Lakeland Ledger writer Tom Palmer offers up a very good piece entitled Creationism — Evolution of a Flawed Notion.
Third, there’s the idea that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a rejection of religion.
Darwin intended nothing of the sort.
“With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically,” he wrote in a letter to a colleague.
I pulled my copy of “Origin of Species” from the bookshelf the other day and found that the final sentence, which I had underlined years ago, is also instructive on this point.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst the planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
What Darwin’s work on evolution and Charles Lyell’s work in geology did in the 19th century and what Galileo’s and Copernicus’ work in astronomy did centuries earlier was to challenge not religion, but some parts of religious dogma.
It is time science began to take charge of the facts and step aside from the faith based portion of Darwinism. As the article mentions the Scopes Monkey Trial it fails to mention it was inspired by the anti-religious origination called the ACLU, neither was the evidence for evolutionary change at the time sited, that being Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.
Lucy has already come to the same fate as her predecessors, we can only hope she will suffice until a new transitional mascot can be fabricated.
The idea that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a rejection of religion is not completely correct. Darwin’s theory was the foundation for a new religion. That religion people maid and that of which he himself recognized as having evolved from his own imaginations.
With the validity of facts for the theory going far beyond conceivable imagination, Charles Darwin as a naturalist would probably reject the faith based Darwinian process as it is presented today.
It is time science began to take charge of the facts and step aside from the faith based portion of Darwinism.
There is no faith based portion to the theory of evolution. It’s not called “Darwinism”. That’s a term used by religious people to frame the issue in their own terms. It’s a lie.
As the article mentions the Scopes Monkey Trial it fails to mention it was inspired by the anti-religious origination called the ACLU, neither was the evidence for evolutionary change at the time sited, that being Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.
I don’t know what an “orgination” is, but the ACLU is not anti-religious. They are pro separation of church and state. They are secular and progressive.
Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were both hoaxes. Thank you for pointing out how rigorous scientific inquiry can be. More lies, and this time in the form of a run-on sentence.
Lucy has already come to the same fate as her predecessors, we can only hope she will suffice until a new transitional mascot can be fabricated.
Complete lie. Lucy is not a hoax. However, if evidence ever emerges that she is a hoax, real scientists will be the first to embrace the ideas to which the evidence leads them. That’s called science.
The idea that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a rejection of religion is not completely correct. Darwin’s theory was the foundation for a new religion.
Just because you found some nut jobs on the internet doesn’t mean that you’re not one of them.
That religion people maid and that of which he himself recognized as having evolved from his own imaginations.
What? And I mean that on several levels. What? You’re an idiot.
With the validity of facts for the theory going far beyond conceivable imagination, Charles Darwin as a naturalist would probably reject the faith based Darwinian process as it is presented today.
Charles Darwin would be impressed and proud of the scientific disciplines that have emerged from his ideas. Biology, Genetics, Vaccinations, Antibiotics, DNA Analysis, even Anthropology and Paleontology have all come to light because of his ideas. Darwin would be beaming.
Pastor Bill, every sentence you write is a lie.
If you have to lie to support your point then you don’t even believe your own point.
Sorry for the repost – this one should be more readable from a quoting point of view.
It is time science began to take charge of the facts and step aside from the faith based portion of Darwinism.
There is no faith based portion to the theory of evolution. It’s not called “Darwinism”. That’s a term used by religious people to frame the issue in their own terms. It’s a lie.
As the article mentions the Scopes Monkey Trial it fails to mention it was inspired by the anti-religious origination called the ACLU, neither was the evidence for evolutionary change at the time sited, that being Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.
I don’t know what an “orgination” is, but the ACLU is not anti-religious. They are pro separation of church and state. They are secular and progressive.
Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were both hoaxes. Thank you for pointing out how rigorous scientific inquiry can be. More lies, and this time in the form of a run-on sentence.
Lucy has already come to the same fate as her predecessors, we can only hope she will suffice until a new transitional mascot can be fabricated.
Complete lie. Lucy is not a hoax. However, if evidence ever emerges that she is a hoax, real scientists will be the first to embrace the ideas to which the evidence leads them. That’s called science.
The idea that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a rejection of religion is not completely correct. Darwin’s theory was the foundation for a new religion.
Just because you found some nut jobs on the internet doesn’t mean that you’re not one of them.
That religion people maid and that of which he himself recognized as having evolved from his own imaginations.
What? And I mean that on several levels. What? You’re an idiot.
With the validity of facts for the theory going far beyond conceivable imagination, Charles Darwin as a naturalist would probably reject the faith based Darwinian process as it is presented today.
Charles Darwin would be impressed and proud of the scientific disciplines that have emerged from his ideas. Biology, Genetics, Vaccinations, Antibiotics, DNA Analysis, even Anthropology and Paleontology have all come to light because of his ideas. Darwin would be beaming.
Pastor Bill, every sentence you write is a lie.
If you have to lie to support your point then you don’t even believe your own point.
John Osmond
I can understand how you must feel with your interpretation of Darwinetics, being void of any spiritual value. But let me assure you, your faith in the Prophet’s message is real.
As to the First Church of Evolution’s concerns on the ACLU’s views on the separation of church and state, we have no concerns at all, as this Church’s relm stands uncontested.
You and I are both aware that Lucy is no hoax. She is, as you can imagine.
Now I didn’t call you and idiot any you’re the one who truly believes he’s descended from mutated monkeys. So you should consider not wasting your time with foolishness and use your mind wisely to preserve the faith. I would suggest supporting the Church. http://www.fcefaith.org
“Darwinetics”
My point about lying.
“Now I didn’t call you and idiot any you’re the one who truly believes he’s descended from mutated monkeys.”
My point about ignorance.