Jun 072005
 

In my essay “Atheism’s Trojan Horse vs. Creationism’s Trojan Horse” , I’ve applied to Darwinism the criteria Darwinists used to characterize ID as in the book Creationism’s Trojan Horse by Forrest and Gross. It shows that Darwinism is very much driven by an atheistic religious furor rather than an open-minded evaluation of science. In the essay I expose the atheistic metaphysical belief of Darwinism and Darwinists like Dawkins, Forrest, Provine, Pigliucci and Scott. I give them credit for unabashedly equating Darwinism with Atheism.

Recently, however as in “Creationism’s Trojan Horse from Darwinists” and in these debates here and here. Some Darwinists are making a concerted effort to portray Darwinism and religion is not mutually exclusive. This is obviously ridiculous as demonstrated by my 2 previous postings in “Creationism’s Trojan Horse from Darwinists?”. The point that I want to touch on in this posting is the claim by Darwinists that Charles Darwin was a Christian and theists.

How can they make such a claim? Is it true? For years Darwinists have berated “The Lady Hope Story” by some Christian groups, in which Darwin supposedly recanted expressing evolution and converted to Christianity. It is ironic now that Darwinists are claiming that Darwin had always been a Christian.

Looking at the biography of Charles Robert Darwin, it is true that he was not born with skepticism for Biblical special creation. He also did not acquire the idea of common descent until later on in his life. Does this make him a Christian? He also lost interest to become a physician in medical school, but gained an interest in natural history and Lamarckian theory. More relevant to his association with Christianity is what his father did after seeing that his son would not become a physician, Charles’s father enrolled him at Christ’s College, Cambridge in 1827 on a BA course to qualify as a clergyman. Studying theology does not make someone a Christian any more than studying evolutionary common descent make someone a Darwinist, not then and not now. We also need to put this into context in Darwin’s time of what a clergyman means. Most naturalists during that time are clergymen. It was their duty to study and explain God’s wondrous Creation. So to become a clergyman for Darwin at that time was just another way of getting paid to become a naturalist.

The next thing we need to look at is what did Charles Darwin actually said about his own view on Christianity? Does his writings give us any insight as to how he actually views Christianity? Who do you think made this quote?

The combination in time and space of all these thoughtful conceptions exhibits not only thought, it shows also premeditation, power, wisdom, greatness, prescience, omniscience, providence. In one word, all these facts in their natural connection proclaim aloud the One God, whom man may know, adore, and love; and Natural History must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe. . .

The answer to this question and other quotes will be in part 2 of this essay.

  2 Responses to “The Anatomy of Darwinism”

  1. […] oss was targeting the wrong people, they should have looked inside their own camp as I did here. No Comments » No comments yet. RSS feed fo […]

  2. […] of this blog that Darwinism is not science, and it is completely anti-Christian. See also: The Anatomy of Darwinism The Anatomy of Darwinism (Part 2) The Anatomy of Darwinism (Part 3) Ms. Wise obv […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.