It's widely believed that Charles Darwin lost his faith when he discovered evolution. And many contemporary atheists proclaim themselves followers of Darwin in this sense. Michael Shermer, for instance, writes that he abandoned Christianity when he learned about evolution; finally he could see how there could be design--or the appearance of design--without a designer. Richard Dawkins writes that it was Darwin who finally made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."
In reality Darwin's atheism had little to do with his discovery of evolution. First of all Darwin was never a very devout Christian. He was raised as a nominal Anglican. It says something about Anglicanism in Britain that a lukewarm Christian like Darwin actually considered becoming a clergyman. What turned Darwin against Christianity, however, was two things.
First, several of his children either died or has chronic illnesses. This was probably heriditary, as Darwin himself suffered for most of his life from one ailment or the other. When Darwin's daughter Annie died at a young age, however, Darwin was inconsolable. Usually a man of the stiff upper lip, Darwin could not stop himself from weeping even in public. Darwin blamed God for Annie's untimely death. This was several years before Darwin published his Origin of Species.
After Annie's death, Darwin began to reflect morbidly on mortality, and during his process he recalled that his own famous grandfather Erasmus Darwin, as well as several other family members and friends, were unbelievers. Since Darwin saw them as good and respectable people, he angrily fulminated against the doctrine of eternal damnation, asking what kind of a God would consign good people to hell just because they refused to accept Christianity? The thought of all these people in hell filled Darwin with such revulsion that he completely jettisoned Christianity.
At the same time Darwin recognized that his theory of evolution was quite compatible with Christianity. When the American biologist Asa Gray wrote Darwin to say that his theory of evolution demonstrated how God created species, Darwin congratulated Gray for being the first one to see the point. In England, the preacher-poet Charles Kingsley argued for the compatibility with evolution and Christianity, and Darwin encouraged his efforts.
True, evolution is inconsistent with the six-day account of creation, but since the earliest days of Christianity, Christian writers like Augustine have had no problem with interpreting the first book of Genesis allegorically. After all the Hebrew word can mean "day" but it can also mean "period" or "epoch." Only a small segment of Christians--mostly fundamentalists--are uncompromisingly wedded to the six-day account.
Evolution, however, says nothing about who or what created the universe. Evolution doesn't even say anything about how life got started. Evolution merely describes how one life form gave rise to another. Somewhat comically writers like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett argue that evolution is a kind of master key that unlocks the universe. It isn't hard to see that atheism is getting in the way of clear reasoning here. If you doubt this, go to Youtube and watch again my debate with Daniel Dennett. Unfortunately I cannot also direct you to my debate with Dawkins, since Timorous Richard doesn't want to get into the arena with me.
Darwin lost his faith over the "problem of evil," an issue that has been coming up in my recent debates, and one that I intend to address in future blog postings. It's time to set at rest, however, the old myth that evolution is a scientific refutation of theism in general or Christianity in particular. Darwin himself knew it was not so, even if his dimmer acolytes haven't figured that out yet.
Reader Comments ( Page 86 of 86)
1276. Mike mistakenly wrote: "You forgot the Orthodox."
I didn't forget the Orthodox or any other group as I purposefully DID NOT include them as it wasn't relevant to the point at hand.
When you argue at least stay on point.
As for "traditions" I'm well aware that not all beliefs come from the bible and that many "traditions" exclude or re-interpret many verses and stories in the bible their own way. It's all irrelevant since the core belief is that the religious claim that their god exists and even though there is NO PROOF they act as if he does exist. That is the leap of faith that takes anyone believing in god into the land of delusion.
I'll use caps anytime I want. What speaks of laziness is the volume of your and god freaks material that attempts to show your god exists. Give it up guys there isn't a god. Get real.
Peter at 11:50PM on May 14th 2008
1277. Mike: "Again, you mistakenly attribute to the traditional Christians your own fundamentalist beliefs. The Christians believed that the Bible was inspired in matters of faith and morals, not that it was dictated word-for-word."
As has been pointed out some christians do take the bible in a way that they call "literally". In fact one of my sisters does that as a christian preacher. While another bother doesn't and follows the catholic tradition that you speak of. Both are still delusional due to their belief in god. Both are still delusional due to their belief that Jesus rose from the dead.
As I said the specific details of your faith or of any particular faith is completely irrelevant to the basic question.
That is at least one reason to see why it is just silly to call me a fundamentalist of anything. I really don't care how you interpret the bible, as it's not relevant to the core question. However, the fact that there are so many ways to interpret the bible and so many different traditions of so called "truth" about it demonstrates that not all of them can be correct and thus all of them are incorrect since they all posit an unproven god.
Peter at 11:59PM on May 14th 2008
1278. I'll take however you interpret the bible.
So Mike how do you interpret the bible?
Peter at 12:04AM on May 15th 2008
1279. I'll quote a Christian on this one -
"This is shameful and pathetic and I'm embarrassed to say that I have supported you Dinesh. If our side is the one telling the truth, then why do we have to lie?" - Teh
Well stated, Teh, you're not the only Christian who feels duped and betrayed by Dinesh D'Souza's duplicity. But Dinesh, like his ex girlfriend Ann Coulter, continues to stoop two lower levels, even defending Ben Stein's lying propaganda film, "Expelled", which now history has shown is more appropriately titled "Flunked and Failed".
A quote from Scientific America:
"Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.
Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism. And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among scientists than in the general population.
Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins.
During Scientific American's post-screening conversation with Expelled associate producer Mark Mathis, we asked him why Ken Miller was not included in the film. Mathis explained that his presence would have "confused" viewers. But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film's major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God."
LindaL at 8:28PM on May 15th 2008
1280. LindaL, why don't you 'Self Evolve' and stop attacking Dinesh by referencing his former relationship with Coulter. Chris Aable, Bart Owen, Terry Madison, and LindaL (oh wait -- that's you!) wouldn't be happy.
"No one can consider himself or herself to be 'self evolved' if he or she continues to attack others by bringing up old relationships." -- Chris Aable, as quoted by Terry Madison (or so I'm told by Bart Owen)
Renzo at 6:32PM on May 16th 2008
1281. Sorta slumming, ain't cha renzo?
? at 6:47PM on May 16th 2008
1282. Here is one christian that Dinesh D'Souza and Monty could learn from: express your wild side!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13834042/
"... bring on masturbation. Try any position in the Kama Sutra (but refer to drawings, please, not pictures of real people). Wife away on business? Have phone sex. Birth control is good. Even anal sex is OK if (and Beam believes this is a big if) it does no harm to the body. ... If you are a married Christian, not only can you do all this, but you should be doing it. "
I'm happy that some people are learning to express their innate Nature and not let the more prudish christian beleiver nut jobs stop them with silliness and ignorance.
Oh, Monty, you know I forgot to mention that women bleed and yet you'll go up there without hesitation... seems to contradict what you were saying... and is also another bad design... as women will likely tell you...
Peter at 9:04AM on May 17th 2008
1283. oops, wrong article to post that on. Sorry about that.
Peter at 9:05AM on May 17th 2008
1284. "Wars can be prevented just as surely as they can be provoked... and we who fail to prevent them must share the guilt for the dead." - Omar N. Bradley, General of the U.S. Army (1893 - 1981)
Bush 43 and Cheney bear a huge portion of that guilt for their immoral actions. Impeachment is appropriate. War crimes charges are appropriate for their immoral deeds.
Peter at 7:36AM on May 18th 2008