James Hutton, there were several other authors who, many years before Charles Darwin, published articles on the subject of natural selection.” Such as William Wells (1757–1817), Patrick Matthew (1790–1874) and Edward Blyth (1810–1873).
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild
As Miker and Bergman point out it is due to myth building by Darwin’s supporters that such information is so often ignored.
You said:
“Danzil, as to your question “Could it be that facts and accuracy is not as much your concern as is defending your world view in which Darwin is a major player, and therefore must be protected even at the cost of intellectual and literary suicide?” — No.”
Then I ask you why are you settling for unsubstantiated points of view concerning Charles Darwin and evolution? You have not acknowledged you error concerning the Galapagos in your #4 post, you refused to acknowledge that you were in error as to Jason’s comments about Miker’s book on the grounds that Jason agreed with Miker which does not change the fact that you made an error, and you have rejected the material of Miker and Bergman without even examining them. You have no idea of the source references they used and yet you simply say it is not true. These are not the actions of someone concerned about facts and accuracy.
LikeLike
February 11, 2012 at 1:09 am
Danzil, before I respond, I would like to ask you to explain what natural selection is in your own words and without consultation to other sources. I’ll have to trust you on that.
I am aware that Galapagos is a place and that the Beagle was his ship. Where I wrote ‘aboard’; I should have written ‘in’.
What you describe as “unsubstantiated points” are actually quite substantiated. I am also quite well read on Darwin, evolution, natural selection, creation and its various theories. This includes Dr. Jerry Bergman and other defenders of nonsense. One doesn’t need to read Wiker when one knows the truth already substantiated through many other and primary sources. And for the record it’s not Miker but Wiker.
LikeLike
February 11, 2012 at 7:32 pm
B. Andrew Leder you asked:
“Danzil, before I respond, I would like to ask you to explain what natural selection is in your own words and without consultation to other sources. I’ll have to trust you on that.”
Why are you testing my knowledge of NS rather than answering my post?
Saying you are well read on all the issues does not explain your dedication to evolution or to Charles Darwin. However, it is becoming clear that you are not interested in defending your point of view. I had hoped to have a dialogue with intelligent arguments in defense of evolution and against ID but instead there is rude protest.
Are you saying that Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection had nothing to do with what his grandfather and others before him taught?
And since you feel you are so well read concerning Charles Darwin, and yet are unwilling to even read what had been published about him that goes against the common glorification of his work and him as a person, I have to suspect your integrity as a Darwin defender. How can you possibly defend someone whose negative side you refuse to hear or acknowledge?
Thanks for the correction on the Wiker spelling.
LikeLike
February 11, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Danzil, answer the question.
Yes, I do think Darwin’s TEVNS is materially different than that of his grandfather and that of the other scientists and classical naturalists that you mentioned. You have presented yourself as knowledgeable about the nature of and arguments for and against TEVNS. Man up and answer this most basic of questions.
I am aware of the claims about Darwin’s negative side — and I have already outlined my case why this ignores more obvious facts and makes unwarranted conclusions. Conclusions that are wrong and of a material nature.
You wrote: ‘However, it is becoming clear that you are not interested in defending your point of view.’ Actually I’m not interested in wasting my time.
LikeLike
February 12, 2012 at 8:46 pm
B Andrew
Post #20
“I am not willing to go round for round on this topic and my three points still hold and are supported by the evidence I cited.”
But you have not provided evidence for them not have you responded to my questions in post #14 concerning them.
You said:
“Wallace had a pamphlet while Darwin had a book. It would be similar to confusing the theological significance of Third John with the Gospel of John. Darwin was also FIRST by a great many years.”
Not a good example since John wrote both books. As for Darwin, how do you know how much of what Darwin received from Wallace was not revamped and used in his own book? For that matter, how do you know how much Darwin relied on his Grand Father’s and other writer’s material? You seem to be reluctant to even acknowledge that Darwin “could have” barrowed his ideas from other and I would like to know why?
You said:
“Second, it’s irresponsible, in that you would rightly reject that Christian antisemitism was a necessary driver to enable Germany in their genocide of Jews and others.”
Your analysis is faulty in that “Christianity” is not compatible with nor condones anti-Semitism regardless of who practices it and claimed to be Christian. On the other hand Darwinism was quite compatible with the Nazi philosophy.
You said:
“Wrong conclusions have been reached and communicated about material aspects of Darwin’s and his theory’s reputation – that is the definition of bearing false witness.”
Your objections have been noted but you have not presented any evidence to defend your objections. You have not even proven that it was “his theory”.
You said in Post #24
“Danzil, answer the question.”
But you are asking an unreasonable question as neither you nor I have original though concerning Darwin’s Natural Selection, we both get our understanding of Darwin from Darwin and others who wrote about him. Therefore nothing I say concerning it would be my own. I suspect that this is a stalling tactic as you are unwilling to deal with my argument concerning Darwin’s borrowing from other writers. You maintain that Darwin’s Natural Selection was not the same as others before him so I ask in what way was it different and if so how much different was it and did it incorporate any aspects of the views that came before his? I think you see the problem and you wish to stall on NS.
I suggest that you check out a book by Loren Eiseley “Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X” in which he concludes that Darwin borrowed heavily from the works of others without giving them credit until pressured to do so by fellow scientists. In his book he documents how Darwin used similar phrasing, rare words and even choice of examples as found in the writings of Edward Blyth (1810-1873) who wrote two papers on natural selection and species evolution published in 1835 and 1837. Darwin even quoted Blyth on a number of points without referencing his papers that directly discussed natural selection. (Bergman page 147, The Dark Side of Charles Darwin).
But borrowing NS and claiming it as his own is not Darwin’s only problem. But you will never know “that” Charles Darwin if you refuse to read any negative documentation about him.
You said:
“I have already outlined my case why this ignores more obvious facts and makes unwarranted conclusions. Conclusions that are wrong and of a material nature.”
I don’t see where you have made your case; I only see statements of objection, denial and rejection. If you are not interested in wasting your time then please provide solid arguments for your view.
LikeLike
February 12, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Danzil, not going to be baited. No answer to my question, means no reply. You can believe what you like about whether it is a stalling technique.
Four or five sentences, heck even a list, and you would be done.
LikeLike
February 13, 2012 at 4:04 pm
B. Andrew Leder,
You said in post #22
“Danzil, before I respond, I would like to ask you to explain what natural selection is in your own words and without consultation to other sources. I’ll have to trust you on that.”
I asked in post#23
“Why are you testing my knowledge of NS rather than answering my post?”
“Are you saying that Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection had nothing to do with what his grandfather and others before him taught?”
You replied post #24
“Danzil, answer the question.
Yes, I do think Darwin’s TEVNS is materially different than that of his grandfather and that of the other scientists and classical naturalists that you mentioned. You have presented yourself as knowledgeable about the nature of and arguments for and against TEVNS. Man up and answer this most basic of questions.”
(How interesting that you should make this about how I present myself rather than focusing on the dialogue).
At any rate my reply was in post #25:
“But you are asking an unreasonable question as neither you nor I have original though concerning Darwin’s Natural Selection, we both get our understanding of Darwin from Darwin and others who wrote about him. Therefore nothing I say concerning it would be my own….”
“You maintain that Darwin’s Natural Selection was not the same as others before him so I ask in what way was it different, and if so how much different was it and did it incorporate any aspects of the views that came before his? I think you see the problem and you wish to stall on NS”
You call this baiting, I say I am being sensible and you are stalling to avoid dealing with your obvious handicap. I think you know full well that Charles Darwin for the most part was not as great a man of science you and so many others want us to believe he was.
You, as does Richard Dawkins understand the importance of Darwin’s mythological status to evolution and you must defend him by any means necessary because if he goes, evolution as it is championed today loses big time.
This is not about Wilker or Bergman, you could care less how reliable their sources are because your concern is to defend, (scratch that) “protect” your foundation. That is what I think I am getting from you. Naturally I could be wrong but only you could prove that. You have been on the attack since you arrived and I wonder why?
Perhaps you can explain why my questions are unreasonable.
LikeLike
February 13, 2012 at 4:24 pm
You wrote: “As for Darwin, how do you know how much of what Darwin received from Wallace was not revamped and used in his own book? For that matter, how do you know how much Darwin relied on his Grand Father’s and other writer’s material?”
and he asks – rhetorically – and I’m the one on attack?
We do KNOW that Darwin did not copy Wallace and revamp, Danzil, how do we know that?
I have not asked you to break new ground and come up with your own theory of evolution and natural selection. You have presented yourself as knowledgeable enough to critique Darwin’s contribution and rule that others got their first. I think it is reasonable and basic to ask you to what is Darwin’s theory stated in your own words. If you can’t do that, I don’t see how you could possibly critique his work vs. others.
I think you are a flaming, ICR/AiG googling, creationist, fool as your inability to produce an answer here well demonstrates.
For the final time: what is Darwin’s theory, what are it’s drivers, and what does it claim is accomplished? The price of my responding to your questions is an answer or an admission that you don’t know. You have now prattled on for three long responses and inelegantly dodged this very simple question.
B.
LikeLike
February 14, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Dear Readers,
it has been sort of fascinating to watch Danzil try to distract or to explain away his inability to describe Darwin’s Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. A theory, he, Danzil, ‘knows’ is incorrect and ‘knows’ is a theory Darwin only accomplished by stealing the intellectual work of others. I’ll be honest, my first impulse is to reply with snark. However; I’ve learned that you never know who reads a blog or what they need to hear.
So instead, I’ll answer my own question that Danzil has fled from and describe Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection here. I will in a future post describe how it is different, contra accusations in this post and its comments, than the work of those Darwin is accused of stealing from. So there is no confusion, the authorship of this theory, within science circles, is shared by Darwin and Wallace who through an arrangement announced simultaneously. From Darwin’s notebooks and letters, it is clear that Darwin arrived at the idea first and through the date of its first announcement did extensively more work into Evolution via Natural Selection than did Wallace.
It is not the claim of science historians that Darwin arrived at his theory via some knowledge-free phenomenal wonder. Science success stories, even those that are substantial, are built on the prior work, writings, and knowledge of others. Darwin who did directly collect a massive number of natural samples and performed his own experiments also read widely and interviewed many people.
I am a layman with an interest in science.
The core of this theory is four interrelated ideas: 1) that descendants basically inherit their biological design from their parents, 2) that there are small differences between offspring and parent and these differences are inheritable by the next generation, these small differences are sometimes referred to as mutations, 3)that there are insufficient resources for all offspring to live at least through the age of reproduction, and 4) because of this scarcity there is a competition where the better of these small mutational differences increase the odds of their possessors over others. An evolutionist named Spencer coined the pithy phrase ‘Survival of the Fittest’ to describe parts 3 and 4 of this idea.
The result, the meat, of this idea is that all life probably arose from a single ancestry line. Meaning there was no special or individual creation for each kind or specie of animal. Differences between animals, even very different animals, are the accumulation of small mutations that have been selected for their advantage over 100s of millions of years.
Had Danzil gotten 1/2 of this right, I would have been impressed. I would have awarded Danzil extra points had he mentioned:
This competition takes two forms – the struggle to survive and the competition to reproduce.
Also, that isolation is valuable in speeding evolution as novel mutations are preserved to be built on when interbreeding is nonexistent or limited rather than diluting the mutation by interbreeding with those who don’t possess the mutation.
The theory does NOT address how the first life arose.
It is the near full consensus of biologists that Darwin’s theory is true.
At the time of Darwin’s work, genetics were poorly understood. Though Mendel, the researcher and writer who would lay out the foundational work of genetics, was at work independently and unknown by Darwin in relatively the same historic period. Darwin anticipated genetics in what I have labeled points one and two above; he saw the results of genetics and presumed there would be a biological explanation. While I’m not fond of blackbox explanations, explanations where the components and processes are presumed only through their results, Darwin has been vindicated on this point.
And finally, and this may be controversial for readers attracted to this blog, Darwin expressed his theory without a role for God or a deistic/agnostic designer. This has not only, generally, held up well for his theory but has been a foundational boon for the practice of all sciences.
In a later post, I’ll explain why Darwin’s theory is sufficiently different than those he has in this blog post and responses been accused of stealing from. I invite you, dear reader, to consider your own use of ‘experts’ in understanding evolution and in measuring the historic accomplishments of Darwin. Danzil’s reference of ‘experts’ at creationist websites and various writers have left him ill prepared. To me it seems, he has shown up to a gunfight with a knife.
All the best,
B. Andrew
LikeLike
February 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm
B. Andrew Leder you said post #28
“We do KNOW that Darwin did not copy Wallace and revamp, Danzil, how do we know that?”
My question is reasonable and important to your argument. I think you know that which is why you have not answered it. There is evidence against Darwin on this matter with Wallace and others, and if you were not so dedicated to Darwin you would have at least read that material before you committed yourself so wholly to him.
You said:
“I have not asked you to break new ground and come up with your own theory of evolution and natural selection.”
But you did challenge me to state it in my own words without referencing others which I refused to do. It may have escaped you but what you asked me to do is precisely what your hero Darwin has been accused of doing and part of what this dialogue we are having is about.
You said:
“You have presented yourself as knowledgeable enough to critique Darwin’s contribution and rule that others got their first.”
Again, your observation skill are lacking, if you would carefully reread this thread you will notice that I have relied on Dr. Wiker and Dr. Bergman and not myself so I am concerned about your lack of accuracy and attention to details. Which also reflects on your unfounded confidence in Darwin and evolution.
You said:
“I think it is reasonable and basic to ask you to what is Darwin’s theory stated in your own words. If you can’t do that, I don’t see how you could possibly critique his work vs. others.”
And that is the problem, “you can’t see”. I am attempting to assist you but you seem to be determined to discredit me as a person rather than trying to understand my rational.
You said:
“I think you are a flaming, ICR/AiG googling, creationist, fool as your inability to produce an answer here well demonstrates.”
You are at least partly correct, I am a creationist and I do appreciate ICR.org and asnwersingenesis.com. However I respectfully disagree with your considering me to be a “flaming fool”. My unwillingness to allow you to bait me into doing what I don’t feel is right or necessary does not constitute what you have foolishly concluded. But your comments do place you in an embarrassing position.
You said:
“For the final time: what is Darwin’s theory, what are it’s drivers, and what does it claim is accomplished? The price of my responding to your questions is an answer or an admission that you don’t know. You have now prattled on for three long responses and inelegantly dodged this very simple question.”
If that is indeed your “final time” then that is the best news I have heard from you since you have arrived. Perhaps now we can get on to some meaningful dialogue.
However, I must have struck a nerve with something that I said since as evident in your post #29 you have decided to attempt to take me to school (albeit childishly indirectly) and explain to us what Darwin’s natural selection is. The only problem is that it was not necessary nor does is pull you out of the whole you have climbed into. I will explain in my response to that post.
LikeLike
February 15, 2012 at 9:49 pm
B. Andrew Leder you said:
“Dear Readers,
it has been sort of fascinating to watch Danzil try to distract or to explain away his inability to describe Darwin’s Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. A theory, he, Danzil, ‘knows’ is incorrect and ‘knows’ is a theory Darwin only accomplished by stealing the intellectual work of others.”
First you should be clear as to what we were discussing; you were focused on defending Darwin’s originating natural selection in the process of accusing Dr.Wiker and Jason of bearing false witness concerning Darwin’s contribution to science. You were insisting that I explain natural selection in my own words without referencing anyone and I refused. However, I never suggested that natural selection was incorrect, again you are seriously lacking in your attention to detail and accurate recollection.
You said:
“So instead, I’ll answer my own question that Danzil has fled from and describe Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection here. I will in a future post describe how it is different, contra accusations in this post and its comments, than the work of those Darwin is accused of stealing from.”
But what will this accomplish? How does doing so exonerate Darwin from accusations of stealing ideas and information from other without crediting them until confronted?
If doing so does not prove his innocence then it is a waste of space and time.
You said:
“…the authorship of this theory, within science circles, is shared by Darwin and Wallace who through an arrangement announced simultaneously. From Darwin’s notebooks and letters, it is clear that Darwin arrived at the idea first and through the date of its first announcement did extensively more work into Evolution via Natural Selection than did Wallace.
So why is Wallace rarely if ever mentioned when natural selection or the celebration of evolution is discussed? Was there a year of Wallace?
You said:
“It is not the claim of science historians that Darwin arrived at his theory via some knowledge-free phenomenal wonder. Science success stories, even those that are substantial, are built on the prior work, writings, and knowledge of others. Darwin who did directly collect a massive number of natural samples and performed his own experiments also read widely and interviewed many people.”
But the argument is that he failed to acknowledge those who he relied on and borrowed from until forced to do so and much late than he should have.
You said:
“The core of this theory is four interrelated ideas: 1) that descendants basically inherit their biological design from their parents,”
Nothing brilliant about this, that is clearly seen by observation and other scientists before him acknowledged this.
you said:
“2) that there are small differences between offspring and parent and these differences are inheritable by the next generation, these small differences are sometimes referred to as mutations,”
Nothing brilliant here is was already known. Darwin was not a geneticist so he borrowed from others again rarely if ever giving them credit.
you said:
“3) that there are insufficient resources for all offspring to live at least through the age of reproduction,”
Again nothing great about this, he was preceded by others on whose work he relied heavily but gave no credit.
you said:
“and 4) because of this scarcity there is a competition where the better of these small mutational differences increase the odds of their possessors over others. An evolutionist named Spencer coined the pithy phrase ‘Survival of the Fittest’ to describe parts 3 and 4 of this idea.”
Again nothing new, others before him wrote on this and he used their material without acknowledging them. That is the problem.
You said:
“The result, the meat, of this idea is that all life probably arose from a single ancestry line. Meaning there was no special or individual creation for each kind or specie of animal. Differences between animals, even very different animals, are the accumulation of small mutations that have been selected for their advantage over 100s of millions of years.”
You said “probably” I give you credit for that, but on what scientific evidence is that probability based? Since natural selection and mutations cannot introduce the kind of new information required to cause the probable evolution that is supposed to have occurred over millions of years that no one living has observed, what is the significance of natural selection and mutation to evolution?
You said:
“Had Danzil gotten 1/2 of this right, I would have been impressed. I would have awarded Danzil extra points had he mentioned:
This competition takes two forms – the struggle to survive and the competition to reproduce.
Also, that isolation is valuable in speeding evolution as novel mutations are preserved to be built on when interbreeding is nonexistent or limited rather than diluting the mutation by interbreeding with those who don’t possess the mutation.
The theory does NOT address how the first life arose.
It is the near full consensus of biologists that Darwin’s theory is true.”
But you are still leaving out two essential factors: 1. It was not Darwin’s theory, he tried to claim it as his but he was being dishonest about it. and 2. Since it is known that natural selection and mutations cannot cause different life-forms to arise no matter how many years you give it, evolution is left without an intelligent mechanism.
So your total exercise in natural selection 101 is a total waste of our time. I could have spared you this but you would not listen to me.
You said:
“And finally, and this may be controversial for readers attracted to this blog, Darwin expressed his theory without a role for God or a deistic/agnostic designer. This has not only, generally, held up well for his theory but has been a foundational boon for the practice of all sciences.”
But what is your proof for this statement? You are making claims without evidence.
You said:
“Danzil’s reference of ‘experts’ at creationist websites and various writers have left him ill prepared. To me it seems, he has shown up to a gunfight with a knife.”
Once again you have exposed your inability to provide accurate information. You forgot that I also used quotes from evolutionists. Perhaps you are not aware of the 1981 international conference in Rome:
“We had an international conference in Rome in 1981 on the mechanisms of speciation. It was attended by many of the leading botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, geneticists, cytologists and biologist. The one thing on which they all agreed was that we still have absolutely no idea what happens beneficially during speciation. That’s a [curse word] statement, but it’s the truth.”
Dr. Ernst Mayr (Harvard)-Omni Magazine, February 1983
LikeLike
February 16, 2012 at 6:19 am
While I will not be rebutting Danzil point by point, I do want to clarify two things; one mine, one his. First mine:
When I wrote, “all life probably arose from a single ancestry line”. By ‘probably’ I meant that the long odds of initial life make it likely the ancestry line rolls to a single point. I am only conceding that we won’t absolutely know for certain it is a single ancestry line. Initial life is not within the scope of the theory of evolution via natural selection. It is the firm conclusion of biology that speciation, that species arise from prior/other species, did and does occur.
Second, I don’t have access to Omni February 1983, perhaps Danzil can lend me his. Danzil quoted Ernst Mayr, a now deceased and very eminent biologist, to say, “. . . we still have absolutely no idea what happens BENEFICIALLY during speciation. . . .”. I believe he has misquoted Dr. Mayr and it should read ‘we still have absolutely no idea what happens GENETICALLY during speciation’. I suspect this is Danzil’s typo but it is a misleading and significant shift in meaning. Since 1983, Science now has the broad outlines of what does happen genetically during speciation and it is no comfort for creationists.
The late Dr. Ernst is also reported to have said in the same Omni article, “Since Darwin, every knowing person agrees man descended from the apes. Today, there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. It is the fact of evolution.”
I will soon return to detail how Darwin’s theory was and is a significant intellectual step over those he is accused of stealing from.
B. Andrew
LikeLike
February 16, 2012 at 12:19 pm
A response to Post #32
B. Andrew, you are conducting yourself in the atypical manner that I have experienced when in dialogue with evolutionists. When unable to deal with creationists arguments they usually go into “ignore” mode while continuing their attempt to recover from a poor defense. As if somehow by not speaking directly to their opponent they eliminate their problem. Yet interestingly they indirectly still respond to their opponent’s comments.
Why? I believe it is due to your need for “Damage control”.
I will not follow your childish lead but will continue to address you directly.
You said:
“It is the firm conclusion of biology that speciation, that species arise from prior/other species, did and does occur.”
And creationists acknowledge speciation, what we are rejecting is the evolutionists claim that speciation leads to the introduction of new creatures or kinds and that this is how all life came into existence, yet that has not been observed nor can it be demonstrated scientifically. But evolutionist cunningly talk as if creature “kind” to creature “kind” evolution happens while only giving examples of speciation and simply claim that is how new creature came about. That is not science it is trickery.
As to your concerns about my Mayr quote, I have ordered the magazine and will be happy to provide you with a copy of the original quote. Till them perhaps you can provide reference to support your claim that: “Science now has the broad outlines of what does happen genetically during speciation and it is no comfort for creationists.”
While you are at it, can you explain to us why origins “is not within the scope of the theory of evolution via natural selection”? How is it outside when it is the starting point? Do you see the games evolutionists have to play to stay afloat?
Alan Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology, University of Bristol, wrote a review of S.J. Gould’s book The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism:
“But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved in 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extra-chromosomal, transmissible plasmids.”
(The Times Higher Educational Supplement, 20th April 2001)
In a Review of Natural Selection by G. C. Williams OUP. Nature, 3rd June 1993 p. 408 he states:
The macro-evolutionary process that adequately describes evolution in a population is an utterly inadequate account of the earth’s biota”.
There has been no development within science to change this fact. If you think there has then please tell me what it is.
I could be wrong but it seems that you are not interested in getting to the truth but only wish to protect your current view at all cost.
The late Dr. Ernst is also reported to have said in the same Omni article, “Since Darwin, every knowing person agrees man descended from the apes. Today, there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. It is the fact of evolution.”
LikeLike
February 16, 2012 at 1:20 pm
B Andrew you said in Post #32:
“The late Dr. Ernst is also reported to have said in the same Omni article, “Since Darwin, every knowing person agrees man descended from the apes. Today, there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. It is the fact of evolution.”
But that depends on just what you are talking about when you say evolution. Change within kinds can be called evolution and indeed that does happen and we can observe that. But if what the late Dr. Mayr was refering to is one kind of creature giving rise to another new kind of creature over millions of years, that is neither a fact not has it been observed and that is the game that evoutionist have been cuningly playing with the public. There has been a lot of bait and switch going on.
LikeLike
February 16, 2012 at 9:21 pm
My Dear Readers, I return today to comment on the difference between the ideas of those this blog accuses Darwin of stealing from and Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection. Unfortunately we must first attend to some housekeeping before this main topic may be covered.
I have not come here to debate evolution with Danzil. The truth, evolution, needs no defense. I am however offended when the reputation of an exceptional scientist, even long deceased, has his reputation untruthfully trashed because it serves apologist’s need to harm science in the hopes of advancing their own agenda. As shown in the surveys of Americans leaving church, Apologists’ dishonest handling of science is a significant reason for the current church’s decline.
As Dr. Mayr began his quote with reference to man being an evolved ape, we can be certain, Dr. Mayr was not prattling about Danzil’s changes within kinds.
Danzil’s committed another typo or should better consider who he cuts and pastes from. Danzil quotes GC Williams, a brilliant recently deceased biologist, as saying:
“The macro-evolutionary process that adequately describes evolution in a population is an utterly inadequate account of the earth’s biota”.
The actual quote which you can see on page 31 here http://books.google.com/books?id=nTJlZ9QTssYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=natural+selection:+domains,+levels,+and+challenges&hl=en&sa=X&ei=78Q9T4eKONG4twfTs5zTBQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=natural%20selection%3A%20domains%2C%20levels%2C%20and%20challenges&f=false
is (capitalization mine for emphasis): “The MICROevolutionary process that adequately describes evolution in a population is an utterly inadequate account OF THE EVOLUTION of the Earth’s biota.”
This is Danzil’s second misquote in two days.
Now to comparing Darwin’s contribution with those he supposedly ‘borrowed’ his theory from:
Darwin: A couple of posts ago, I outlined Darwin’s theory as = biologically similar descent + minor biological modification + scarcity results in competition + better adapted through biological modification survive/reproduce + resulting in biological relationship of all species + evolution accelerated through isolation + god-free theory + extensive research
Malthus: addressing a completely different topic, well credited several times in Origin from print 1 and Darwin’s biography
Chambers: published Vestages of Creation, argues for spontaneous generation of life for the widening diversity of life, decidedly not a god-free theory
Prichard, Wells, & Lawrence: that all humans are related to each other, Wells also wrote about a natural selection like idea that applied to men be adapted for their region.
Patrick Matthew: did describe in a footnote what can reasonably be described as natural selection or the idea that the better adapted through biological modification survive reproduce, missed the common ancestry of all life, not a god-free theory
Edward Blyth: certainly uses many of the terms and concepts of natural selection, but believed they accomplished a returning to an ideal of each type rather than ultimately new species
and then there is Wallace: other than god-free, which Wallace’s was not, I don’t have any issue with describing Wallace’s theory as the same as Darwin’s. Though on balance he did extensively less research and fieldwork. (you can read Wallace’s original paper at several places on the internet). Wallace is credited as the co-originator and detractors are claiming something Wallace himself stated was without merit.
It is; however, clear from Darwin’s correspondence and his notebooks that he arrived at his theory independently and well before Wallace.
The reasons Darwin owns the idea of The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection and has achieved the notoriety he has:
1) he put all the pieces together,
2) to the right conclusion,
3) first,
4) extensively researched, which is protection against detractors,
5) anticipated what would be learned from the science of genetics,
6) reshaped the nature and methods of doing science.
All the best,
B. Andrew
LikeLike
February 17, 2012 at 2:16 pm
B. Andrew you are correct in your observation of the first part of my quote, “micro-evolutionary” is correct. However in the Nature article from which the quote was taken, the rest of my quote was accurate. If the ending that you suggest is in the book from which the article was quoting then Nature got it wrong and passed that error on to us. I was only able to view up to page 16 in the link you provided so I was unable to confirm your claim.
The point is still relevant, micro-evolution does not explain how we have so many different life forms and it is not how new life-forms arrise.
LikeLike
February 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm
B. Andrew you said:
“I have not come here to debate evolution with Danzil. The truth, evolution, needs no defense.”
I have never considered this a debate but a dialogue. However, for you to say that evolution needs no defense is quite dishonest. In fact I think it is indefensible. But given the ongoing conflict between ID, creation science and evolutionists, the debates that have and are taking place and how poorly evolutionist defend themselves when going against representatives from Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Science Ministries, I find your claim that evolution needs no defense to be quite comical. Sort of like an intoxicated alcoholic insisting he is not drunk while unable to stand or speak clearly.
You said:
“I am however offended when the reputation of an exceptional scientist, even long deceased, has his reputation untruthfully trashed because it serves apologist’s need to harm science in the hopes of advancing their own agenda. As shown in the surveys of Americans leaving church, Apologists’ dishonest handling of science is a significant reason for the current church’s decline.”
You seem to have an agenda yourself. Are you that nerves that you have to accuse Darwin doubter and rejecter as needing the “harm science”? Are you so uncomfortable that you have to inject obscure surveys that if true were doubtless of people influenced by false claims about evolution taught in schools, universities and on TV and Cable programs such as The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, National Geographic and Nova? Why is pointing out improprieties about Darwin untrue trashing of his reputation?
You said:
“As Dr. Mayr began his quote with reference to man being an evolved ape, we can be certain, Dr. Mayr was not prattling about Danzil’s changes within kinds.”
The question is what evidence is there that apes evolved to men? Since we only see changes within kinds and not one kind becoming another, and since there is no known mechanism for causing such changes from one kind to another, what is your point?
You said:
“Malthus: addressing a completely different topic, well credited several times in Origin from print 1 and Darwin’s biography”
But I did not mention Malthus so your point is moot. Why are you wasting time on unmentioned people?
You said:
“Chambers: published Vestiges of Creation, argues for spontaneous generation of life for the widening diversity of life, decidedly not a god-free theory”
I did not mention Chambers either, however your casual way of glossing over your references leaves much to be desired. According to Robert J. Richards, Crookshank concluded that Chambers believed the extant varieties of humans were a product of evolutionary advances and regressions and that “Vestiges” not only advanced an evolutionary hypothesis, but also argued that the natural world “could best be understood by appeal to natural law rather than by flight to an intervening deity”. (“Commotion Over Evolution before Darwin”, American Scientist 89(5) (2001):454)
Crookshank also is said to have stated that Charles Darwin admitted that without Chambers book he might never have written The Origin of Species. (“The Mongol in Our Midst”-New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, 1924, p.1)
Again, I did not mention Prichard, Wells & Lawrence.
But you then said:
“Patrick Matthew: did describe in a footnote what can reasonably be described as natural selection or the idea that the better adapted through biological modification survive reproduce, missed the common ancestry of all life, not a god-free theory”
You keep mentioning “not a god-free theory” as if that somehow proves that Darwin could not have borrowed from their teachings simply because their conclusions were different. That is not logical.
You also neglected to mention that Matthew wrote to Darwin about his not crediting him in his work, and that Darwin was forced to acknowledge Matthew’s complaint in “Gardener’s chronicle for April 21, 1860 as follows: “I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection.” (“the structure of evolutionary theory” Stephen Jay gould Harvard University Press, 202, p.183). The question is; why didn’t Darwin give Matthew credit without Matthew having to force him to? And why isn’t Matthew celebrated today as Darwin is, and why didn’t Darwin reach out to him to share in his glory?
You said:
“Edward Blyth: certainly uses many of the terms and concepts of natural selection, but believed they accomplished a returning to an ideal of each type rather than ultimately new species”
Again how does that negate that possibility of Darwin using Blyth’s ideas?
Did Darwin acknowledge Blyth’s work or give him credit for what Darwin published, if not why? You have not proven that Darwin did not borrow from Blyth in fact you haven’t even made an effort to establish Darwin’s honesty. According to Loren Eiseley who spent decades tracing the origins of ideas credited to Darwin, Blyth discussed in detail all of Darwin’s major Ideas before Darwin. And while Darwin quotes Blyth on a number of points, he doesn’t reference Blyth’s papers that directly discussed natural selection. (Eugene Garfield, “From Citation Amnesia to Bibliographic Plagiarism,” Current Contents 23 – June 9, 1980: p.504-505.)
Joel Schwartz points out that Darwin read Blyth’s 1837 paper because Darwin’s personal copy has annotations in Darwin’s own handwriting. (“Charles Darwin’s Debt to Malthus and Edward Blyth,” Journal of History of Biology 7(2) (1974):p.316.
William Broad and Nicholas Wade point out that Darwin was “accused by his contemporary, the acerbic man of letters Samuel Butler, of passing over in silence those who had developed similar ideas. Indeed, when Darwin’s On the Origin of Species first appeared in 1859, he made little mention of predecessors”. (“Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science”.(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982), p. 31.
You said:
“…and then there is Wallace: other than god-free, which Wallace’s was not, I don’t have any issue with describing Wallace’s theory as the same as Darwin’s. Though on balance he did extensively less research and fieldwork. (you can read Wallace’s original paper at several places on the internet). Wallace is credited as the co-originator and detractors are claiming something Wallace himself stated was without merit.”
Precisely what aspect of Darwin detractor’s arguments did Wallace say was without merit? Please provide a source.
Alice Kenyon says that the Darwin-Wallace so-called joint paper was in fact presented without Wallace’s prior knowledge. (“Darwin’s Joint Papers,” Cen T.J. 14(3) (2000):72-73.
John Langdon Brooks says concerning one of his courses, that after reading Wallace’s 1855 “Law” paper, the joint Darwin-Wallace papers, and Darwin’s On the Origin of Species over several annual cycles, the similarities between the concepts, even the wording, in Wallace’s papers and several chapters, but especially chapter IV, in Darwin’s 1859 book had become increasingly apparent and disturbing.” He asks: “Were these really coincidences of two totally independent conceptions? Or did Darwin somehow profit from Wallace’s paper and manuscript?—a possibility to which Darwin gave no recognition, not even a hint.” He said that there is no mention of Wallace’s work anywhere in chapter IV. He concluded that “Wallace’s idea emerged, without any attribution, as the core of chapter IV of the Origin of Species, a chapter which Darwin himself cited as central to his work.(John Langdon Brooks, “Just Before the Origin: Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Evolution, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), p. 239).
You said:
“It is; however, clear from Darwin’s correspondence and his notebooks that he arrived at his theory independently and well before Wallace.”
What in Darwin’s material indicates that he arrived at his theory independently before Wallace? Just saying he did is not sufficient.
As you have been making statements and claims without any source references I have to caution you that you are giving the impression that you are your own source. Additionally, your apparent determination to defend Darwin without even examining the material of his “detractors” is not logical. If you only review material from Darwin glorifiers then how would you know about the real Darwin?
The truth is that you give the impression of being someone who for whatever reason has a gripe against ID and Creationism/Creation Science, and who has simply accepted that evolutionists must be telling the truth about evolution and Darwin and all dissenters are wrong and should be silenced. Honest investigation does not seem to be a part of your concern and that is becoming apparent in your posts.
LikeLike
February 19, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Thanks for the reply Danzil. This will be my last response to this thread. I wish we had spent more time on how Christianity enabled Nazism more than TEvNS but life moves on.
Most of the facts I’ve claimed here are probably easily locatable on the internet. I have read several of the items Darwin was suppose to have plagiarized and I know the biographies of Darwin and Wallace. You will have to excuse me for not referencing, when I read these, some of them years ago, I didn’t know I would someday have to give an account to you. As to which of us is more close minded, I will leave that to our readers. I do not think you could be persuaded with a billion well cross-referenced words.
It is a laughable claim of copying when besides Wallace everyone had either the wrong mechanism or the wrong conclusion.
Claims of lacked permission to present Wallace’s paper would ring less hollow were it not for Wallace’s cover letter, accompanying the allegedly plagiarized paper, requested of Darwin.
You can at Amazon.com purchase your very own copy of Darwin’s notebooks and find that he had the idea of TEvNS 20 years before Wallace.
You can on the internet find Darwin’s letter to Hooker outlining Darwin’s theory before Wallace’s paper arrived.
Peter Raby, a recent biographer of Wallace, said of the idea that Darwin plagiarized Wallace, “Never has an intriguing theory been built on slenderer evidence.”
You can read Wallace’s praise of Darwin and Darwin’s writing of Origin in his 1860 letter to Bates.
You can sense the animosity Wallace felt for Darwin when Wallace titled an 1889 book: Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection, with Some of Its Applications. (realize that unlike creationists, Wallace doesn’t mean “Darwinism” pejoratively).
This may be of interest to you: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/there-is-no-darwin-conspiracy
As to young adults leaving the church in droves, almost 3 out of 5 for an extended break or permanently, google ‘Bama Group church exodus’. I would draw your attention to their third reason cited, church antagonism of science. Perhaps you also missed the recent Pew study (google ‘Pew American religion preference’) that found ‘none’ is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Please double down and teach more stridently things like dinosaurs being on Noah’s ark; nothing can speed the exodus more. Though I think this is a game the church can’t and won’t win, it is only a matter of rate.
Finally, you, Jason, Dr. Wiker and other detractors have little ground to stand on when claiming unoriginality, given that with Darwin everything changed.
Live well.
B. Andrew
LikeLike
February 21, 2012 at 11:40 am
B. Andrew you said:
“Thanks for the reply Danzil. This will be my last response to this thread. I wish we had spent more time on how Christianity enabled Nazism more than TEvNS but life moves on.”
But that is your fault since you did inject the topic in post #20:
“Second, it’s irresponsible, in that you would rightly reject that Christian antisemitism was a necessary driver to enable Germany in their genocide of Jews and others.”
and I did reply in post #25 (but you did not respond):
“Your analysis is faulty in that “Christianity” is not compatible with nor condones anti-Semitism regardless of who practices it and claimed to be Christian. On the other hand Darwinism was quite compatible with the Nazi philosophy.”
You said:
“…I do not think you could be persuaded with a billion well cross-referenced words.”
Perhaps not but not because I am closed minded but because I have seen far too much trickery in language, argument framing, false claims, misrepresentation and misapplication practice by evolutionists in order to protect their evolution view.
You said:
“It is a laughable claim of copying when besides Wallace everyone had either the wrong mechanism or the wrong conclusion.”
But my argument has been that so was Darwin and evolution. Darwin was clearly wrong about lots of things and this was true and known even in his own day. And he was challenged to public debate often but refused. Evolution to this day still has no mechanism but only hollow claims and accusations against anyone who refuse to fall for the con. There is clearly something more behind his praise than correct science.
You said:
“Claims of lacked permission to present Wallace’s paper would ring less hollow were it not for Wallace’s cover letter, accompanying the allegedly plagiarized paper, requested of Darwin.
You can at Amazon.com purchase your very own copy of Darwin’s notebooks and find that he had the idea of TEvNS 20 years before Wallace.”
But is Darwin was dishonest, how do you know we can trust his claims? Do you even acknowledge that it is possible that he “could have” lied?
You said:
“You can on the internet find Darwin’s letter to Hooker outlining Darwin’s theory before Wallace’s paper arrived.”
Besides the fact that Wallace was not the only person Darwin was accused of coping, how do you know what date the Wallace letter actually arrived to Darwin? By Darwin’s claim? Have you even checked to see if there were any disputes concerning that claim?
You said:
“Peter Raby, a recent biographer of Wallace, said of the idea that Darwin plagiarized Wallace, “Never has an intriguing theory been built on slenderer evidence.”
Have you even made an attempt to find out what that “slender evidence” was? And I wonder if Raby explained why Wallace is practically ignored today while Darwin is praised.
You said:
“You can read Wallace’s praise of Darwin and Darwin’s writing of Origin in his 1860 letter to Bates.”
I will, but if true does that prove that Darwin did not borrow from Wallace? And why are you stuck on Wallace only when there were others Darwin is accused of coping?
You can sense the animosity Wallace felt for Darwin when Wallace titled an 1889 book: Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection, with Some of Its Applications. (realize that unlike creationists, Wallace doesn’t mean “Darwinism” pejoratively).
You said:
“As to young adults leaving the church in droves, almost 3 out of 5 for an extended break or permanently, google ‘Bama Group church exodus’…”
You injected this in your post #35 to which I replied with no response from you.
“Are you that nerves that you have to accuse Darwin doubter and rejecter as needing the “harm science”? Are you so uncomfortable that you have to inject obscure surveys that if true were doubtless of people influenced by false claims about evolution taught in schools, universities and on TV and Cable programs such as The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, National Geographic and Nova? Why is pointing out improprieties about Darwin untrue trashing of his reputation?”
To that I will only add, why have you not given any indication that you can at least understand how young adults could be driven from church because they think the church is scientifically illiterate? Given the fact that most of them were forced through the anti-Christian, pro humanist school system, college and inundated with evolution from media and textbooks, it is amazing that there are still so many Christians who reject Darwin and evolution.
But the bottom line is that young adults leaving church because of science does not legitimize Darwin or evolution so why have you injected it into the dialogue?
Since this will be your “last response to this thread”, let me take this time to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time.
You said:
“Finally, you, Jason, Dr. Wiker and other detractors have little ground to stand on when claiming unoriginality, given that with Darwin everything changed.”
Originality was not the reason that things changed but convenience, Darwin due to his connections and his anti-God doctrine served the purpose the growing anti-God movements of his day. Dr. Jerry Bergman’s “The Dark side of Charles Darwin” book addresses this issue.
LikeLike
September 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm
I just couldn’t go away your web site before suggesting that I actually enjoyed the usual information a person provide in your guests? Is gonna be back often in order to investigate cross-check new posts
LikeLike