On this day of days I would like to send a short note to Mr Richard Dawkins...
Richard. That science of yours, in which you place all your trust, shows you that one day you will die! The bible says when that day comes you will stand before a Holy God to give an account of your life! Unless you repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ you will wish Evolution was more than a theory!
And finally, a word from Charlie himself...
No arguments there!
10 comments:
And finally, a word from Charlie himself...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So--Is Darwin admitting that his theory is wrong in the quote you cited? Or have you quote-mined Darwin in a dishonest manner?
If your religion doesn't fit well with the scientific view of nature and the universe, then there's either something wrong with science or something wrong with your religion. I just wonder which one is flawed?
And if you dishonestly quote-mined Darwin in order to make it appear as if he doubted his own theory when he really didn't, then what does that say about your credibility? If you have to BS me to get me to buy into your religion, then what does that say about your religion?
No. I don't think Charlie is admitting his theory is wrong. I have no doubt that he believed in his theory was right! Who spends countless hours labouring in a pursuit they believe to be fruitless, pointless and ultimately wrong? The fact that we have Origin of Species is evidence that he believed in his work! To suggest otherwise would be absurd! I would be like you writing a volume on ‘Loving Christ’. Would you spend months upon months labouring in such an endeavour?
Does Darwin believe the eye evolved? Almost certainly! Do I think it did? Not a chance! Do I think Darwin meant this quote to undermine his whole theory? Not in a million years. Do I think it does? No. Can both Darwin and I agree with this quote? Yes – after all we live in a post modern age where all things are true. Am I stirring the pot a little? Yes :)
Do I think Jesus Christ needs us to undermine evolution in order to save men and women? By no means! Will the truth win in the end? Yes! Will it be Darwin or Christ? I have no doubts as to the outcome – every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord – even you Captain!
Hey Captain? On a side note... I'm curious... why Joel Osteen for your avatar?
Well, Sam, the fact remains that you've put up a quote from Darwin that seems to indicate that Darwin didn't believe his own theory, which means you've quote-mined Darwin in a very dishonest manner.
I'm curious about something; maybe you can help. If evolution is as flawed as you say it is, why do you suppose it is that Christians can see the flaws while the actual experts in the field--scientists and especially biologists--can't? And let's face it: Scientific support for evolutionary theory is nearly universal among scientists and especially among biologists.
This is just one of the ways we atheists can see that there's something wrong with your religion. If your religion can't stand up to the scientific view of nature, then there's probably something wrong with your religion.
I mean--be honest, Sam. There isn't enough evidence in the world to convince you that evolution is true, but the idea the 1st woman came from a rib? You're down with that. I can show evidence from genetics (among other fields) that documents conclusively that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry. What evidence can you produce to show the 1st woman literally came from a rib? "The Bible Tells Me So" and that's all.
You don't reject evolution because you don't accept the evidence for it. You reject evolution because it offends your religious beliefs. After all, if you can believe in invisible monsters called demons that mess with people or that the 1st woman came from a rib, then evidence isn't what your beliefs are built on.
Oh--I almost forgot. Why Joel Osteen? I started using that as my avatar just to bug Ray Comfort. I've switched avatars from time to time.
Sam--How's this? Any better?
It's Pat Robertson, one of the evilest Christian fundies alive. He actually taunted the nation on 9-11 by saying God removed His protection from us; meaning we got what was coming to us. This means that on a key point, Pat agrees with al-Qaeda: that it was God's will America got hit. A truly despicable little troll. And he's one of yours, I'm afraid.
Hey Captain, is it possible to read a blog post in a dishonest manner?
It might seem that the word seems is seemingly unimportant, but I think that it provides the context we need to correctly interpret this singular comment by Darwin in an honest manner. You have drawn the conclusion that Darwin is rejecting his own theory, I don’t think he was. I do think he was saying in effect – “Man, this sounds crazy I know, but nevertheless I believe it anyway”. I absolutely agree with him – it does sound absurd in the highest degree! I just don’t share his view that this is truth!
Why is it that Christians can see that the theory of evolution is a sham? Because the God who created this place (including you and I) has provided us with a written account of creation… He should know, after all, He created it!
Evolution offends my religious beliefs about as much as the tooth fairy does. I’m not too offended by fairytales!
Regarding Pat Robertson? I don’t really know anything about him! He looks a little like George W in that thumbnail. As to 9/11, was it the judgment of God? Ever read Romans 1? The moral decline in America (and here in Australia too) ought to be the barometer that we as nations have already been judged by God for turning our backs on Him! I’m no prophet, but when a nation turns their back on God collectively, they WILL get caned!
Don’t get too caught up on someone’s profession of faith. Adolph Hitler might have thought himself to be a Christian – but the proof is in the pudding!
I understand that in some of his speeches he used religious rhetoric, and twisted scriptures, but if he had only sat down and read 1 John he would have stumbled across this:
“Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him” (in German of course)
Can’t argue with that!
Well, Sam--
Let's decide for ourselves whether you've dishonestly quote-mined Darwin or not.
Here's what Darwin was really saying:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Your quote suggests Darwin was admitting his theory seems absurd. But when quoted in full, it can be seen that Darwin was actually expressing confidence in his own theory.
So yes, you did very dishonestly quote-mine Darwin, and you did it to try and gain converts to your religion, pure and simple.
And anything you have to BS me about isn't something I'd want to buy into.
Hi Captain. I do believe he felt to some degree that the evolution of an eye sounded absurd - else he wouldn't have felt the need to explicitly state that fact, nor would there be any need to go to great lengths to deal with the issue!
All credit to Darwin. He does propose an iteration of assumptions, which he discreetly implies as fact by his answers, to cobble together an answer to how the eye could have evolved... but it is flaky mate! I wouldn’t stake my eternity on it!
Friend. I don't think the reason that you do not want to buy into this is whether I quote mined Darwin or not. I submit to you the real reason is that you don't want to submit to God's rule! You will not have him as Lord and Saviour at any cost! Saviour possibly, but Lord - definitely not! You will not humble yourself and come to him for mercy, confessing your sin, your wickedness, your helplessness! You will not repent, because you don't want to repent! You don't want to repent because you still love living your life and enjoying all the pleasures of this fallen, evil age. You love to do what you want to do, when you want to do it in a manner of your own pleasing!
Hi again Sam--
All credit to Darwin. He does propose an iteration of assumptions, which he discreetly implies as fact by his answers, to cobble together an answer to how the eye could have evolved... but it is flaky mate! I wouldn’t stake my eternity on it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evangelicals say evolution's flaky. Biologists say it's sound science. Who's more likely to know what they're talking about?
Darwin conclusively answered the objection of "What good is half an eye" very successfully by showing that eyes of varying stages of complexity and efficiency have still been selected by nature many times. The fact is that your quote was taken out of context in order to misrepresent Darwin as having doubts about his theory he didn't really have. The whole point of your quote seems to be: "See everybody? Evolution is so flaky that even Darwin himself didn't believe it!" It was no accident the quote was presented out of context the way it was--at least it sure appears that way.
Friend. I don't think the reason that you do not want to buy into this is whether I quote mined Darwin or not. I submit to you the real reason is that you don't want to submit to God's rule! You will not have him as Lord and Saviour at any cost! Saviour possibly, but Lord - definitely not! You will not humble yourself and come to him for mercy, confessing your sin, your wickedness, your helplessness! You will not repent, because you don't want to repent! You don't want to repent because you still love living your life and enjoying all the pleasures of this fallen, evil age. You love to do what you want to do, when you want to do it in a manner of your own pleasing!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, Sam, you can say that all you want to, but your religion really doesn't make very much sense. Somebody said once that religions are like pills--they're meant to be swallowed whole. That has been my experience. Once you start to examine Christianity very closely it immediately starts to unravel.
I like the way Mark Twain said it: It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand.
Post a Comment