Feb 142006
 

On Darwin Day, several “churches” paid homage to Charles Darwin. PvM points out Evolution Sunday links to articles about “churches” honoring Darwin.

First of all, why honor Darwin at all. If we’re going to honor great scientists, why not Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Faraday, Dalton, Mendel, Pasteur, Schrodinger, Planck….. I mean, why Darwin. Surely these other scientist have done more for science!

And I should point out, lest we forget, what a Christ hater Charles Darwin was:

‘I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true…this is a damnable doctrine’

One might be a Christian and believe in evolution (some people are horribly misguided), but why on Earth should a church pay homage to an enemy of the Christian faith? These “churches” are a disgrace.

  29 Responses to ““Churches” honor a Christ Hater on Darwin Day”

  1. Very well said my friend. This kind of Churches just makes me question the genuineness of their Christianity.

  2. Let’s not be judgemental. Darwin did not have valid concept of God, as described in the Bible, hence his use of negative theology as argument to advance his theory. As far as these churches go, I don’t think they fully understand implications of Darwinism. No surprise there, given exposure to naturalistic and atheistic propaganda that is prevalent in our society.

  3. Thank you for visiting inunison.

    Darwin had a very good knowledge of Christian theology. He chose to despise it. His work has done great harm to the Christian faith. Can anyone point to any good to the material or spiritual world that Darwin’s work has wrought?

    I give space to atheists for giving homage to Darwin, but for a church naming the name of Christ, and actively supporting the church’s enemy, I have to speak out. Darwin has greatly harmed the Christian faith.

  4. Still think Darwin had Victorian view on God and not a biblical one, hence his theology was flawed. Yes his idea did harm Christian faith, but you can also say that Christians are mostly to blame for tarnishing the Christian biblical faith, like these churches as you pointed out. But what do you expect when most Christians forgot to honour memorial of creation.

  5. I’ve just subscribed to your blog.
    I’ve enjoyed your posts on other blogs, SCordova, and I look forward to them here.

    Glenn J.
    Houston area

  6. Sal, what a hater you are! Darwin never spoke an ill word toward the church — you cite the ONE sentence out of millions of words he wrote that could be twisted to your evil purpose.

    Why not tell the truth, Sal? Darwin was a faithful Christian most of his life. He tended to fall away only after brutal attacks on his character such as the one you perpetrate here — but by most standards, he remained faithful, tithing, taking his role in local parish affairs.

    What is it about the truth that frightens you, Mr. Cordova? Are you so affected by denying the facts for so long that you can’t even recognize the truth anymore?

    Darwin was buried with full state services in Westminster Abbey, with hymns written just for the occasion. Why would anyone try to spin such a thing?

  7. Oh, by the way, the “damnable doctrine” Darwin complained about is the one that says evil people who have been baptized get salvation, while people of sterling character who missed baptism go to hell.

    Do you disagree with Darwin on that, Sal?

  8. Red Reader,

    Thank you for visiting and for the kind words.

    Salvador

  9. Teleologist, your earlier comments, twisting what Darwin said, are not responsive to the substance of my post.

    You argue Darwin was, all along, not Christian. You fail to answer the key questions, however: Why did he raise his children as Christians? Why did he continue to tithe? Why was he active in parish affairs? Why did he continue to support Sunday school classes? Why was he always careful to avoid offending the church?

    If Charles Darwin was the evil, biased personage presented here, so were the apostles and Jesus, too.

    Shame on you.

  10. edarrell, tell me specifically what comments that I wrote that was twisting what Darwin said? You’ve accused me of twisting Darwin’s words now back it up.

  11. You argue Darwin was, all along, not Christian. You fail to answer the key questions, however: Why did he raise his children as Christians? Why did he continue to tithe? Why was he active in parish affairs? Why did he continue to support Sunday school classes? Why was he always careful to avoid offending the church?

    I have no idea of when Darwin claimed to be Christian or agnostic. All I know is that anyone espousing the words and views that he did is no Christian, not according to me, but according to the Word of God.

    As to his external behavior I do not have a complete account of his life, I don’t know how much he tithe or how often or for what purpose. I do not know what parish affairs he attended to or what harm that he might have done. It is common in Darwin’s time that people allied with the Church for practically selfish purpose. People use the Church for funding and study. People used their social status and Church affiliation to disseminate their ideas. It may have been for this very purpose that Darwin used the Church for, and it seems to have worked as I pointed out in “The Anatomy of Darwinism (Part 3)” .

    Finally, I am reminded of what my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said, 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Mt 7:21-23)

    You may want to make Darwin into a Christian so to convince yourself that you are actually a Christian. But only those who accepts the essentials of Christianity are REAL Christians, edarrell.

    If Charles Darwin was the evil, biased personage presented here, so were the apostles and Jesus, too.

    This is another reason why you don’t bear the mark of a true Christian. No REAL Christian would compare the incarnate Jesus Christ with His Creatures. You seem to worship Charles Darwin more than you worship Jesus Christ as you have shown your irreverence in the past here.

  12. The entire claim that Darwin was anti-Christian, anti-church, or attempting to bring down any faith, is claptrap. If you haven’t even bothered to read any of the several good biographies of Darwin, you have no place to comment.

    Time to review: Writers on this blog pull one sentence from Darwin’s private writings out of context, and then use that to make false and scurrilous accusations. When called on it, they complain that calling their falsehoods to attention makes others, somehow, not Christian.

    Amazing.

    I take it none of you yet has a single chunk of results from any experiment to support your point, so you decided to engage in character assassination?

    And, if you have the temerity to throw mud on good members of the church, and then claim that you have the holy high road, you would do well to read the passages you quote. Your cries of “Lord, Lord,” are shrill indeed.

    Just confess. You goofed in making the unwarranted and inaccurate assault on Darwin. Why not go for accuracy, even if late?

  13. Writers on this blog pull one sentence from Darwin’s private writings out of context, and then use that to make false and scurrilous accusations.

    edarrell, in all the time that you’ve been posting on this blog, how many times have you ever directly answer questions that has been posted to you? I’ve asked you specifically what comments that I wrote that were twisting what Darwin said? If you think that I’ve taken his writings out of context then please show some evidence to justify your inimical accusation. Put my quotes back in the context of his writings and explain how I am wrong.

    You act like a typical Darwinists, when confronted with evidence that is injurious to your preconceived conclusion then you accuse ID of quoting out of context. It is just more of the same old scandalous deception from your Darwinian bags of tricks.

    When called on it, they complain that calling their falsehoods to attention makes others, somehow, not Christian.

    On the contrary, you can criticize me all you want especially in the context of any contradiction that I have with Scripture. Similarly my criticism of your claim of Christianity is entirely theologically based on Scripture. My objection to your claim of Christianity goes far beyond the present ID evolution debate. People like you must be rebuked vigorously, for your (bad theology to put it nicely) poisonous deceptions that is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing that leads people astray.
    “Their throat is an open grave,
    With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
    “The poison of asps is under their lips”

    I take it none of you yet has a single chunk of results from any experiment to support your point, so you decided to engage in character assassination?

    What character assassination? I stand by every word that I’ve said about your distortion of Christianity. I gave you specific reasons for my criticism. If you don’t agree with it please explain why. It is not character assassination to point out your poisonous ideas that is injurious to our Christian faith. I’ve said it before if you want to start your own religion, you will not hear a single peep from me. But don’t try to infiltrate your secular religion into the historical Christian faith.

    And, if you have the temerity to throw mud on good members of the church, and then claim that you have the holy high road,

    This again shows that you have no idea of what being a Christian is. It is not throwing mud, not some holy high road. Christians are called to defend the faith; certainly you must have read that passage in the Bible. Do you even read the Bible and accept it as authoritative for guidance of our conduct?

    you would do well to read the passages you quote. Your cries of “Lord, Lord,” are shrill indeed.

    PLEASE, PLEASE, I mean this in all sincerity and with great concern, edarrell. You need to question your own salvation. You really don’t seem to understand the passage I quoted from Mt 7:21-23. That was a passage where the Lord rebuke those that think they can earn some merits to enter the kingdom of God. The Lord was specific. Only those that hear and obey His Words are the ones that is saved. I know you don’t believe the Bible literally, but I wager you don’t even know what Christians mean by literal. It is impossible to defend Charles Darwin as a Christian when he rejects the Creation term of Genesis and suggest a naturalistic godless genesis.

    And specifically in your case with your adherence to a neo-Darwinian process that is devoid of God is also not Christian. You are more like an ostrich than a Christian by burying your head in the sand. You can’t claim that God uses evolution to create when the entire neo-Darwinian process claims that God is unnecessary and for all practical purpose does not exist. This isn’t even bad theology. It is an explicit contradiction. The worst part is that neo-Darwinism is entirely atheistic metaphysics. It has no empirical evidence to it at all, and yet you accept it and try to force it down against the Christian doctrines.

    Finally you should be concern about your salvation, because no real Christian would mock the acts of Jesus as you did in referring to what He did in the temple.

  14. Why did he raise his children as Christians? Why did he continue to tithe? Why was he active in parish affairs? Why did he continue to support Sunday school classes? Why was he always careful to avoid offending the church?

    His wife was a devout Christian. He was supposedly quite devoted to her. That would be enough reason for him to maintain his charade. Of course you knew that ed.

    Are you seriously arguing Darwin was a Christian by the end of his life? Or were your above considerations purely rhetorical you knew full well Darwin wasn’t a Christian. Is that the idea ed. You know full well something isn’t true, yet defend the untruth like a skillful lawyer?

  15. If… Ed… weighs… the same as a duck,… he’s made of wood. And therefore? A witch!

    Look, you Biblical literalists have your own private definition under which anyone who doesn’t believe in the literal truth of the Bible isn’t a Christian. But not all Christians believe that the Bible is literally true. Instead they believe that it contains some truths and some, um, embellishments. Christians can easily believe that events of evolutionary history (probable or not) were pre-arranged at the Big Bang by God. I mean, what’s the point of being all-knowing and all-powerful, if you have to keep tweaking with creation every five minutes? So, I really don’t see why you have any more authority to be telling Ed that he’s not Christian (for lack of belief in the inerrancy of Bronze Age mumbo jumbo) than he has to be telling you the very same (for denial of the scientific truth of God’s creation).

    People create God in their own image. For some Christians, the literal God of the Bible is both inconsistent with reality, and unworthy of worship (because it reflects the image and morality of Bronze Age man). For other Christians, there’s no point in believing any of the Bible if parts of it aren’t literally true. For us atheists, both factions are correct.

  16. doctor(logic), I am just curious. Do you even know what a fundamentalist Christian like me means by literal?

    As to your chastisement of my criticism of edarrell, I wonder what gives you the right to determine how we Christian define our faith. I have never criticized you for not being Christian enough. The fact to the matter is that you have no bases to tell others what doctrines are in their faith. Especially, you have an incorrect understanding of our theology and a jaundice view of faith. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of sound logic (here and here) when it comes to Christian beliefs.

    When you say people create God in their own image, that is especially true for atheists, not true for Christianity.

  17. doctor(logic), one more thing, when you thrust yourself into defining what Christianity, which you know nothing about, should believe or not believe. You are being completely illogical just like your relativistic worldview. Individuals cannot claim to be a Christian and espouse doctrines that are totally contrary to the majority of other Christians. Especially when it contradicts the founding and historical precedence of that faith. Just as I can’t claim to be an atheist and espouse that I believe in the God of the Bible.

  18. If your very public debate with edarrell were totally unrelated to the content of your blog, I would have ignored it. However, fundamentalist Christianity is the very raison d’etre for your objection to evolutionary biology. I don’t see why you’re surprised to see discussion of religious views pop into the forefront when religious views are so regularly referenced in your posts.

    I know what the words literal and fundamentalist mean. It’s how you can be highly skeptical when it comes to peer-reviewed works of scientific literature, and simultaneously totally unquestioning when it comes to a religious book whose contents are of dubious origin.

    Also, if I have my demographics correct, the majority of Christians aren’t fundamentalist, unless you’re applying the “no true Scotsman” rule. Are you sure you want to define Christianity based on demographics?

  19. This is not the first (or last) time atheists lecture Christians about God and Bible using negative theology, without having a basic understanding of what means to be Christian, or having any concept of Christianity.

  20. What I’m saying is the original post, and the bizarre attitude against Darwin here, are false. It’s a canard story. Darwin was no raving atheist. Darwin was no atheist. Only by stretching the definition of “agnostic” to cover 95% of all believers can we call Darwin an agnostic.

    And here, on this blog, Darwin is headlined, with all the calumny and hatred possible, as “a Christ-hater.”

    By the way, I thought you were Christian, no? Somebody here comments about atheists lecturing believers. Are you the third non-Christian ID advocate?

  21. Apparently you all think it’s impossible to live a Christian life and criticize Darwin, too. Don’t try to put it back on me — the distortions of Darwin’s life and beliefs were posed by this blog. They are indefensible, unChristian, unfair, uncharitable, and wrong.

  22. edarrell, you have once again lived up to your Darwinian form. You’ve managed to make the usual Darwinian putative proclamation as thought it was a fact, still without addressing how this OP or my comments have misquoted Darwin. You do seem to show a predilection for Darwin worship.

    I don’t think anyone has called Darwin a “raving atheist” , but there is no doubt that he is a self-professing agnostic. (Although I would argue that an agnostic is really a practicing atheist. That’s another story) From Darwin’s own mouth,

    In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God, ” for himself, he had “never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God”. He added that “I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind.”

    edarrell, please I implore you to think about what I am saying here. I am not putting anything back on you, other than what you’ve put on the table. You could have defended Darwin all you want and I would not have pinpointed your personal fallacy. Unfortunately you claim to be a Christian and you claim Darwin was a Christian, and you attempt to impose your anti-Christian belief upon Christianity. At which point I am obliged to defend against your heretic beliefs and you’ve made yourself personally a target.

  23. Look, you guys headlined this thing “Christ hater.” That’s a contemptible, damnably wrong claim. It’s false. It’s a lie. You can’t defend it. You haven’t even tried to defend it. As I noted, and as you now confess, Darwin was not a Christ hater.

    So why not just correct your error and move on?

  24. If your very public debate with edarrell were totally unrelated to the content of your blog

    doctor(logic), please try to exercise a little bit of unbiased recollection of reality. It is people like you and edarrell that forced this off-topic issue of this blog. If Darwinists like you and edarrell would stop referring to ID=Creationism and Christianity is compatible with Darwinism, then this topic would never have came up.

    fundamentalist Christianity is the very raison d’etre for your objection to evolutionary biology

    Thank you for proving my point. And Atheism is the very reason for you faith in the Darwinian evolutionary biology.

    I know what the words literal and fundamentalist mean.

    That is not what I asked. I asked do you know what “a fundamentalist Christian like me means by literal?” . The problem is atheists like don’t seem to take the time to understand what you reject. Your link to en.atheistpedia.org does not represent the views of fundamentalist Christian scholarship.

    It’s how you can be highly skeptical when it comes to peer-reviewed works of scientific literature, and simultaneously totally unquestioning when it comes to a religious book whose contents are of dubious origin.

    This is nothing more than distortions and a smear campaign. You don’t know me personally. You have no idea how much criticism or investigation I’ve been through, before coming to my current position on faith or science. Please get off your, don’t confuse me with the facts, Darwinian horse and learn about your opposition before you jump to a conclusion.

  25. So why not just correct your error and move on?

    Are you delusional edarrell? Darwin is a Christ hater that is a plain fact. For the umpteenth time edarrell has failed to defend specifically Darwin and his own statements against Christianity.

  26. No, I’m not delusional, teleologist. I know bigotry and error when I see it.

    The hatred on display in this thread is yours and Cordova’s. Your complete disregard of the facts, your obvious over-the-top fulminations at Darwin, a nice guy by all accounts, are just bizarre.

  27. If pointing out fact and providing quotes in context is bigotry and error then I am guilty as charged. OTOH, it may be you who is a bigot and refuses to acknowledge the facts. You have ample opportunities to defend Darwin’s and your statements; instead you chose to attack us with name-calling. The readers here must ask the question why if we are so wrong to point out the facts that Darwin is a Christian hater, why does edarrell show us how we are wrong. Or does edarrell believe that by telling a lie long enough and consistent enough people will believe him?

    edarrell writes: I recommend we pass out talking points with the five facts of evolution.
    Then we need to concentrate on a few easily understood ideas. For example, to rebut “teach the controversy,” we should say “teach the facts first.” Who can argue with the need to have the facts first? Of course, we’ll need to specify what those facts are that need to be taught, but we can do it.

    What are the facts here? It is a fact that Charles Darwin said:

    “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

    Darwin didn’t believe in Creation.

    But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation (This refers to a passage in which the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter’s books speaks of “an operation of force,” or “a concurrence of forces which have now no place in nature,” as being, “a creative force, in fact, which Darwin could only express in Pentateuchal terms as the primordial form ‘into which life was first breathed.'” The conception of expressing a creative force as a primordial form is the Reviewer’s.), by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.

    edarrell like his forefather Darwin said this in response to a quote from the Word of God. 12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
    13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.” (Matthew 21:12-13)

    Do you really think Jesus used such scurrilous and false attacks on anyone, even His enemies? I asked what you thought Jesus would to do suggest you should consider not making such attacks.

    edarrell makes equivalence between Darwin and the Person of Christ.

    If Charles Darwin was the evil, biased personage presented here, so were the apostles and Jesus, too.

    Those are the facts. edarrell is incapable of defending his attack on Christianity, so he resorts to lies and chest beating bravado. I continue to allow edarrell to post because I want people to see, this is what a Darwinist will do when they are confronted with facts. When confronted with the facts that Darwinian evolution was built on a myth and when confronted with their deceptive Trojan attack to sneak atheism into Christianity.

    edarrell, your attacks on Christianity and mindless insistence on twisting history to glorify Darwin is obvious. It is clear the only one who is demonstrating hatred here is you.

  28. What quote have you provided in context?

    Change the title. Darwin was, by ALL accounts, no “Christ hater.” That’s a mean, spiteful attempt on your part to assassinate character. It is contemptible, and damnable.

    Darwin in his life made no public statement against the church, and he never made any statement against Christ. He chastised those who claim that evil men get salvation while good men do not. (It appears that you endorse that damnable, contemptible doctrine — do you?) That is the context of the statement of Darwin’s you do quote. If you ever admitted that context, it is not on display here.

    Darwin didn’t believe in a magic creation. He believed in a creation that functioned honestly as creation manifests itself today. You appear to demand that people accept the magic, 144-hour creation of Henry Morris. Christians do not regard that as an article of faith, and most Christians do not give that concept much traction. Your attempt to claim that as a belief key to the faith is unfair, inaccurate, and unChristian.

    And you have the gall to call Darwin a “Christ hater?”

    I have made no attack on Christianity. Your damnable, despicable prevarications have no place in any Christian mouth, and yet you chew them over and over.

    And we haven’t gotten to the science yet.

    But – Boy, Howdy! — is it fun calling you on your errors! You don’t even bother to make a case, you just pile the errors on!

    Your paranoia and fear of Darwin are awesomely on display here. Keep it up! What more can I say to get you foaming?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.