10 Fun Facts About Charles Darwin

Sounds like Darwin and FitzRoy were quite the happy couple.

No 11:

You can tell by the shape of his forehead that he is related to Neanderthal man.

Quote: "I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." - Charles Darwin.

http://thinkexist.com/quotations/evolution/2.html

Kind Regards....

It says Charlie Darwin was a very religious man prior to the death of his daughter. I would suggest that Mr. Darwin's religion (like those of many others) was based on having his requirements to have God jump through his hoops, rather than accepting the will of the Creator as being divine regardless of whether we like it or not.

Yep. According to the Jehovas Adam and Eve were well manicured Caucasians and have the pictures to prove it.

On the other hand..... would not Darwins discoveries be the instrument of the Creators divine will?

"According to the Jehovas Adam and Eve were well manicured Caucasians and have the pictures to prove it."

So what, Sun Myung Moon considers himself to be the true parent of all people. The Jehovah Witnesses hold numerous major erroneous teachings.

"...would not Darwins discoveries be the instrument of the Creators divine will?"

Darwin's interpretation of the data he discovered while formulating his "mechanism" for origins is certainly something that falls within the Sovereignty of the "Creator" but not to be accepted as a new truth, but just another deception to be rejected.

"but just another deception to be rejected" ??

Then the question remains; what are the accepted truths and who determined them to be so?

"Then the question remains; what are the accepted truths and who determined them to be so?"

A good question, at least it seems we agree that truth is objective regardless of what we believe it to be, ie believing doesn't make it so.

I went to the website you reference and read a number of articles, a couple by Penny Higgins who at least makes the effort (it seems) to understand the opposing arguments to what she believes is true.

Here is an excellent observation on her part:

"In the case of the debate between the validity of the Theory of Evolution versus the truth of Creation Science (in all its forms), the arguments often require an advanced knowledge of geology, biology, mathematics, physics, and chemistry – not to mention an understanding of what really is written in Scripture. Proponents on either side of the argument struggle with the scope of the debate, and often rely on the testimony of experts about specific aspects of the debate. Even then, the scope of the argument is so voluminous that even the experts seldom fully understand the perspective of the counter argument. Many in the paleontological community (who almost all accept the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on our planet) agree that it would be ideal to understand the 'scientific' arguments of Creationists, but few are free to devote the resources necessary to understand the various Creationist viewpoints. "

The problem is that everything she (as with all of us) seeks to evaluate is filtered through her presuppositions, ie no one comes to the "debate" neutral. What she has deduced from her own empirical studies and what she has gleaned from other "experts" weighs in on the collective worldview she holds to. As none of us are walking encyclopedias of knowledge we are all in the same boat.

This does not mean however that knowledge of the truth is unattainable, it just means that an empirical path is not the answer because it just leads to probabilities for that person looking for answers. Given this, I would disagree with the approach that the Intelligent Design camp takes here. I believe the truth can be actually known not just held as a probability.

I think this could be a fruitful discussion if continued.

Sorry, I forgot to login.

Hi TeslaFan,

Thanks for pointing out Penny's words and her wisdom. May here at CR4 are so arrogant that they think they can wisely debate science versus creation because they know a lot about science. But because they know so little about God or the scriptures, they have very little wisdom to do it.

Regards,

S

Hello StandardsGuy,

Isaiah 59:19

Great username by the way.

"filtered through her presuppositions"

Isn't that always the case though! I'm forever tripping over the darn things.

Do we become what we inadvertantly believe or do our beliefs cater to a need for faith? I think both are a measure of parts of a truth....Given that the question is valid then one answer demands belief while the other attempts to answer. Given that the question is valid and not some door knocking apostate doctrine and the scientific presupposition (if there can be such a thing) is based on truth...then all things being equal.....truth must be the eventual result.

Sorry, forgot to login.

I don't know what's more impressive, the fact that you know exactly what motivated Charles Darwin to the point where you feel comfortable judging him, or your apparent intimate knowledge of the correct way to worship God.

Whenever people start preaching, I remember these two simple equations:

X<Y
Z>Y

where
X = My Sins and the Sins of my Family and Friends
Z = The Sins of People I don't like
Y = Sins required to go to hell

"Whenever people start preaching," Romans 10:14

Just a little info...

Two devastating deaths in the family

Next, he received two devastating blows to his young family. According to biographer Janet Browne, the death of his beloved daughter Annie at age 10, followed a year later by the death of his firstborn son William, caused great bitterness toward God. "This death was the formal beginning of Darwin's conscious dissociation from believing in the traditional figure of God . . . Bleakness swept in. The gradual numbing of his religious feelings . . . and the godless world of natural selection he was even then still creating came implacably face to face with the emptiness of bereavement" (p. 503).

Yet, ironically, some might say Darwin was a victim of his own theory of natural selection because of the genetic dangers of inbreeding.

In 1839, he married Emma, his first cousin. Both families had intermarried through first cousins for some time, a dangerous trend for heredity. Twenty-six children were born from these first-cousin marriages; 19 were sterile and five died prematurely, including Darwin's daughter and first son. Many suffered from mental retardation or other hereditary illnesses, as was the case with his last son. All these effects engendered great hostility toward the idea of a personal, intervening God.

Oh, I see. So you're not judging him based on your magical intimate knowledge of his motivations and beliefs, but on a complete stranger's magical intimate knowledge of his motivations and beliefs.

As for marrying his cousin, I would argue that's less terrible than two daughters getting their father drunk so as to have relations with him and bear his children to continue his line (Genesis 19, 32-36). Not to mention the inevitable intermarriage that occurs when the world starts with only Adam and Eve. Hey, didn't Abraham marry his half sister? Isaac and Jacob each married kin?

Source: The Bible

I could have sworn the bible says something about casting stones, but you don't seem to worry about that as well. In fact, you seem to be able to ignore a lot of the bible to suit your needs. That somehow doesn't seem as pious as you try to present it.

Most of the time when you reply to me you go off Roger,

First of all, Janet Browne is considered the leading authority on Charles Darwin's life, beliefs and struggles, with no axe to grind.

Secondly, there is nothing "magical" or wrong about judging and determining people's beliefs when much that is gleaned is assessed by what has been written down or by very strong inference. Am I allowed to say that Charles Darwin was not a professing Christian in his later life? Is that judging? Here is a bold statement, Richard Dawkins is not a Christian. There is no sweeping "do not judge anything" doctrine within Christianity and your haphazard cut and paste shotgun method clearly shows little credibility or thought.

When sin is reported in the scriptures it is not synonymous with approval of those sins as if Abraham, Issac and Jacob were these perfect models of humanity, far from it. Imagine that, a written testimony (even if you believe it is just fairy tales) that actually shows man's nature, mud and all.

Lastly, there is a big difference in outcome between inter-marriage in Darwin's era and thousands of years earlier.

On casting stones:

"Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save..." Matthew Henry (see John 8:1-11)

I could count scores of commentaries showing this, but I doubt you really care, as it doesn't fit into your shotgun.

"Most of the time when you reply to me you go off Roger"

Don't take it personally...Roger tends to "go off" on anyone he disagrees with. Either off his rocker or completely off topic. Roger is the master of the red herring. He will either choose a personal attack or focus on as esoteric bit of science, claim technical superiority, and completely misrepresent it's relevance to the entire argument. Yo can have a meaningful debate with Roger, but it's very difficult.

You Wrote in an earlier post: "Yet, ironically, some might say Darwin was a victim of his own theory of natural selection because of the genetic dangers of inbreeding."

So then it was ok for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to marry their kin? I just want to be clear on this because in your previous post where you complain about my "shotgun" approach, you seem to have completely ignored this part of my argument.

And Lot's daughters drugging him and having relations with him to preserve his line, how does that fit in this discussion of inter-family relations?

As for judging people, lets see what the bible has to say about that:

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each mans praise will come to him from God. (1 Corinthians 4: 5)

But my disagreement with you goes far beyond your judging of Darwin, because clearly I am judging you as much as you are judging me. No, my problem is that you would turn your back on knowledge and wisdom because your faith is too weak to reconcile those things which you don't understand with what you believe. You would mock the messengers of the truth like Darwin in your foolishness and sow confusion with foolish arguments.

I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness.-Ecclesiastes 7:25

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright: but they have sought out many inventions.-Ecclesiastes 7:29

When you allow fear to prevent you from embracing knowledge, you don't just harm yourself, you harm all of us.

First, before I answer the bulk of you reply Roger, I will focus on the careless way in which you try to use Scripture to bolster your arguments.

you wrote:

"As for judging people, lets see what the bible has to say about that:"

and then added:

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each mans praise will come to him from God. (1 Corinthians 4:5)

Here is another clear example of your lack of careful thought and the cut and paste shotgun approach you prefer to take. 1 Corinthians chapters 3 and 4 have nothing to do with what you are trying to impress upon the text. You cannot twist context Roger and create private interpretations whenever you feel like it. The Apostle Paul is exhorting Christians about judging between Christian leaders and being puffed up about it. The spirit of what Paul is getting at is a close parallel to Jesus and the disciples conversation in Mark 9:33-41

So here is the deal Roger, your first attempt to use scriptural support (John 8:7) for your arguments is found to be erroneous and then you go right back again and do the exact same thing here. You talk about honesty with Guest, lets see some and admit your errors here. If you don't think this is the case, you can have the last word with your next reply.

First of all lets dispel this notion that you have some sort of authority over me regarding knowledge of the bible. I may believe in evolution, but I also went to bible school for 10 years, was an alter boy, earned the right to receive communion. Don't kid yourself.

Now to address your point about Corinthians. I was taught in my church that we are to take lessons from the bible and apply them to ourselves. Lets read Corinthians 4:

1: Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2: Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
5: Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
6: And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
7: For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
8: Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.
9: For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
10: We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
11: Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
12: And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
13: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
14: I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
15: For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
16: Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
17: For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
18: Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
19: But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
20: For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

21: What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Now when I read the above, especially the first half of this, what I see is Paul warning the people not to judge the Christian Leaders, as you said. However lets see the logic he presents:

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

What Paul is saying here is that there is only one judge who matters, and that is God. Paul says even he himself can't judge himself. Of course we can't. Of course we can't judge each other or ourselves. We are not God, we are imperfect sinners.

The new testiment is about forgiveness, love, and tolerance. This is justified over and over again by reminding us of our own sins. Basically the theme is "you should worry about yourself before you start worrying about others". Clearly this isn't a theme you get out of the bible and I do. Of course the bible is open to different interpretations, this is what I was taught. Love the poor, love the sick, love the flawed. I fail miserably every day trying to do these things, but thankfully the bible tells me that Jesus died for my sins.

Now. Why don't you go ahead and answer my questions about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Lot? You see, people who insist on a literal translation of the bible get terribly caught on these points, whereas those of us that were brought up to appreciate the bible as a guide book for how to act have no issue whatsoever with these passages. The same is why we can accept evolution. I understand it isn't for God to prove himself to me in a book, I understand that our understanding of the book evolves as we understand the world better. To reiterate an earlier point, to turn our back on evolution is to turn our back on the truth. No where in the bible does it say to do that.

I would contend that the authority over us is the scriptures (John 1:1), but you don't want it that way. You want to pick and choose when it suits your need for ammunition. The discussion is pointless without an agreed upon standard. Your standard has been declared, Roger is autonomous, an authority unto himself. (2 Peter 1:16-21) but I'm sure you don't care about these verses.

Bible school for 10 years? really? Wow, I'll have to remember to genuflect from now on.

I try to live by the scriptures, luckily it is not you who will ultimately judge me. I am no authority and neither are you, though you believe yourself to be. You believe you're right, I believe I am.

That's fine, we'll stop. Again, you never answered my question regarding Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Lot. But how could you, right?

"Again, you never answered my question regarding Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Lot. But how could you, right?"

Actually Roger, I did allude to it in post #15

Then you wrote:

"So then it was ok for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to marry their kin?"

You also bring up Lot and his daughters. This is a bit of material to cover. I will assume here that you mean OK from God's perspective. Beginning with Abram, he was married to Sarai, just as he was the son of an idolator (Terah) prior to God's special seperation calling of Abram and company, so the question is kinda moot. God called a sinful man to establish His chosen people.

However, proceeding along, Many will say that Sarai was Abram's half sister (same father) based upon Genesis 20:12. Genesis is stuck right in the middle of Abram's deception of his relationship to Sarai when dealing with Pharoh, so what are actually the "facts" is questionable. This is possibly not the incestuous case that we think it is. As seems to have been a custom with Semetic nomads a daughter-in-law was formally adopted by the father of the husband making her a daughter by legal decree rather than by heredity. That said, marrying half-sisters was also an established custom.

Obviously Roger you know that there is a difference between the laws in Leviticus and from Adam and Eve up to that point.

Yes, I'm glad you brought up Leviticus and rule changes. You make a good point that the rules changed from the time of Adam and Eve to the time of Moses. In Leviticus, God, through Moses, listed the new rules and the appropriate means of atonement for sins. Later, with the arrival of Jesus a new set of rules and method of atonements were presented, as an outgrowth of the original rules and atonements (Christ becomes the sacrifice for our sins). The later books of the bible sometimes contradicted the earlier books of the bible because the rules and atonements changed over time, or maybe more accurately became clearer over time.

The point I'll try to make now to you is that objections to evolution from a biblical standpoint originate, I would argue, on one little detail. How long was a day during creation? Was a day then the same as now? If you assume yes than you must oppose everything that science tells us about our universe's age. If you allow that a day to god back then may be billions of years to us, then there is no conflict. Evolution created man, but nature is Gods tool, he set the rules which led to the inevitable outcome.

I'm not trying to change your mind here. I understand that you feel strongly, just as I do. I guess what I'm trying to do here is hopefully help you understand how I can reconcile, no its more than that, unite my faith with my scientific understanding of the world. I feel strongly that we wouldn't have been given the capacity to study and learn about our world if it wasn't in the grand design.

Good point Roger! If your well-argued replies are considered "going off", then please continue "going off". Especially since this is a forum that values rational thought. I admire your thoughtful attempts to reconcile science and religion.

I am an agnostic myself. But if God does exist, it is very presumptuous of us to place limits on his power by stating that evolution could not have been one of his methods of creation.

Could we agree that:

Jesus Saves

Moses invests

?