Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

The idea that Darwinism did not promote atheism is SO disingenuous, considering that it was evolutionism that caused the 19th century crisis in Christianity that led to Liberal Theology and the Higher Criticism as we now know it, that inspired Nietzsche's death-of-God ruminations, the agonizings of Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky, and the whole Existentialist movement, later the emblematic Snopes Trial clash between evolution and religion. The works. That some found a way to reconcile evolution with religion -- at the expense of the Bible of course -- is hardly a contradiction to this blatant historical fact, but a symptom of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 02:35 PM

You have failed to explain how there can be a Creator but no designer. You seem to think you have explained it but you haven't.

Yes, it was Christianity that Darwinism specifically challenged, which had been after all the religion of the West for a millennium or so, but that challenge led to atheism for huge numbers of Westerners, and to compromising the word of God for others. Deism was already an attempt to cope with the previous century's attacks on the Bible. Since they'd already accepted science over the Bible they had no problem keeping their vague God in the picture. As scripture says, however, even the demons believe there is a God, so it's as good as atheism from a Christian point of view to believe in the kind of God evolutionism has left so many with.

Copernicus did not challenge the Bible. The idea that the sun revolved around the earth was not Biblical but Aristotelian. And there was no crisis at that time that led to millions rejecting the God of Christianity, as there was with Darwinism. However it is also true that the God of the Roman church at that time was not clearly the God of the Bible in any case. It took the Reformation to bring the Biblical God back into focus in the West.

I already outlined the historical facts that have been well recognized for a hundred years. You've got the cart before the horse. God came first, and gave His written word to us first, and in fact that written word had a great deal to do with inspiring science in the West. God is God. As I've said elsewhere many times, we are talking about a fundamental clash of worldviews -- either God trumps Science or Science trumps God. Science has taken the position that God is subject to Science, and acted accordingly. It is not true that this was necessary though they convince themselves it was.Nobody is NECESSARILY accusing scientists of motivation in this respect -- there may or may not have been in particular cases -- I assume basic honesty even if they simply gave into superficial impressions and deluded themselves in the process. Anyone with a strong faith in the God of the Bible would not give in so easily, however, so at least we know they were people of weak faith. All this proves is that you hold the presuppositions of the Science worldview as I said. God has spoken, theologians didn't make him up. Science must submit to God. That's the OTHER worldview.

It's an obvious deduction from a knowledge of the history of the 19th century and the current situation in the West, but I will concede that I can't prove it since you contest it. I can prove that there are a million people in Europe who call themselves atheists

quote:

---

http://yvonnic.free.fr/noreligionang.htm

​

"Who say themselves atheists convinced" = 4.8% European Union, 1.2 % North America

​

Europe - Wikipedia

---

but there are many more practical atheists than that and that would be difficult to prove since there are definitional problems involved. God made the natural world and has told us enough to determine that evolution is wrong. I never said scientists have studied God. The point is that they couldn't care less what God had to say and are quite willing to believe anything that contradicts His word, thereby treating God as subject to Science. In order to do that they need have no knowledge or interest in God whatever. That is the same thing as saying they made God up, as the fact is that it is the Bible that determines the limits on Biblical theologians' understanding of God. As I said, in that case those theologians were following Aristotle, not God's word. There is no contradiction between God and the earth's revolving around the sun. That was an error of medieval scholasticism which was enamored of Aristotle over the Bible. While Evolution clearly contradicts the word of God, the Earth's revolving about the sun doesn't. One is true, the other is false. I don't rely on my imagination but on what He Himself has said. Science would be done with attention to God's word and a refusal to contradict it, which would mean looking a LOT harder to explain something that at first appears to contradict His word than those are inclined to do who take His word lightly.

I will officially invite you into the Great Debate if you like, as I have a lot of trouble following jar's reasoning.

Big error. The Creation doesn't lie but scientists may fail as they are fallible. There is nothing here that says how which orbits what. However, these are statements from the point of view of the beholder, not science and they do not pretend to be science. God made it all and He can suspend the laws of His universe if He wills. God performs His miracles in ways human beings are beyond guessing at. You haven't a clue how He performed this one and neither do I. From the point of view of the beholder the sun stopped in its tracks. That's all that anyone needs to make out of that passage. God is always right and if science contradicts His word, science is wrong. But reading His word unintelligently proves nothing.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 07:24 PM

It's a good point. This is the subject of a Great Debate between me and Moose which has been languishing for a while, but I'd say1) that the Bible first of all is a WORD, and as such is READABLE by all, whereas the Creation is inscrutable as such and it has taken millennia for humanity to get anywhere near figuring out what it has to "say" (and I believe science never would have taken off as it has in the West had it not been for the inspiration of the word of God). So the fallibility of science is greater than the fallibility of theologians simply because of the nature of the subject matter.2) I'd say that certainly Bible interpreters are fallible too, but that those who truly believe it is the word of God and in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord have the Holy Spirit to help us.

You have NO idea how he stopped the sun. Stopping it overhead would automatically lengthen the day irrespective of HOW he caused it to stop there. Your own misreading, that's all. Well, that's nice. It's always good to agree on something. The Bible is the word of God in all circumstances, you merely misread the incident of the sun's standing still. It's a matter of historical fact, that's all. Nothing mysterious. The passage explicitly says the flood covered the whole earth. All the passage about the sun says is that God made it stand still. Good thing I'm not trying to. Scripture is very clear on many points that make evolution impossible. Aside from the six days timing, it says creatures were made "after their own Kind" which means they did not start out as something else. It says that when Adam and Eve disobeyed, death was the consequence: death entered the creation at that point, which contradicts the idea of millions of years of creatures living and dying preceding them.

That makes no sense though. If the sun shines from one position for a much longer period than normal, the day is lengthened.

Sigh. Again, we are talking about the POSITION OF THE BEHOLDER. From that perspective, if the sun stays in one place in the sky the day is lengthened, it doesn't matter a fig HOW God caused the sun to stay in that position. Yes, I understand that you are wrongly insisting on making the Bible speak science when it is speaking perception instead.

Uh huh, sorry, the sun's standing still left no evidence but the flood did. Too bad for your smugly stupid little comment.

I gather you wanted a response to this, but it is off topic you know, and in fact a great one for leading down endless rabbit trails. I've said a lot on the subject elsewhere and saying it again here would be a monumental undertaking. Suffice it to say the complaints about the supposedly big differences between translations are unfounded, and the differences in interpretation are a matter of personal dependence on God, and good preachers and Bible teachers compare them as they preach anyway, and refer to the Hebrew and Greek as well (Aramaic only applies to part of the book of Daniel). Most of the modern translations are acceptable although I personally prefer the NKJV.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-22-2005 01:08 PM

Isn't that hairsplitting? A tad disingenuous? Even the idea that embryos across species resemble each other is implicit "proof" for the ToE.I haven't followed this whole argument by any means, but I certainly remember when the Biogenetic Law was gospel, and ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny was drummed into my generation in high school, and yes I know this has sort of been corrected but embryological similarities are STILL considered one of the evidences for the ToE.Yaro posted the following link to this fascinating "star-nosed" mole. I'd call it the flower-nosed mole myself I think.Page not found | Natural History Magazine Not exactly being used to prove the ToE, merely being taken for granted as proved.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 01:20 AM