| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Donald E. Flood" |
| Date: |
08 May 2006 11:08:28 AM |
| Object: |
Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
08 May 2006 12:54:54 PM |
|
|
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
08 May 2006 01:46:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, "Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Actually, no. Religion in England even in the first half if the 19th
century was tempered by reality. And evolution was part of that
reality for those with a scientific bent. It wasn't the 100% absolute
belief of today's fundamentalists and creationists.
The upper, middle and working classes spent their different amounts of
leisure time doing what was available to them. There were naturalists
(bug, fossil, plant etc collectors) of all classes. And they didn't
just collect, they read about, catalogued and understood their
specimens. Evolution wasn't controversial apart from the strongly
religious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 07:23:02 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, "Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Actually, no. Religion in England even in the first half if the 19th
century was tempered by reality. And evolution was part of that
reality for those with a scientific bent. It wasn't the 100% absolute
belief of today's fundamentalists and creationists.
The upper, middle and working classes spent their different amounts of
leisure time doing what was available to them. There were naturalists
(bug, fossil, plant etc collectors) of all classes. And they didn't
just collect, they read about, catalogued and understood their
specimens. Evolution wasn't controversial apart from the strongly
religious.
How true; and at the end of the day common sense always prevails.
The evolutionary process gave the giraffe a very long neck and we humanoids
got a rather freak brain with tens of thousands of similar aberrations that
have formed over time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 08:03:50 PM |
|
|
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:44652664.DCA7ABC1@netvigator.com...
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, "Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month
regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Actually, no. Religion in England even in the first half if the 19th
century was tempered by reality. And evolution was part of that
reality for those with a scientific bent. It wasn't the 100% absolute
belief of today's fundamentalists and creationists.
The upper, middle and working classes spent their different amounts of
leisure time doing what was available to them. There were naturalists
(bug, fossil, plant etc collectors) of all classes. And they didn't
just collect, they read about, catalogued and understood their
specimens. Evolution wasn't controversial apart from the strongly
religious.
How true; and at the end of the day common sense always prevails.
The evolutionary process gave the giraffe a very long neck and we
humanoids
got a rather freak brain with tens of thousands of similar aberrations
that
have formed over time.
Bob,
INITIALLY, evolution *was* controversial:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/
Do the "skip intro" to get to the main stuff.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
08 May 2006 02:45:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <6_mdnW2AHPRyGMLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Could you detail that a bit in terms of Darwin's life and views.
Explain to us how religious brainwashing was responsible for
creationist views prior to Darwin. You might want to include a
discussion of Linnaeus as well.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
08 May 2006 05:23:56 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:hs7v52hstntqhpjgiko60v81o4oqdqanbe@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <6_mdnW2AHPRyGMLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month
regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Could you detail that a bit in terms of Darwin's life and views.
Explain to us how religious brainwashing was responsible for
creationist views prior to Darwin. You might want to include a
discussion of Linnaeus as well.
OK ... prior to Darwin, the word "Evolution" was in the dictionary, but
nobody really had a definition. Now, Linneaus dicked around with plants and
probably was on the right track, but his ideas and findings never got any
real traction in the scientific community other than the "nice theory, now
go get lost in the abbey, boy", until Darwin "re-coined" the word Evolution
in its present meaning.
Until then you were told that Gawd created it all and it was not up to you
to question it. End of story. 99.9% of the sheep complied and warmed the
pews on Sundays in eternal gratitude to this mysterious being. The remaining
0.1% were burned at the stake if they made too much noise.
Hope that clears it up for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
09 May 2006 09:33:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:23:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <-Iednc-KMNpgWcLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:hs7v52hstntqhpjgiko60v81o4oqdqanbe@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <6_mdnW2AHPRyGMLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month
regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Could you detail that a bit in terms of Darwin's life and views.
Explain to us how religious brainwashing was responsible for
creationist views prior to Darwin. You might want to include a
discussion of Linnaeus as well.
OK ... prior to Darwin, the word "Evolution" was in the dictionary, but
nobody really had a definition.
That is just silly. In the dictionary but no definition?
Now, Linneaus dicked around with plants
And more.
and
probably was on the right track,
In terms of what? He had the tree down pretty well but did not
understand what it meant.
but his ideas and findings never got any
real traction in the scientific community other than the "nice theory, now
go get lost in the abbey, boy", until Darwin "re-coined" the word Evolution
in its present meaning.
You are making this up, right?
Until then you were told that Gawd created it all and it was not up to you
to question it.
Please provide some support for that.
End of story.
Well, I have read just a bit more.
99.9% of the sheep complied and warmed the
pews on Sundays in eternal gratitude to this mysterious being. The remaining
0.1% were burned at the stake if they made too much noise.
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Hope that clears it up for you.
It clears something up.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
09 May 2006 09:49:05 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ft9162pi42jfjk95n17aflll2ro04q1nru@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:23:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <-Iednc-KMNpgWcLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:hs7v52hstntqhpjgiko60v81o4oqdqanbe@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <6_mdnW2AHPRyGMLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month
regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Could you detail that a bit in terms of Darwin's life and views.
Explain to us how religious brainwashing was responsible for
creationist views prior to Darwin. You might want to include a
discussion of Linnaeus as well.
OK ... prior to Darwin, the word "Evolution" was in the dictionary, but
nobody really had a definition.
That is just silly. In the dictionary but no definition?
Now, Linneaus dicked around with plants
And more.
and
probably was on the right track,
In terms of what? He had the tree down pretty well but did not
understand what it meant.
but his ideas and findings never got any
real traction in the scientific community other than the "nice theory, now
go get lost in the abbey, boy", until Darwin "re-coined" the word
Evolution
in its present meaning.
You are making this up, right?
Until then you were told that Gawd created it all and it was not up to you
to question it.
Please provide some support for that.
End of story.
Well, I have read just a bit more.
99.9% of the sheep complied and warmed the
pews on Sundays in eternal gratitude to this mysterious being. The
remaining
0.1% were burned at the stake if they made too much noise.
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that the World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to (slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
11 May 2006 06:59:40 PM |
|
|
An Tue, 09 May 2006 14:49:05 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ft9162pi42jfjk95n17aflll2ro04q1nru@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:23:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <-Iednc-KMNpgWcLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:hs7v52hstntqhpjgiko60v81o4oqdqanbe@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <6_mdnW2AHPRyGMLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month
regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Could you detail that a bit in terms of Darwin's life and views.
Explain to us how religious brainwashing was responsible for
creationist views prior to Darwin. You might want to include a
discussion of Linnaeus as well.
OK ... prior to Darwin, the word "Evolution" was in the dictionary, but
nobody really had a definition.
That is just silly. In the dictionary but no definition?
Now, Linneaus dicked around with plants
And more.
and
probably was on the right track,
In terms of what? He had the tree down pretty well but did not
understand what it meant.
but his ideas and findings never got any
real traction in the scientific community other than the "nice theory, now
go get lost in the abbey, boy", until Darwin "re-coined" the word
Evolution
in its present meaning.
You are making this up, right?
Until then you were told that Gawd created it all and it was not up to you
to question it.
Please provide some support for that.
End of story.
Well, I have read just a bit more.
99.9% of the sheep complied and warmed the
pews on Sundays in eternal gratitude to this mysterious being. The
remaining
0.1% were burned at the stake if they made too much noise.
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that the World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to (slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Scientists are not most people. Most scientists had
biblical time wiped out of their heads by Cuvier.
Cuvier (1769 to 1832) established that the Bible was unreliable in terms
of time for any events that were not witnessed by humans and observed that
even youngest sediments were "thousands of centuries old." It's pretty
unlikely that any reputable scientists believed in Bishop Usher's time
line when the Beagle set sail in 1831. Lamarck (1744-1829) is credited
with inventing evolution theory, but he called it transformism. Notice he
died two years before the Beagle set sail. Darwin learned of transformism
at Cambridge, though he remained a creationist until after the Beagle
returned to England.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 10:07:42 AM |
|
|
"Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.11.23.59.35.420784@keinspam.de...
An Tue, 09 May 2006 14:49:05 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ft9162pi42jfjk95n17aflll2ro04q1nru@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:23:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <-Iednc-KMNpgWcLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:hs7v52hstntqhpjgiko60v81o4oqdqanbe@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:54:54 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Hagar"
<hagen@sahm.name> in <6_mdnW2AHPRyGMLZ4p2dnA@giganews.com> wrote:
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:02K7g.139846$oL.54762@attbi_s71...
Everyone,
Some confusion has occurred on Alt.Atheism over the past month
regarding
Charles Darwin being an "evolutionist" prior to his voyage on the
HMS
Beagle. This is not correct:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Nov/hour2_111805.html
Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage.
Regards,
Don
Duh ... what else could he have possibly been, you dumbass ...
Religion brainwashed the masses and the sheep followed blindly.
Could you detail that a bit in terms of Darwin's life and views.
Explain to us how religious brainwashing was responsible for
creationist views prior to Darwin. You might want to include a
discussion of Linnaeus as well.
OK ... prior to Darwin, the word "Evolution" was in the dictionary, but
nobody really had a definition.
That is just silly. In the dictionary but no definition?
Now, Linneaus dicked around with plants
And more.
and
probably was on the right track,
In terms of what? He had the tree down pretty well but did not
understand what it meant.
but his ideas and findings never got any
real traction in the scientific community other than the "nice theory,
now
go get lost in the abbey, boy", until Darwin "re-coined" the word
Evolution
in its present meaning.
You are making this up, right?
Until then you were told that Gawd created it all and it was not up to
you
to question it.
Please provide some support for that.
End of story.
Well, I have read just a bit more.
99.9% of the sheep complied and warmed the
pews on Sundays in eternal gratitude to this mysterious being. The
remaining
0.1% were burned at the stake if they made too much noise.
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that the
World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to (slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Scientists are not most people. Most scientists had
biblical time wiped out of their heads by Cuvier.
See the American Meuseum of Natural History website on this:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/beforedarwin/
Cuvier (1769 to 1832) established that the Bible was unreliable in terms
of time for any events that were not witnessed by humans and observed that
even youngest sediments were "thousands of centuries old." It's pretty
unlikely that any reputable scientists believed in Bishop Usher's time
line when the Beagle set sail in 1831. Lamarck (1744-1829) is credited
with inventing evolution theory, but he called it transformism. Notice he
died two years before the Beagle set sail. Darwin learned of transformism
at Cambridge, though he remained a creationist until after the Beagle
returned to England.
Bishop Ussher (who lived from 1581-1656) was widely praised by the churchmen
of his time from all theological persuasions for his "calculation" of the
Earth's age, and that value of 4004 BC was not challenged for over a
century. I agree with everything else that you state. More information
here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/low_bandwidth.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 11:40:43 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:42 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Among the educated and practical.
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that the
World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to (slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Scientists are not most people. Most scientists had
biblical time wiped out of their heads by Cuvier.
See the American Meuseum of Natural History website on this:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/beforedarwin/
You've tried to use this link before.
But Darwin was most definitely not what people today understand as a
creationist.
In Darwin's own writing there is only the merest mention of his being
a bible believer, while he was at Cambridge studying for the ministry.
Surrounded by material about his studies in natural history.
And another small one about using the bible to justify morals causing
the sailors to laugh early in the voyage. But remember the Victorian
English were very straight laced.
You don't seem to realise that religion took second place to the real
word and the things in it for people like him. Or that he would have
to unlearned what he previously knew as an amateur geologist, amateur
naturalist and former medical student who came from an "evolutionist"
family.
Even what he knew of evolution (the early 19th century level of
understanding which means he knew about the change and divergence from
the fossil record).
All the time he was at Cambridge studying for the ministry, nature was
more important to him. He wouldn't have forgotten what he had
previously known.
Any amateur scientist knew about evolution and the then-understood
explanations for it. And there were huge numbers of amateur scientists
collecting bugs, pressing plants, collecting fossils etc. Including
the young Charles Darwin.
Then as now the educated and practical partitioned between
religion-mode and reality-mode. On Sundays, in church, they suspended
disbelief when they entered the virtual reality of the religion and
the bible. And returned to it afterwards.
While he was in class for the ministry he was in that virtual reality.
But in his spare time he was outside looking for specimens. He kept
the interest and knowledge he had previously, whatever he thought
inside the virtual reality.
Otherwise he wouldn't have applied for the position of official
naturalist on the Beagle's voyage.
It was the ignorant, the higher echelons of the church and women who
tended to take religion that literally - they were educated
differently and not encouraged to follow the outdoor and investigative
pursuits the boys did.
I don't think you understand just how much interest there was in
science at the time. Or how much they respected it. Victorian England
was remarkably practical,and it had provided them advantages and
wealth. There was a thirst for knowledge.
You seem to be projecting heartland America's understanding of
religion and ministers onto a different country, time and culture when
there was no TV, no electric light etc. Where they spent their time
pursuing active interests. When there was enough light they were avid
readers, especially about what interested them. Which for Darwin
included geology and natural history.
Cuvier (1769 to 1832) established that the Bible was unreliable in terms
of time for any events that were not witnessed by humans and observed that
even youngest sediments were "thousands of centuries old." It's pretty
unlikely that any reputable scientists believed in Bishop Usher's time
line when the Beagle set sail in 1831. Lamarck (1744-1829) is credited
with inventing evolution theory, but he called it transformism. Notice he
died two years before the Beagle set sail. Darwin learned of transformism
at Cambridge, though he remained a creationist until after the Beagle
returned to England.
Bishop Ussher (who lived from 1581-1656) was widely praised by the churchmen
of his time from all theological persuasions for his "calculation" of the
Earth's age, and that value of 4004 BC was not challenged for over a
century. I agree with everything else that you state. More information
here:
It was official church dogma. But even churchmen who were also amateur
scientists knew it was wrong. Who grew less common the further up the
hierarchy they were.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/low_bandwidth.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 01:29:59 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:jh9962pnpdqktnb9ti3p2m3vb8fklfh1eq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:42 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Among the educated and practical.
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that the
World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to (slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Scientists are not most people. Most scientists had
biblical time wiped out of their heads by Cuvier.
See the American Meuseum of Natural History website on this:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/beforedarwin/
You've tried to use this link before.
But Darwin was most definitely not what people today understand as a
creationist.
As I posted before, Darwin accepted William Paley's Natural Theology
argument. He states this explicitly in his autobiography.
I don't think you understand just how much interest there was in
science at the time. Or how much they respected it. Victorian England
was remarkably practical,and it had provided them advantages and
wealth. There was a thirst for knowledge.
You seem to be projecting heartland America's understanding of
religion and ministers onto a different country, time and culture when
there was no TV, no electric light etc. Where they spent their time
pursuing active interests. When there was enough light they were avid
readers, especially about what interested them. Which for Darwin
included geology and natural history.
Cuvier (1769 to 1832) established that the Bible was unreliable in terms
of time for any events that were not witnessed by humans and observed
that
even youngest sediments were "thousands of centuries old." It's pretty
unlikely that any reputable scientists believed in Bishop Usher's time
line when the Beagle set sail in 1831. Lamarck (1744-1829) is credited
with inventing evolution theory, but he called it transformism. Notice
he
died two years before the Beagle set sail. Darwin learned of
transformism
at Cambridge, though he remained a creationist until after the Beagle
returned to England.
Bishop Ussher (who lived from 1581-1656) was widely praised by the
churchmen
of his time from all theological persuasions for his "calculation" of the
Earth's age, and that value of 4004 BC was not challenged for over a
century. I agree with everything else that you state. More information
here:
It was official church dogma. But even churchmen who were also amateur
scientists knew it was wrong. Who grew less common the further up the
hierarchy they were.
Can you provide any primary or secondary sources to support your claim?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/low_bandwidth.html
See the PBS link above. Clearly, people's perceptions with respect to their
Christian theology changed over time! Today, less than 25% of people in
Great Britain believe in the resurrection of Jesus! Around Darwin's time
the figure probably was close to 100%. Why the change? Darwin's Theory of
Evolution and higher Biblical scholarship! Darwin's theology changed over
time with respect to his scientific findings. He started out accepting
Paley (at least, in principle), and in the end, he became an agnostic and a
100% naturalist. These facts are indisputable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 02:07:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:29:59 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:jh9962pnpdqktnb9ti3p2m3vb8fklfh1eq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:42 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Among the educated and practical.
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that the
World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to (slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Scientists are not most people. Most scientists had
biblical time wiped out of their heads by Cuvier.
See the American Meuseum of Natural History website on this:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/beforedarwin/
You've tried to use this link before.
But Darwin was most definitely not what people today understand as a
creationist.
As I posted before, Darwin accepted William Paley's Natural Theology
argument. He states this explicitly in his autobiography.
"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God
until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the
vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of
design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered. "
He never gave a personal god much thought during the time he was
supposed to have swallowed Paley. He hardly sounds like a creationist.
He was a typically lukewarm theist of the time until he studied for
the ministry. But even during that period he still partitioned between
his life pursuing his interest as a naturalist, and the religion he
was studying for.
Do you umderstand how non-fanatical believers partition between
god/church-mode and the rest of their lives, and how the partition
boundary sometimes moves?
And that Darwin's god-mode side was always subordinate to his natural
history even while he was studing for the ministry?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 08:07:53 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:col96292j8olv3gevokup05fcic8svh7hu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:29:59 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:jh9962pnpdqktnb9ti3p2m3vb8fklfh1eq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:42 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Among the educated and practical.
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that the
World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was
not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to (slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Scientists are not most people. Most scientists had
biblical time wiped out of their heads by Cuvier.
See the American Meuseum of Natural History website on this:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/beforedarwin/
You've tried to use this link before.
But Darwin was most definitely not what people today understand as a
creationist.
As I posted before, Darwin accepted William Paley's Natural Theology
argument. He states this explicitly in his autobiography.
"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God
until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the
vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of
design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered. "
Chris,
Great quote! Again, note where Darwin says it himself -- "The old argument
of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered." Yes, sure, he was lukewarm to begin with (so was Kepler,
Galileo, and even Newton), but my point is that Darwin went from being
lukewarm to being NOTHING, an agnostic, for all practical purposes, an
atheist! Why? Because of his discovery of the Theory of Evolution by
Natural Selection! With evolution, no need for God!
Regards,
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 09:16:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 01:07:53 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:col96292j8olv3gevokup05fcic8svh7hu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:29:59 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:jh9962pnpdqktnb9ti3p2m3vb8fklfh1eq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:42 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Among the educated and practical.
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that the
World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was
not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to (slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Scientists are not most people. Most scientists had
biblical time wiped out of their heads by Cuvier.
See the American Meuseum of Natural History website on this:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/beforedarwin/
You've tried to use this link before.
But Darwin was most definitely not what people today understand as a
creationist.
As I posted before, Darwin accepted William Paley's Natural Theology
argument. He states this explicitly in his autobiography.
"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God
until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the
vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of
design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered. "
Chris,
Great quote! Again, note where Darwin says it himself -- "The old argument
of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered." Yes, sure, he was lukewarm to begin with (so was Kepler,
Galileo, and even Newton), but my point is that Darwin went from being
lukewarm to being NOTHING, an agnostic, for all practical purposes, an
atheist! Why? Because of his discovery of the Theory of Evolution by
Natural Selection! With evolution, no need for God!
Lukewarm doesn't equal creationist. Then or now.
And like most educated people doing hobbies that were amateur science,
he knew about evolution even if it wasn't with today's understanding.
Once again, you ignore the fact that non-fundamentalist believers
operate in two different modes, sometimes even at the same time,
switching between god-mode and real-world-mode.
On Sunday in church they believe things they don't give a thought to
during the rest of the week, and don't give their practical side a
thought.
What I think happened when Darwin went up to Cambridge to study for
the ministry, is that he was in god-mode in class and real-world-mode
outside. He spent his spare time as a naturalist, and described this
much more enthusiasticly than his religious studies. God-mode had
expanded but real-world-mode still dominated - hence not completing
his divinity studies and taking a posiion as the official naturalist
on the Beagle's voyage.
Regards,
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 09:56:37 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dpda62l7mio4b8rhmlaaien05j1ku07a8u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 01:07:53 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:col96292j8olv3gevokup05fcic8svh7hu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:29:59 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:jh9962pnpdqktnb9ti3p2m3vb8fklfh1eq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:42 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
You do realize that when Darwin set sail it was known that the
Flood
had not occurred, that the Earth was much, much older than 6,000
years, and that life in the past was very different than life now,
don't you?
Among the educated and practical.
Most people still believed in Bishop Ussher's "calculation" that
the
World
was 6,000 years old when Darwin set foot on the HMS Beagle. It was
not
until later in the 19th-century that public opinion began to
(slowly)
recognize the great age of the Earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Scientists are not most people. Most scientists had
biblical time wiped out of their heads by Cuvier.
See the American Meuseum of Natural History website on this:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/beforedarwin/
You've tried to use this link before.
But Darwin was most definitely not what people today understand as a
creationist.
As I posted before, Darwin accepted William Paley's Natural Theology
argument. He states this explicitly in his autobiography.
"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God
until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the
vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of
design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered. "
Chris,
Great quote! Again, note where Darwin says it himself -- "The old
argument
of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered." Yes, sure, he was lukewarm to begin with (so was Kepler,
Galileo, and even Newton), but my point is that Darwin went from being
lukewarm to being NOTHING, an agnostic, for all practical purposes, an
atheist! Why? Because of his discovery of the Theory of Evolution by
Natural Selection! With evolution, no need for God!
Lukewarm doesn't equal creationist. Then or now.
And like most educated people doing hobbies that were amateur science,
he knew about evolution even if it wasn't with today's understanding.
Once again, you ignore the fact that non-fundamentalist believers
operate in two different modes, sometimes even at the same time,
switching between god-mode and real-world-mode.
On Sunday in church they believe things they don't give a thought to
during the rest of the week, and don't give their practical side a
thought.
What I think happened when Darwin went up to Cambridge to study for
the ministry, is that he was in god-mode in class and real-world-mode
outside. He spent his spare time as a naturalist, and described this
much more enthusiasticly than his religious studies. God-mode had
expanded but real-world-mode still dominated - hence not completing
his divinity studies and taking a posiion as the official naturalist
on the Beagle's voyage.
I agree with everything that you have stated!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 03:54:50 PM |
|
|
An Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
"The old argument of
design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered. "
Now this is your quote that you chose to use to tell us that Darwin was
never a creationist. Dawrwin says that at one time the Paley argument
seemed to be so conclusive. Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the zeitgeist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 04:08:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:54:50 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 15:07:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Unmarked snippage of "Although I did not think much about the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."
Please read that sentence until it sinks in.
"The old argument of
design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so
conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered. "
And the sentence immediately before this which you snipped. What part
of "did not give much thought about" and "vague conclusions" didn't
you understand?
Now this is your quote that you chose to use to tell us that Darwin was
never a creationist. Dawrwin says that at one time the Paley argument
seemed to be so conclusive. Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the zeitgeist.
READ THE WHOLE FRIKKING PARAGRAPH, NOT JUST THE SENTENCE YOU
CHERRY-PICKED.
And also, do you honestly not grasp that believers, apart from the
fanatics, partition between god-mode and outside-the-church-mode?
Or that even while he was studying for the ministry at Cambridge, his
pursuit of natural history was more important to him than the church.
There is considerably more about the former, and it is more
enthusiastic, than the latter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 07:01:52 PM |
|
|
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the zeitgeist.
What part of this assertion contradicts your quote?
Darwin is born:
.
.
.
Darwin as a creationist:
He didn't think about it much. He went along with the zeitgeist.
.
---- voyage of the Beagle ------
.
.
Darwin thought about it.
.
Darwin after he thought about it: no longer creationist.
.
.
Darwin writes his autobiography.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 07:08:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 07:31:43 PM |
|
|
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please answer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
12 May 2006 07:46:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:43 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please answer?
Are you the guy who snipped ""Although I did not think much about the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."?
Who can't understand that non-fanatical Christians partition berween
god-mode and real-world-mode?
And that even when Darwin was studying for the ministry he was more
enthusiastic with his natural history than his religious studies?
Which made him a typical lukewarm believer of his time and place.
Where religion was nothing like the fundamentalism and ceationism of
heartland America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
13 May 2006 12:44:27 AM |
|
|
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:17 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:43 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please answer?
Are you the guy who snipped ""Although I did not think much about the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."?
Who can't understand that non-fanatical Christians partition berween
god-mode and real-world-mode?
And that even when Darwin was studying for the ministry he was more
enthusiastic with his natural history than his religious studies?
Which made him a typical lukewarm believer of his time and place.
Where religion was nothing like the fundamentalism and ceationism of
heartland America.
No. I'm the one who said that he was a creationist because he didn't
really think about it and that was the zeitgeist he wend along with until
he did think about it. IE creationist before beagle, not after.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
13 May 2006 03:50:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 05:44:27 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:17 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:43 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please answer?
Are you the guy who snipped ""Although I did not think much about the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."?
Who can't understand that non-fanatical Christians partition berween
god-mode and real-world-mode?
And that even when Darwin was studying for the ministry he was more
enthusiastic with his natural history than his religious studies?
Which made him a typical lukewarm believer of his time and place.
Where religion was nothing like the fundamentalism and ceationism of
heartland America.
No. I'm the one who said that he was a creationist because he didn't
really think about it and that was the zeitgeist he wend along with until
he did think about it. IE creationist before beagle, not after.
Except that he was never a creationist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
13 May 2006 09:18:52 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:od7b62dje67h5b81urpda6c9qjomip6rbr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 05:44:27 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:17 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:43 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the
zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please
answer?
Are you the guy who snipped ""Although I did not think much about the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."?
Who can't understand that non-fanatical Christians partition berween
god-mode and real-world-mode?
And that even when Darwin was studying for the ministry he was more
enthusiastic with his natural history than his religious studies?
Which made him a typical lukewarm believer of his time and place.
Where religion was nothing like the fundamentalism and ceationism of
heartland America.
No. I'm the one who said that he was a creationist because he didn't
really think about it and that was the zeitgeist he wend along with until
he did think about it. IE creationist before beagle, not after.
Except that he was never a creationist.
I think that it is safe to say that he was at least a deist, in the
beginning, and through his scientific studies, he became an agnostic.
Agreed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
13 May 2006 10:15:22 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:18:52 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:od7b62dje67h5b81urpda6c9qjomip6rbr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 05:44:27 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:17 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:43 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the
zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please
answer?
Are you the guy who snipped ""Although I did not think much about the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."?
Who can't understand that non-fanatical Christians partition berween
god-mode and real-world-mode?
And that even when Darwin was studying for the ministry he was more
enthusiastic with his natural history than his religious studies?
Which made him a typical lukewarm believer of his time and place.
Where religion was nothing like the fundamentalism and ceationism of
heartland America.
No. I'm the one who said that he was a creationist because he didn't
really think about it and that was the zeitgeist he wend along with until
he did think about it. IE creationist before beagle, not after.
Except that he was never a creationist.
I think that it is safe to say that he was at least a deist, in the
beginning, and through his scientific studies, he became an agnostic.
Agreed?
He was a typical lukewarm Sunday theist. Even the only time he took it
halfway seriously when studying for the ministry the natural history
half was more important than the ministry half. A career he had chosen
because life a country parson would enable him to pursue his intterest
in wildlife.
The original claim was that the was a creationist.
He grew less theist over time, but what tipped the ba;ance was the
death of his daughter.
His wife was a devout theist, and like a lot of non-believers with
theist spouses he went through the motions for her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
13 May 2006 10:40:01 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hltb62lgaa9ctoe08i0ugdg88iod89me18@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:18:52 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:od7b62dje67h5b81urpda6c9qjomip6rbr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 05:44:27 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:17 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:43 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat
geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the
zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted
your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please
answer?
Are you the guy who snipped ""Although I did not think much about the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."?
Who can't understand that non-fanatical Christians partition berween
god-mode and real-world-mode?
And that even when Darwin was studying for the ministry he was more
enthusiastic with his natural history than his religious studies?
Which made him a typical lukewarm believer of his time and place.
Where religion was nothing like the fundamentalism and ceationism of
heartland America.
No. I'm the one who said that he was a creationist because he didn't
really think about it and that was the zeitgeist he wend along with
until
he did think about it. IE creationist before beagle, not after.
Except that he was never a creationist.
I think that it is safe to say that he was at least a deist, in the
beginning, and through his scientific studies, he became an agnostic.
Agreed?
He was a typical lukewarm Sunday theist. Even the only time he took it
halfway seriously when studying for the ministry the natural history
half was more important than the ministry half. A career he had chosen
because life a country parson would enable him to pursue his intterest
in wildlife.
The original claim was that the was a creationist.
He grew less theist over time, but what tipped the ba;ance was the
death of his daughter.
His wife was a devout theist, and like a lot of non-believers with
theist spouses he went through the motions for her.
Chris,
Darwin clearly stated that he was an agnostic! Agreed? He also stated that
early on in his life he accepted William Paley's argument for design, at
least to *some* degree! Clearly, he went from a "lukewarm, go through the
motions, only on paper, do it for your wife, kind of, sort of, believe in
it" theist early in life to an agnostic later in life. Evolution was the
"big change" that led him out of theism entirely and into agnosticism.
Sure, he wasn't a "creationist" in the modern sense of the term, but he did
believe in God and the fact that God created things, at least in the
beginning, but not in the end!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
13 May 2006 06:54:39 PM |
|
|
An Sat, 13 May 2006 15:40:01 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hltb62lgaa9ctoe08i0ugdg88iod89me18@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:18:52 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:od7b62dje67h5b81urpda6c9qjomip6rbr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 05:44:27 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:17 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:43 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat
geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the
zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted
your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please
answer?
Are you the guy who snipped ""Although I did not think much about the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."?
Who can't understand that non-fanatical Christians partition berween
god-mode and real-world-mode?
And that even when Darwin was studying for the ministry he was more
enthusiastic with his natural history than his religious studies?
Which made him a typical lukewarm believer of his time and place.
Where religion was nothing like the fundamentalism and ceationism of
heartland America.
No. I'm the one who said that he was a creationist because he didn't
really think about it and that was the zeitgeist he wend along with
until
he did think about it. IE creationist before beagle, not after.
Except that he was never a creationist.
I think that it is safe to say that he was at least a deist, in the
beginning, and through his scientific studies, he became an agnostic.
Agreed?
He was a typical lukewarm Sunday theist. Even the only time he took it
halfway seriously when studying for the ministry the natural history
half was more important than the ministry half. A career he had chosen
because life a country parson would enable him to pursue his intterest
in wildlife.
The original claim was that the was a creationist.
He grew less theist over time, but what tipped the ba;ance was the
death of his daughter.
His wife was a devout theist, and like a lot of non-believers with
theist spouses he went through the motions for her.
Chris,
Darwin clearly stated that he was an agnostic! Agreed? He also stated that
early on in his life he accepted William Paley's argument for design, at
least to *some* degree! Clearly, he went from a "lukewarm, go through the
motions, only on paper, do it for your wife, kind of, sort of, believe in
it" theist early in life to an agnostic later in life. Evolution was the
"big change" that led him out of theism entirely and into agnosticism.
Sure, he wasn't a "creationist" in the modern sense of the term, but he did
believe in God and the fact that God created things, at least in the
beginning, but not in the end!
And Darwin says exactly so in the quote Christopher provided us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
13 May 2006 07:18:24 PM |
|
|
"Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.13.23.54.34.70844@keinspam.de...
An Sat, 13 May 2006 15:40:01 +0000, Donald E. Flood hat geschreibt:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hltb62lgaa9ctoe08i0ugdg88iod89me18@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:18:52 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:od7b62dje67h5b81urpda6c9qjomip6rbr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 05:44:27 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:17 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:31:43 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 20:08:52 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat
geschreibt:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:52 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Fri, 12 May 2006 17:08:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat
geschreibt:
Darwin was a creationist until he actually
though much about it. Like most people he believed in the
zeitgeist.
I didn't write that.
No. You quoted me. Then claimed, erroneously that it contradicted
your
quote is some way. I asked you to point it out. Would you please
answer?
Are you the guy who snipped ""Although I did not think much about
the
existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my
life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been
driven."?
Who can't understand that non-fanatical Christians partition berween
god-mode and real-world-mode?
And that even when Darwin was studying for the ministry he was more
enthusiastic with his natural history than his religious studies?
Which made him a typical lukewarm believer of his time and place.
Where religion was nothing like the fundamentalism and ceationism of
heartland America.
No. I'm the one who said that he was a creationist because he didn't
really think about it and that was the zeitgeist he wend along with
until
he did think about it. IE creationist before beagle, not after.
Except that he was never a creationist.
I think that it is safe to say that he was at least a deist, in the
beginning, and through his scientific studies, he became an agnostic.
Agreed?
He was a typical lukewarm Sunday theist. Even the only time he took it
halfway seriously when studying for the ministry the natural history
half was more important than the ministry half. A career he had chosen
because life a country parson would enable him to pursue his intterest
in wildlife.
The original claim was that the was a creationist.
He grew less theist over time, but what tipped the ba;ance was the
death of his daughter.
His wife was a devout theist, and like a lot of non-believers with
theist spouses he went through the motions for her.
Chris,
Darwin clearly stated that he was an agnostic! Agreed? He also stated
that
early on in his life he accepted William Paley's argument for design, at
least to *some* degree! Clearly, he went from a "lukewarm, go through
the
motions, only on paper, do it for your wife, kind of, sort of, believe in
it" theist early in life to an agnostic later in life. Evolution was the
"big change" that led him out of theism entirely and into agnosticism.
Sure, he wasn't a "creationist" in the modern sense of the term, but he
did
believe in God and the fact that God created things, at least in the
beginning, but not in the end!
And Darwin says exactly so in the quote Christopher provided us.
Agreed.
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Charles Darwin was a creationist. |
13 May 2006 07:48:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 May 2006 00:18:24 GMT, "Donald E. Flood"
<Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote:
He was a typical lukewarm Sunday theist. Even the only time he took it
halfway seriously when studying for the ministry the natural history
half was more important than the ministry half. A career he had chosen
because life a country parson would enable him to pursue his intterest
in wildlife.
The original claim was that the was a creationist.
He grew less theist over time, but what tipped the ba;ance was the
death of his daughter.
His wife was a devout theist, and like a lot of non-believers with
theist spouses he went through the motions for her.
Chris,
Darwin clearly stated that he was an agnostic! Agreed? He also stated
that
early on in his life he accepted William Paley's argument for design, at
least to *some* degree! Clearly, he went from a "lukewarm, go through
the
motions, only on paper, do it for your wife, kind of, sort of, believe in
it" theist early in life to an agnostic later in life. Evolution was the
"big change" that led him out of theism entirely and into agnosticism.
Sure, he wasn't a "creationist" in the modern sense of the term, but he
did
believe in God and the fact that God created things, at least in the
beginning, but not in the end!
And Darwin says exactly so in the quote Christopher provided us.
Agreed.
Neither of you seem to grasp that he only "believed" that in
Sunday-mode, because he didn't give it much thought.
That is an extremely important point.
And when he went up at Cambridge studying for the ministry,
Sunday-mode expanded to include his classes. But the rest of his time
there, his outdoor study of natural history was far more important to
him.
In Victorian England, religion wasn't the all-or-nothing absolute
belief it is i | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
