Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 08:54 PM

I found this while snooping around AiG's website.

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2676.asp" target="_blank">Darwin's Contribution?</a>

(Use next to see all points.)

If I were a Christian, AiG's argument sure would make me want to change that.

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 08:56 PM

I found the full list together.

Quote:

In a video distributed by the American Skeptics Society, Dr Michael Shermer says Charles Darwin contributed seven notable things to the world.1 How do these seven contributions of Darwin compare with what the Bible says?

1. Darwin 'changed the world from being seen as static to evolving' (changing). That is, microbes, over billions of years, changed into trees, animals and men. Living things do not reproduce true to their type after all, but change into different things, the evolutionist believes.

The Bible: 'And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good' (Genesis 1:11-12). Things reproduce after their kind.

2. Darwin 'established the implausibility of creationism'. God did not create things; they arose through natural processes.

The Bible: 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is' (Exodus 20:11).

3. Darwin 'refuted cosmic teleology' (that is, that the universe has a purpose). The existence of the universe is just a giant accident; it has no purpose.

The Bible: 'The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork' (Psalm 19:1).

4. Darwin 'established materialistic/naturalistic philosophy'. That is, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

The Bible: 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God' (Psalm 14:1).

5. Darwin 'ended Aristotelian essentialism' (that is, the belief that things live because of some vital essence, life force, or spirit, rather than because of mechanisms understandable to scientists).2

The Bible: The (Darwinian) belief that life would carry on without God is not biblical. 'And he [Jesus] is before all things, and by him all things consist [hold together]' (Colossians 1:17).

6. Darwin 'refuted catastrophism'. For Darwin, present processes operating over long periods of time accounted for the world and everything in it.

The Bible: 'Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished' (2 Peter 3:3-6).

7. Darwin 'ended absolute anthropocentrism'. That is, Shermer claims that Darwin established that man is just an animal; man is nothing special. He is just another accident of cosmic evolution, with no ultimate purpose.

The Bible: 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them' (Genesis 1:26, 27). 'The heavens declare the glory of God' (Psalm 19:1).

Conclusion
It should be obvious that the Bible contradicts all seven 'contributions' of Darwin in some way. Mixing the two results in an unholy mess. Do oil and water mix? What fellowship has light with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14)? Let us not try to mix evolution and the Bible�they just don't go together!

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1169.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1169.asp</a>

lpetrich · 10-12-2002, 01:43 AM

Michael Shermer's list is rather simplistic and crude. I'll handle the points one by one.

1. The idea that the Earth has had a long and complicated history was already well-established when Darwin published his magnum opus; the respectable form of creationism then was old-earth creationism.

2. Of course, Mr. G. might have wanted to tease us by performing special creation that looks like evolution. Also special creation could also be done by a community of elves or something like that.

3. I think that that's something of a non sequitur -- he rendered it an unnecessary hypothesis. More specifically, he showed how an essentially mechanical process, natural selection, produces the appearance of teleology.

4. I don't see how Darwinism necessarily proves such a thing.

5. That's a confusion between species fixity and vitalism. By demonstrating evolution, Darwin had shown that species are not absolutely fixed; however, Darwinism is completely consistent with vitalism. Biochemistry and molecular biology were to completely destroy vitalism, however.

6. It was not Darwin who discredited catastrophism, it was Lyell and his colleagues -- though Lyell apparently did some rhetorical sleight-of-hand about various senses of "uniformitarianism". However, the last few decades have seen a miniature revival of catastrophism, though in a much more rigorous form than the early-19th-cy. version.

7. We are, however, a very unusual species in some respects.

lpetrich · 10-12-2002, 01:50 AM

Also, the quote in statement 5 is best-known as the justification for the claim in Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" that the strong nuclear force is really Jesus Christ in action.

10-11-2002, 08:54 PM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Darwin's Contribution? I found this while snooping around AiG's website. <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2676.asp" target="_blank">Darwin's Contribution?</a> (Use next to see all points.) If I were a Christian, AiG's argument sure would make me want to change that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-12-2002, 01:43 AM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Michael Shermer's list is rather simplistic and crude. I'll handle the points one by one. 1. The idea that the Earth has had a long and complicated history was already well-established when Darwin published his magnum opus; the respectable form of creationism then was old-earth creationism. 2. Of course, Mr. G. might have wanted to tease us by performing special creation that looks like evolution. Also special creation could also be done by a community of elves or something like that. 3. I think that that's something of a non sequitur -- he rendered it an unnecessary hypothesis. More specifically, he showed how an essentially mechanical process, natural selection, produces the appearance of teleology. 4. I don't see how Darwinism necessarily proves such a thing. 5. That's a confusion between species fixity and vitalism. By demonstrating evolution, Darwin had shown that species are not absolutely fixed; however, Darwinism is completely consistent with vitalism. Biochemistry and molecular biology were to completely destroy vitalism, however. 6. It was not Darwin who discredited catastrophism, it was Lyell and his colleagues -- though Lyell apparently did some rhetorical sleight-of-hand about various senses of "uniformitarianism". However, the last few decades have seen a miniature revival of catastrophism, though in a much more rigorous form than the early-19th-cy. version. 7. We are, however, a very unusual species in some respects.

10-12-2002, 01:50 AM	#4
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Also, the quote in statement 5 is best-known as the justification for the claim in Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" that the strong nuclear force is really Jesus Christ in action.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.