creation, evolution, teleology and the myths we live by

8/2/2019 Creation, Evolution, Teleology And the Myths We Live By

1/38

Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live byPosted by ajmacdonaldjr on March 27, 2012

Photo - Charles Darwin

No teleologist can be a Darwinian. ~Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? (1874)

teleology noun \ te-l--l-j, t-\

Definition of TELEOLOGY

1 a : the study of evidences of design innature

b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends areimmanent in nature

c : a doctrine explaining phenomena byfinal causes

2: the fact or character attributed tonature or natural processes of being directed

toward an end or shaped by a purpose

3: the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena

teleologist noun

Origin of TELEOLOGY Latin: teleologia, from Greek: tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia-logy. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleology

Teleological is the name of a kind of explanation, namely, one that works by

mentioning a function not, for instance, by mentioning a causeAll talk of function istherefore in any case teleological. It is about design. What relation this fact may have tothe possible presence of a designer is a separate question. ~ Mary Midgley, Science asSalvation (London: Routledge, 1993) p.11

Atoms collide in every possible way until they form a wide variety of molecules, eachselected for by the local concentration of atoms together with the laws of chemistry.Molecules, in turn, explore ever more complicated chemical reactions until they form a

Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/darwinsepia555.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/author/ajmacdonaldjr/http://books.google.com/books?id=NCbsp4eVf9cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Science+as+Salvation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G_NxT9aCGcnY0QGhsrjRAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Science%20as%20Salvation&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=NCbsp4eVf9cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Science+as+Salvation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G_NxT9aCGcnY0QGhsrjRAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Science%20as%20Salvation&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=NCbsp4eVf9cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Science+as+Salvation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G_NxT9aCGcnY0QGhsrjRAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Science%20as%20Salvation&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=NCbsp4eVf9cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Science+as+Salvation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G_NxT9aCGcnY0QGhsrjRAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Science%20as%20Salvation&f=falsehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleologyhttp://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/darwinsepia555.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/darwinsepia555.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/author/ajmacdonaldjr/http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/author/ajmacdonaldjr/


2/38

molecule capable of catalyzing its own production together with variation in its form:Such a form of proto-life is selected for merely by its ability to reproduce and adapt todifferent environmental conditions. Because of its ability to adapt to new surroundings,life explores a vast space of possible beings, until it arrives first at sexual reproductionand then at language. ~ Seth Lloyd (in, Intelligent Thought, (2006) page 189)

The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science. It is, andcannot help being, also a powerful folk-tale about human origins. ~ Mary Midgley(Evolution as a Religion, (London: Routledge, 1985, 2002) p. 1)

Dr. Benjamin Wiker, author of 10 Books That Screwed Up The World, joined us to talk indetail about how we ended up in the condition we are today. From Marx to Nietzsche,Freud to Kinsey Dr. Wiker argues that its no accident the modern world is crumbling but why? (See also:Answering the New Atheism, part 2.)

See: Political Vindication Radio: The Benjamin Wiker Interview

See: Benjamin Wicker Moral Darwinism: how we became hedonists

See: Benjamin Wicker 10 Books conservatives must read

See: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man (1871)

See: C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man (1943)

From: The World Perceived: a theological and phenomenological approach to thinking,perceiving, and living in-the-world:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6ZxT4mZNq6P0QHLv7CqAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6ZxT4mZNq6P0QHLv7CqAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htmhttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htmhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://books.google.com/books?id=hi1fiqZE_zsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=10+Books+Every+Conservative+Must+Read&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nLRxT5WTKujq0gG5v6nUAQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=10%20Books%20Every%20Conservative%20Must%20Read&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=hi1fiqZE_zsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=10+Books+Every+Conservative+Must+Read&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nLRxT5WTKujq0gG5v6nUAQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=10%20Books%20Every%20Conservative%20Must%20Read&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=hi1fiqZE_zsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=10+Books+Every+Conservative+Must+Read&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nLRxT5WTKujq0gG5v6nUAQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=10%20Books%20Every%20Conservative%20Must%20Read&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=moral+darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0KVxT5jZFrCn0AHkhs2cAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=moral%20darwinism&f=falsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=infYNWcZkLkhttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=moral+darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0KVxT5jZFrCn0AHkhs2cAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=moral%20darwinism&f=falsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=infYNWcZkLkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=infYNWcZkLkhttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6ZxT4mZNq6P0QHLv7CqAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6ZxT4mZNq6P0QHLv7CqAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6ZxT4mZNq6P0QHLv7CqAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6ZxT4mZNq6P0QHLv7CqAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htmhttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htmhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://books.google.com/books?id=hi1fiqZE_zsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=10+Books+Every+Conservative+Must+Read&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nLRxT5WTKujq0gG5v6nUAQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=10%20Books%20Every%20Conservative%20Must%20Read&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=hi1fiqZE_zsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=10+Books+Every+Conservative+Must+Read&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nLRxT5WTKujq0gG5v6nUAQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=10%20Books%20Every%20Conservative%20Must%20Read&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=moral+darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0KVxT5jZFrCn0AHkhs2cAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=moral%20darwinism&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=moral+darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0KVxT5jZFrCn0AHkhs2cAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=moral%20darwinism&f=falsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=infYNWcZkLkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=infYNWcZkLkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vis_F2rH6VE&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vis_F2rH6VE&feature=relatedhttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books?id=rnnpvJplfL8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Intelligent+Thought&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3yhxT7aoJaHe0gH02J3JAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Intelligent%20Thought&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=rnnpvJplfL8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Intelligent+Thought&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3yhxT7aoJaHe0gH02J3JAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Intelligent%20Thought&f=false


3/38

Photo - Mary Midgley

Of special interest to us here is the science of

cosmology. Scientific theories of cosmology, bynecessity, go far beyond all known scientific dataor facts, because cosmological theories demandsome sort of unifying conceptualization in order tohelp us understand the world (Greek: cosmos;Latin: universus) as a unified whole. Theories ofcosmology, because they attempt to deal with theworld as a unified whole, must go beyond thephysical sciences and into the realm ofmetaphysics (from the Greek: meta, meaning:beyond, beside, or after; and phusis, meaning:

physical) which (traditionally) belongs to theologyand philosophy. As philosopher and ethicist MaryMidgely explains:

Without this unifying urge, science would be nothing but mindless, meaninglesscollecting [of facts]this is why the sciences continually go beyond everybodys directexperience, and does so in directions that quickly diverge from that of commonsense. . . inevitably in the end they require metaphysics, the attempt to see the worldas a whole, to harmonize [the facts]these intellectual constructions present problemsof belief which are often quite as difficult as those of religion, and which can call forequally strenuous efforts of faith. This happens at present over relativity, over the sizeand expansion of the universe, over quantum mechanics, over evolution and manyother matters. [6] (Mary Midgely, Evolution as a Religion, (London: Routledge, 1985,2002) p. 120)

This is why so many people have chosen to believe in science instead of religion:modern science presents what appears (to these people) to be a better explanation ofthe universe than does religion. The modern scientific explanation is seen as havingbeen proven factually true, whereas the religious explanation has not. In fact, manypeople see modern science as having proven the religious explanation of the universefactually false. (The World Perceived, page 8)

Mary Midgely has given us an apt description of the modern scientific theory ofevolution: The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science. It is,and cannot help being, also a powerful folk-tale about human origins. [64] From thisperspective, the evolution versus creation controversy is a controversy over whichstory of human origins [Genesis or Evolution) makes more sense to us, not whichaccount of origins is scientifically correct. But let's think about it. Does it make moresense for us to believe that quarks, given enough time, can eventually develop into the

http://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6xxT-H4I-T30gH664WxAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6xxT-H4I-T30gH664WxAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6xxT-H4I-T30gH664WxAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=x49J030JG2sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Evolution+as+a+Religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-KxxT7rkMYre0QHRh4HYAQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Evolution%20as%20a%20Religion&f=falsehttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mary_midgley.jpghttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6xxT-H4I-T30gH664WxAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6xxT-H4I-T30gH664WxAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=x49J030JG2sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Evolution+as+a+Religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-KxxT7rkMYre0QHRh4HYAQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Evolution%20as%20a%20Religion&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=x49J030JG2sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Evolution+as+a+Religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-KxxT7rkMYre0QHRh4HYAQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Evolution%20as%20a%20Religion&f=falsehttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mary_midgley.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mary_midgley.jpg


4/38

human body, mind, will, and emotions? Or does it make more sense for us to believethat: "When God created man he made them in the likeness of God" (Genesis. 5:1-2)?The question we seem to be faced with is: Which story will we choose as a conceptualscheme for making sense of the living world? [64] (Mary Midgely, Evolution as aReligion, (London: Routledge, 1985, 2002) p. 1)

Photo - A J MacDonald, Jr

But to think that science can discover the causes behindall natural phenomena and to think that science canidentify these causes as the workings of nature alone isthe opposite of humility: it is hubris. Philosophicalnaturalism is an important component of the metaphysicalbelief-system known as atomism, which we examinedabove, and was this philosophy which led so many peopleto believe that our world was not unique, because therewere many inhabited worlds. And it is this way of thinking

which has led so many people to conclude (logically) that both our world andhumankind are of little-to-no significance. Very simply, evolution is: atomistic philosophyapplied to biology. Darwins success was due to the fact that, because of his naturalisticand materialistic theory for the development of life, the entire cosmos was nowexplicable by recourse to the atomistic philosophy. Benjamin Wicker explains theatomistic nature of Darwinian evolutionary theory:

Matter is the only reality; and by its random motion and cohesion, it creates theappearance of form (i.e., species). The complex unity, then, is the accidental result ofthe random variations of simple material constituents. The origin of species, therefore,is the random mutation of matter on the atomic level. [69] (Benjamin Wicker, MoralDarwinism, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002) p. 217)

Lest anyone think this is not precisely what the Darwinists believe, and what they wouldhave us to believe as well, consider the following statement, made by Seth Lloyd,published (recently) in a book purporting to defend the truths of Darwinian evolutionagainst the errors of the (upstart) Intelligent Design Movement:

Atoms collide in every possible way until they form a wide variety of molecules, eachselected for by the local concentration of atoms together with the laws of chemistry.Molecules, in turn, explore ever more complicated chemical reactions until they form amolecule capable of catalyzing its own production together with variation in its form:Such a form of proto-life is selected for merely by its ability to reproduce and adapt todifferent environmental conditions. Because of its ability to adapt to new surroundings,

http://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Moral+Darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qChxT-aYFKjL0QG0t9jkAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Moral%20Darwinism&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Moral+Darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qChxT-aYFKjL0QG0t9jkAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Moral%20Darwinism&f=falsehttp://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/about/http://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Moral+Darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qChxT-aYFKjL0QG0t9jkAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Moral%20Darwinism&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Moral+Darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qChxT-aYFKjL0QG0t9jkAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Moral%20Darwinism&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Moral+Darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qChxT-aYFKjL0QG0t9jkAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Moral%20Darwinism&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Moral+Darwinism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qChxT-aYFKjL0QG0t9jkAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Moral%20Darwinism&f=falsehttp://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/about/http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/about/http://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sChttp://books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_as_a_religion.html?id=x49J030JG2sC


5/38

life explores a vast space of possible beings, until it arrives first at sexual reproductionand then at language. [70] (Seth Lloyd in, Intelligent Thought, (2006) page 189)

Photo - Seth Lloyd

This is what the evolutionists would have us to believe:that atoms colliding randomly in the void given chemicallaw and enough time eventually become human beings,capable of communication through the use of language. If itwerent for the fact that some peoples belief in evolution soseriously distorts their perception of the world, this sort oftalk of atoms developing into people would belaughable. But its no laughing matter when peoplesperceptions of the world become distorted by imaginative, abstract, intellectual-playtheories about the world. People both consciously and unconsciously allow modernscience to define reality abstractly, by dismissing and replacing the concrete reality oftheir lived-experience ofthe world with the imaginative, abstract, intellectual-play(scientific) theories about the world. It is, however, the consciously perceivedexperience of living our lives in-the-world that is reality to us in the truest sense of theword. Because the world we experience is the only world of which we can ever beconsciously aware. (See:A. J. MacDonald, Jr., The World Perceived (2009) page 92;97-98)

See: What is Darwinism? (1874) by Charles Hodge

See: Darwin retried: an appeal to reason (1973) Norman MacBeth

See: Darwin on Trial (1991,1993, 2010) Philip Johnson

Photo - Andrew Dickson White

Extensive quote taken from: The Warfare Of Science With

Theology (1894) byAndrew White, Chapter One: FromCreation to Evolution

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.htmlhttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/andrew_dickson_white_1885.jpghttp://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1http://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1%23hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Phillip+E.+Johnson%22&sa=X&ei=TOpxT4DHFcPu0gH8zsmbAQ&ved=0CEEQ9Ag&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c62e6eb3b7dc4e9a&biw=1198&bih=674http://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1http://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1%23hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Phillip+E.+Johnson%22&sa=X&ei=TOpxT4DHFcPu0gH8zsmbAQ&ved=0CEEQ9Ag&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c62e6eb3b7dc4e9a&biw=1198&bih=674http://books.google.com/books?id=hNkWAQAAMAAJ&q=darwin+retried&dq=darwin+retried&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_uhxT7HQCOu50AHx-bnVAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAAhttp://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Norman+Macbeth%22http://books.google.com/books?id=hNkWAQAAMAAJ&q=darwin+retried&dq=darwin+retried&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_uhxT7HQCOu50AHx-bnVAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAAhttp://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Norman+Macbeth%22http://livepage.apple.com/http://books.google.com/books?id=0TEkThdhYcIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+hodge+systematic+theology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MixxT7GlPMrw0gG7htXeAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=charles%20hodge%20systematic%20theology&f=falsehttp://livepage.apple.com/http://books.google.com/books?id=0TEkThdhYcIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+hodge+systematic+theology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MixxT7GlPMrw0gG7htXeAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=charles%20hodge%20systematic%20theology&f=falsehttp://livepage.apple.com/http://books.google.com/books?id=0TEkThdhYcIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+hodge+systematic+theology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MixxT7GlPMrw0gG7htXeAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=charles%20hodge%20systematic%20theology&f=falsehttp://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1%23hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Phillip+E.+Johnson%22&sa=X&ei=TOpxT4DHFcPu0gH8zsmbAQ&ved=0CEEQ9Ag&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c62e6eb3b7dc4e9a&biw=1198&bih=674http://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bilxT6r5CcLc0QGL76zUAQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter1.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter1.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter1.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter1.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.htmlhttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/andrew_dickson_white_1885.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/andrew_dickson_white_1885.jpghttp://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1%23hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Phillip+E.+Johnson%22&sa=X&ei=TOpxT4DHFcPu0gH8zsmbAQ&ved=0CEEQ9Ag&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c62e6eb3b7dc4e9a&biw=1198&bih=674http://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1%23hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Phillip+E.+Johnson%22&sa=X&ei=TOpxT4DHFcPu0gH8zsmbAQ&ved=0CEEQ9Ag&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c62e6eb3b7dc4e9a&biw=1198&bih=674http://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1http://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Norman+Macbeth%22http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Norman+Macbeth%22http://books.google.com/books?id=hNkWAQAAMAAJ&q=darwin+retried&dq=darwin+retried&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_uhxT7HQCOu50AHx-bnVAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAAhttp://books.google.com/books?id=hNkWAQAAMAAJ&q=darwin+retried&dq=darwin+retried&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_uhxT7HQCOu50AHx-bnVAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAAhttp://books.google.com/books?id=0TEkThdhYcIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+hodge+systematic+theology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MixxT7GlPMrw0gG7htXeAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=charles%20hodge%20systematic%20theology&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=0TEkThdhYcIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+hodge+systematic+theology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MixxT7GlPMrw0gG7htXeAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=charles%20hodge%20systematic%20theology&f=falsehttp://livepage.apple.com/http://livepage.apple.com/http://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bilxT6r5CcLc0QGL76zUAQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=1fz05ui2kpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+j+macdonald+jr&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bilxT6r5CcLc0QGL76zUAQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=a%20j%20macdonald%20jr&f=falsehttp://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1%23hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Phillip+E.+Johnson%22&sa=X&ei=TOpxT4DHFcPu0gH8zsmbAQ&ved=0CEEQ9Ag&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c62e6eb3b7dc4e9a&biw=1198&bih=674http://www.google.com/search?q=Darwin+on+Trial&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1%23hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Phillip+E.+Johnson%22&sa=X&ei=TOpxT4DHFcPu0gH8zsmbAQ&ved=0CEEQ9Ag&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c62e6eb3b7dc4e9a&biw=1198&bih=674http://meche.mit.edu/people/faculty/?id=55http://meche.mit.edu/people/faculty/?id=55http://books.google.com/books?id=rnnpvJplfL8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Intelligent+Thought&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3yhxT7aoJaHe0gH02J3JAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Intelligent%20Thought&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=rnnpvJplfL8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Intelligent+Thought&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3yhxT7aoJaHe0gH02J3JAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA%23v=onepage&q=Intelligent%20Thought&f=false


6/38

Photo - Charles Darwin

In the following year, 1859, came the first

instalment of his work in its fullerdevelopmenthis book on The Origin ofSpecies. In this book one at least of the mainsecrets at the heart of the evolutionaryprocess, which had baffled the long line ofinvestigators and philosophers from the daysof Aristotle, was more broadly revealed. Theeffective mechanism of evolution was shown at work in three ascertained facts: in thestruggle for existence among organized beings; in the survival of the fittest; and inheredity. These facts were presented with such minute research, wide observation,patient collation, transparent honesty, and judicial fairness, that they at once

commanded the worlds attention. It was the outcome of thirty years work and thoughtby a worker and thinker of genius, but it was yet more than thatit was the outcome,also, of the work and thought of another man of genius fifty years before. The book ofMalthus on the Principle of Population, mainly founded on the fact that animals increasein a geometrical ratio, and therefore, if unchecked, must encumber the earth, had beengenerally forgotten, and was only recalled with a sneer. But the genius of Darwinrecognised in it a deeper meaning, and now the thought of Malthus was joined to thenew current. Meditating upon it in connection with his own observations of theluxuriance of Nature, Darwin had arrived at his doctrine of natural selection and survivalof the fittest

DARWINS Origin of Species had come into the theological world like a plough into anant-hill. Everywhere those thus rudely awakened from their old comfort and repose hadswarmed forth angry and confused. Reviews, sermons, books light and heavy, cameflying at the new thinker from all sides.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=311&Itemid=27http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=311&Itemid=27http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/charles-darwin2.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/charles-darwin2.jpg


7/38

Illustration - Bishop Wilberforce

The keynote was struck at once in the Quarterly

Review by Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford. Hedeclared that Darwin was guilty of a tendency tolimit Gods glory in creation; that the principle ofnatural selection is absolutely incompatible with theword of God; that it contradicts the revealedrelations of creation to its Creator; that it is

inconsistent with the fulness of his glory; that it isa dishonouring view of Nature; and that there isa simpler explanation of the presence of thesestrange forms among the works of God: thatexplanation beingthe fall of Adam. Nor did the

bishops efforts end here; at the meeting of theBritish Association for the Advancement of Sciencehe again disported himself in the tide of popularapplause. Referring to the ideas of Darwin, whowas absent on account of illness, he congratulatedhimself in a public speech that he was not

descended from a monkey. The reply came from Huxley, who said in substance: If Ihad to choose, I would prefer to be a descendant of a humble monkey rather than of aman who employs his knowledge and eloquence in misrepresenting those who arewearing out their lives in the search for truth.

This shot reverberated through England, and indeed through other countries.

The utterances of this the most brilliant prelate of the Anglican Church received a sortof antiphonal response from the leaders of the English Catholics. In an address beforethe Academia, which had been organized to combat science falsely so called,Cardinal Manning declared his abhorrence of the new view of Nature, and described itas a brutal philosophyto wit, there is no God, and the ape is our Adam.

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bishop_wilberforce_medium.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bishop_wilberforce_medium.jpg


8/38

Photo - Thomas Huxley

These attacks from such eminent sources set the clerical

fashion for several years. One distinguished clerical reviewer,in spite of Darwins thirty years of quiet labour, and in spite ofthe powerful summing up of his book, prefaced a diatribe bysaying that Darwin might have been more modest had hegiven some slight reason for dissenting from the viewsgenerally entertained. Another distinguished clergyman,

vice-president of a Protestant institute to combat dangerousscience, declared Darwinism an attempt to dethrone God. Another critic spoke ofpersons accepting the Darwinian views as under the frenzied inspiration of the inhalerof mephitic gas, and of Darwins argument as a jungle of fanciful assumption.

Another spoke of Darwins views as suggesting that God is dead, and declared that

Darwins work does open violence to everything which the Creator himself has told usin the Scriptures of the methods and results of his work. Still another theologicalauthority asserted: If the Darwinian theory is true, Genesis is a lie, the wholeframework of the book of life falls to pieces, and the revelation of God to man, as weChristians know it, is a delusion and a snare. Another, who had shown excellentqualities as an observing naturalist, declared the Darwinian view a huge imposturefrom the beginning.

Echoes came from America. One review, the organ of the most widespread ofAmerican religious sects, declared that Darwin was attempting to befog and to pettifogthe whole question; another denounced Darwins views as infidelity; another,representing the American branch of the Anglican Church, poured contempt overDarwin as sophistical and illogical, and then plunged into an exceedingly dangerousline of argument in the following words: If this hypothesis be true, then is the Bible anunbearable fiction; then have Christians for nearly two thousand years been duped bya monstrous lie. Darwin requires us to disbelieve the authoritative word of theCreator A leading journal representing the same church took pains to show theevolution theory to be as contrary to the explicit declarations of the New Testament asto those of the Old, and said: If we have all, men and monkeys, oysters and eagles,developed from an original germ, then is St. Pauls grand deliverance`All flesh is notthe same flesh; there is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes,

and another of birdsuntrue.

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/517px-thomas_henry_huxley.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/517px-thomas_henry_huxley.jpg


9/38

Photo - Dr. Perry

Another echo came from Australia, where Dr. Perry, Lord Bishop of

Melbourne, in a most bitter book on Science and the Bible, declaredthat the obvious object of Chambers, Darwin, and Huxley is toproduce in their readers a disbelief of the Bible.

Nor was the older branch of the Church to be left behind in thischorus. Bayma, in the Catholic World, declared, Mr. Darwin is, wehave reason to believe, the mouthpiece or chief trumpeter of that infidel clique whosewell-known object is to do away with all idea of a God.

Worthy of especial note as showing the determination of the theological side at that

period was the foundation of sacro-scientific organizations to combat the new ideas.First to be noted is the Academia, planned by Cardinal Wiseman. In a circular letterthe cardinal, usually so moderate and just, sounded an alarm and summed up bysaying, Now it is for the Church, which alone possesses divine certainty and divinediscernment, to place itself at once in the front of a movement which threatens eventhe fragmentary remains of Christian belief in England. The necessary permission wasobtained from Rome, the Academia was founded, and the divine discernment of theChurch was seen in the utterances which came from it, such as those of CardinalManning, which every thoughtful Catholic would now desire to recall, and in thediatribes of Dr. Laing, which only aroused laughter on all sides. A similar effort was seenin Protestant quarters; the Victoria institute was created, and perhaps the most noted

utterance which ever came from it was the declaration of its vice-president, the Rev.

Walter Mitchell, that Darwinism endeavours to dethrone God. [73]

In France the attack was even more violent. Fabre dEnvieubrought out the heavy artillery of theology, and in a long seriesof elaborate propositions demonstrated that any other doctrinethan that of the fixity and persistence of species is absolutelycontrary to Scripture. The Abbe Desorges, a former Professor ofTheology, stigmatized Darwin as a pedant, and evolution as

gloomy. Monseigneur Segur, referring to Darwin and hisfollowers, went into hysterics and shrieked: These infamousdoctrines have for their only support the most abject passions.Their father is pride, their mother impurity, their offspringrevolutions. They come from hell and return thither, taking with

them the gross creatures who blush not to proclaim and accept them.

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/170px-editorial_cartoon_depicting_charles_darwin_as_an_ape_18713.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/170px-editorial_cartoon_depicting_charles_darwin_as_an_ape_18713.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/perry.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/perry.jpg


10/38

In Germany the attack, if less declamatory, was no less severe. Catholic theologiansvied with Protestants in bitterness. Prof. Michelis declared Darwins theory a caricatureof creation. Dr. Hagermann asserted that it turned the Creator out of doors. Dr.Schund insisted that every idea of the Holy Scriptures, from the first to the last page,stands in diametrical opposition to the Darwinian theory; and, if Darwin be right in his

view of the development of man out of a brutal condition, then the Bible teaching inregard to man is utterly annihilated. Rougemont in Switzerland called for a crusadeagainst the obnoxious doctrine. Luthardt, Professor of Theology at Leipsic, declared:

The idea of creation belongs to religion and not to natural science; the wholesuperstructure of personal religion is built upon the doctrine of creation; and heshowed the evolution theory to be in direct contradiction to Holy Writ.

Photo - Sir Charles Lyell

But in 1863 came an event which brought seriousconfusion to the theological camp: Sir Charles Lyell, themost eminent of living geologists, a man of deeplyChristian feeling and of exceedingly cautious temper, whohad opposed the evolution theory of Lamarck and declaredhis adherence to the idea of successive creations, thenpublished his work on theAntiquity of Man, and in this andother utterances showed himself a complete thoughunwilling convert to the fundamental ideas of Darwin. The blow was serious in manyways, and especially so in twofirst, as withdrawing all foundation in fact from thescriptural chronology, and secondly, as discrediting the creation theory. The blow wasnot unexpected; in various review articles against the Darwinian theory there had beenappeals to Lyell, at times almost piteous, not to flinch from the truths he had formerlyproclaimed. But Lyell, like the honest man he was, yielded unreservedly to the mass ofnew proofs arrayed on the side of evolution against that of creation.

At the same time came Huxleys Mans Place in Nature, giving new and most cogentarguments in favour of evolution by natural selection.

In 1871 was published Darwins Descent of Man. Its doctrine had been anticipated bycritics of his previous books, but it made, none the less, a great stir; again the opposing

army trooped forth, though evidently with much less heart than before. A few were veryviolent. The Dublin University Magazine, after the traditional Hibernian fashion, chargedMr. Darwin with seeking to displace God by the unerring action of vagary, and withbeing resolved to hunt God out of the world. But most notable from the side of theolder Church was the elaborate answer to Darwins book by the eminent French Catholicphysician, Dr. Constantin James. In his work, On Darwinism, or the Man-Ape, publishedat Paris in 1877, Dr. James not only refuted Darwin scientifically but poured contempton his book, calling it a fairy tale, and insisted that a work so fantastic and so

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6335http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sir-charles-lyell.jpghttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2931http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2931http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6335http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6335http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sir-charles-lyell.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sir-charles-lyell.jpg


11/38

burlesque was, doubtless, only a huge joke, like Erasmuss Praise of Folly, orMontesquieus Persian Letters. The princes of the Church were delighted.

Photo - Pius IX

The Cardinal Archbishop of Paris assured the author that thebook had become his spiritual reading, and begged him tosend a copy to the Pope himself. His Holiness, Pope Pius IX,acknowledged the gift in a remarkable letter. He thanked hisdear son, the writer, for the book in which he refutes so wellthe aberrations of Darwinism. A system, His Holiness adds,

which is repugnant at once to history, to the tradition of allpeoples, to exact science, to observed facts, and even to

Reason herself, would seem to need no refutation, did not alienation from God and theleaning toward materialism, due to depravity, eagerly seek a support in all this tissue offables. And, in fact, pride, after rejecting the Creator of all things and proclaimingman independent, wishing him to be his own king, his own priest, and his own Godpride goes so far as to degrade man himself to the level of the unreasoning brutes,perhaps even of lifeless matter, thus unconsciously confirming the Divine declaration,When pride cometh, then cometh shame. But the corruption of this age, themachinations of the perverse, the danger of the simple, demand that such fancies,altogether absurd though they are, shouldsince they borrow the mask of scienceberefuted by true science. Wherefore the Pope thanked Dr. James for his book, soopportune and so perfectly appropriate to the exigencies of our time, and bestowed onhim the apostolic benediction. Nor was this brief all. With it there came a second,creating the author an officer of the Papal Order of St. Sylvester. The cardinalarchbishop assured the delighted physician that such a double honour of brief andbrevet was perhaps unprecedented, and suggested only that in a new edition of hisbook he should insist a little more on the relation existing between the narratives ofGenesis and the discoveries of modern science, in such fashion as to convince the mostincredulous of their perfect agreement. The prelate urged also a more dignified title.The proofs of this new edition were accordingly all submitted to His Eminence, and in1882 it appeared as Moses and Darwin: the Man of Genesis compared with the Man-

Ape, or Religious Education opposed to Atheistic. No wonder the cardinal embraced theauthor, thanking him in the name of science and religion. We have at last, he

declared, a handbook which we can safely put into the hands of youth.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htmhttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htmhttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htmhttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pius-ix-sm.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pius-ix-sm.jpghttp://web.wm.edu/history/rbsche/plp/?svr=wwwhttp://web.wm.edu/history/rbsche/plp/?svr=wwwhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1509erasmus-folly.asphttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1509erasmus-folly.asp


12/38

Image - Gladstone

Scarcely less vigorous were the champions of English

Protestant orthodoxy. In an address at Liverpool, Mr.Gladstone remarked: Upon the grounds of what is termedevolution God is relieved of the labour of creation; in thename of unchangeable laws he is discharged from governingthe world; and, when Herbert Spencer called his attention tothe fact that Newton with the doctrine of gravitation and withthe science of physical astronomy is open to the same charge,Mr. Gladstone retreated in the Contemporary Review under one of his characteristicclouds of words. The Rev. Dr. Coles, in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review,declared that the God of evolution is not the Christians God. Burgon, Dean ofChichester, in a sermon preached before the University of Oxford, pathetically warned

the students that those who refuse to accept the history of the creation of our firstparents according to its obvious literal intention, and are for substituting the moderndream of evolution in its place, cause the entire scheme of mans salvation to collapse.Dr. Pusey also came into the fray with most earnest appeals against the new doctrine,and the Rev. Gavin Carlyle was perfervid on the same side. The Society for PromotingChristian Knowledge published a book by the Rev. Mr. Birks, in which the evolutiondoctrine was declared to be flatly opposed to the fundamental doctrine of creation.Even the London Times admitted a review stigmatizing Darwins Descent of Man as an

utterly unsupported hypothesis, full of unsubstantiated premises, cursoryinvestigations, and disintegrating speculations, and Darwin himself as reckless andunscientific. [77]

But it was noted that this second series of attacks, onthe Descent of Man, differed in one remarkable respectso far as England was concernedfrom those which hadbeen made over ten years before on the Origin ofSpecies. While everything was done to discredit Darwin,to pour contempt upon him, and even, of all things in theworld, to make himthe gentlest of mankind, onlyoccupied with the scientific side of the problema

persecutor of Christianity, while his followers wererepresented more and more as charlatans or dupes,there began to be in the most influential quarters careful

avoidance of the old argument that evolutioneven by natural selectioncontradictsScripture. It began to be felt that this was dangerous ground. The defection of Lyellhad, perhaps, more than anything else, started the question among theologians whohad preserved some equanimity, What if, after all, the Darwinian theory should proveto be true? Recollections of the position in which the Roman Church found itself after

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/darwin.jpghttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/gladstone.jpghttp://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/darwin.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/darwin.jpghttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/gladstone.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/gladstone.jpg


13/38

the establishment of the doctrines of Copernicus and Galileo naturally came into theminds of the more thoughtful. In Germany this consideration does not seem to haveoccurred at quite so early a day. One eminent Lutheran clergyman at Magdeburg calledon his hearers to choose between Darwin and religion; Delitszch, in his newcommentary on Genesis, attempted to bring science back to recognise human sin as an

important factor in creation; Prof. Heinrich Ewald, while carefully avoiding any sharpconflict between the scriptural doctrine and evolution, comforted himself by coveringDarwin and his followers with contempt; Christlieb, in his address before the Evangelical

Alliance at New York in 1873, simply took the view that the tendencies of the Darwiniantheory were toward infidelity, but declined to make any serious battle on biblicalgrounds; the Jesuit, Father Pesch, in Holland, drew up in Latin, after the old scholasticmanner, a sort of general indictment of evolution, of which one may say that it wasinterestingas interesting as the display of a troop in chain armour and with cross-bowson a nineteenth-century battlefield.

Illustration - La Virgen de Guadalupe Madre delas Amricas

From America there came new echoes. Amongthe myriad attacks on the Darwinian theory byProtestants and Catholics two should beespecially mentioned. The first of these was byDr. Noah Porter, President of Yale College, anexcellent scholar, an interesting writer, a nobleman, broadly tolerant, combining in his thinkinga curious mixture of radicalism and conservatism.While giving great latitude to the evolutionaryteaching in the university under his care, he feltit his duty upon one occasion to avow hisdisbelief in it; but he was too wise a man tosuggest any necessary antagonism between itand the Scriptures. He confined himself mainly topointing out the tendency of the evolutiondoctrine in this form toward agnosticism andpantheism. To those who knew and loved him,

and had noted the genial way in which by wise neglect he had allowed scientific studiesto flourish at Yale, there was an amusing side to all this. Within a stones throw of hiscollege rooms was the Museum of Paleontology, in which Prof. Marsh had laid side byside, among other evidences of the new truth, that wonderful series of specimensshowing the evolution of the horse from the earliest form of the animal, not largerthan a fox, with five toes, through the whole series up to his present form and sizethat series which Huxley declared an absolute proof of the existence of natural selectionas an agent in evolution. In spite of the veneration and love which all Yale men felt for

http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/protectress-of-the-unborn-la-virgen-de-guadalupe/http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/protectress-of-the-unborn-la-virgen-de-guadalupe/http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/protectress-of-the-unborn-la-virgen-de-guadalupe/


14/38

President Porter, it was hardly to be expected that these particular arguments of hiswould have much permanent effect upon them when there was constantly before theireyes so convincing a refutation.

Photo - Dr Hodge

But a far more determined opponent was the Rev. Dr.Hodge, of Princeton (see: Hodge What is Darwinism?(1874); his anger toward the evolution doctrine was bitter:he denounced it as thoroughly atheistic; he insisted thatChristians have a right to protest against the arraying ofprobabilities against the clear evidence of the Scriptures; heeven censured so orthodox a writer as the Duke of Argyll,

and declared that the Darwinian theory of natural selection isutterly inconsistent with the Scriptures, and that an absent God, who does nothing, isto us no God; that to ignore design as manifested in Gods creation is to dethroneGod; that a denial of design in Nature is virtually a denial of God; and that noteleologist can be a Darwinian. Even more uncompromising was another of the leadingauthorities at the same universitythe Rev. Dr. Duffield. He declared war not onlyagainst Darwin but even against men like Asa Gray, Le Conte, and others, who hadattempted to reconcile the new theory with the Bible: he insisted that evolutionism andthe scriptural account of the origin of man are irreconcilablethat the Darwinian theoryis in direct conflict with the teaching of the apostle, `All scripture is given by inspirationof God; he pointed out, in his opposition to Darwins Descent of Man and Lyells

Antiquity of Man, that in the Bible the genealogical links which connect the Israelites inEgypt with Adam and Eve in Eden are explicitly given. These utterances of Prof.Duffield culminated in a declaration which deserves to be cited as showing that aPresbyterian minister can deal damnation round the land ex cathedra in a fashionquite equal to that of popes and bishops. It is as follows: If the development theory ofthe origin of man, wrote Dr. Duffield in the Princeton Review, shall in a little while takeits placeas doubtless it willwith other exploded scientific speculations, then they whoaccept it with its proper logical consequences will in the life to come have their portionwith those who in this life `know not God and obey not the gospel of his Son.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6335http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6335http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6335http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hodge4.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hodge4.jpg


15/38

Fortunately, at about the time when Darwins Descent of Man was published, there hadcome into Princeton University deus ex machina in the person of Dr. James McCosh.

Called to the presidency, he at once took his stand against teachings so dangerous toChristianity as those of Drs. Hodge, Duffield, and their associates. In one of his personalconfidences he has let us into the secret of this matter. With that hard Scotch sensewhich Thackeray had applauded in his well-known verses, he saw that the mostdangerous thing which could be done to Christianity at Princeton was to reiterate in theuniversity pulpit, week after week, solemn declarations that if evolution by naturalselection, or indeed evolution at all, be true, the Scriptures are false. He tells us that hesaw that this was the certain way to make the students unbelievers; he therefore notonly checked this dangerous preaching but preached an opposite doctrine. With himbegan the inevitable compromise, and, in spite of mutterings against him as a

Darwinian, he carried the day. Whatever may be thought of his general system ofphilosophy, no one can deny his great service in neutralizing the teachings of hispredecessors and colleaguesso dangerous to all that is essential in Christianity.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ascent_of_man_3.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ascent_of_man_3.jpg


16/38

Other divines of strong sense in otherparts of the country began to takesimilar groundnamely, that men couldbe Christians and at the same time

Darwinians. There appeared, indeed,here and there, curious discrepancies:thus in 1873 the Monthly ReligiousMagazine of Boston congratulated itsreaders that the Rev. Mr. Burr had

demolished the evolution theory,knocking the breath of life out of itand throwing it to the dogs. Thisamazing performance by the Rev. Mr.Burr was repeated in a very strikingway by Bishop Keener before the

OEcumenical Council of Methodism atWashington in 1891. In what thenewspapers described as an

admirable speech, he refutedevolution doctrines by saying thatevolutionists had only to make a

journey of twelve hours from the placewhere he was then standing to find together the bones of the muskrat, the opossum,the coprolite, and the ichthyosaurus. He asserted that Agassizwhom the good bishop,like so many others, seemed to think an evolutionistwhen he visited these beds nearCharleston, declared: These old beds have set me crazy; they have destroyed the work

of a lifetime. And the Methodist prelate ended by saying: Now, gentlemen, brethren,take these facts home with you; get down and look at them. This is the watch that wasunder the steam hammerthe doctrine of evolution; and this steam hammer is thewonderful deposit of the Ashley beds. Exhibitions like these availed little. While thegood bishop amid vociferous applause thus made comically evident his belief that

Agassiz was a Darwinian and a coprolite an animal, scientific men were recording in allparts of the world facts confirming the dreaded theory of an evolution by naturalselection. While the Rev. Mr. Burr was so loudly praised for throwing Darwinism to thedogs, Marsh was completing his series leading from the five-toed ungulates to thehorse. While Dr. Tayler Lewis at Union, and Drs. Hodge and Duffield at Princeton, wereshowing that if evolution be true the biblical accounts must be false, the indefatigable

Yale professor was showing his cretaceous birds, and among them Hesperornis andIchthyornis with teeth. While in Germany Luthardt, Schund, and their compeers weredemonstrating that Scripture requires a belief in special and separate creations, the

Archaepteryx, showing a most remarkable connection between birds and reptiles, wasdiscovered. While in France Monseigneur Segur and others were indulging in diatribesagainst a certain Darwin, Gaudry and Filhol were discovering a striking series of

missing links among the carnivora.

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/embryo1.gifhttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/embryo1.gif


17/38

In view of the proofs accumulating infavour of the new evolutionaryhypothesis, the change in the tone ofcontrolling theologians was now rapid.

From all sides came evidences of desireto compromise with the theory. Strictadherents of the biblical text pointedsignificantly to the verses in Genesis inwhich the earth and sea were made tobring forth birds and fishes, and manwas created out of the dust of theground. Men of larger mind like Kingsleyand Farrar, with English and Americanbroad churchmen generally, took grounddirectly in Darwins favour. Even Whewell

took pains to show that there might besuch a thing as a Darwinian argumentfor design in Nature; and the Rev.Samuel Houghton, of the Royal Society,gave interesting suggestions of a divinedesign in evolution.

Both the great English universities received the new teaching as a leaven: at Oxford, inthe very front of the High Church party at Keble College, was elaborated a statementthat the evolution doctrine is an advance in our theological thinking. And Temple,Bishop of London, perhaps the most influential thinker then in the Anglican episcopate,

accepted the new revelation in the following words: It seems something moremajestic, more befitting him to whom a thousand years are as one day, thus to impresshis will once for all on his creation, and provide for all the countless varieties by this oneoriginal impress, than by special acts of creation to be perpetually modifying what hehad previously made.

In Scotland the Duke of Argyll, head and front of the orthodox party, dissenting inmany respects from Darwins full conclusions, made concessions which badly shook theold position.

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/genesis-city-magical-creation.jpeghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/genesis-city-magical-creation.jpeg


18/38

Genesis - Eden

Curiously enough, from the

Roman Catholic Church,bitter as some of its writershad been, now cameargument to prove that theCatholic faith does notprevent any one fromholding the Darwiniantheory, and especially adeclaration from an authorityeminent among AmericanCatholicsa declaration which

has a very curious sound, but which it would be ungracious to find fault withthat thedoctrine of evolution is no more in opposition to the doctrine of the Catholic Churchthan is the Copernican theory or that of Galileo.

Here and there, indeed, men of science like Dawson, Mivart, and Wigand, in view oftheological considerations, sought to make conditions; but the current was too strong,and eminent theologians in every country accepted natural selection as at least a veryimportant part in the mechanism of evolution.

At the death of Darwin it was felt that there was but one place in England where his

body should be laid, and that this place was next the grave of Sir Isaac Newton inWestminster Abbey. The noble address of Canon Farrar at his funeral was echoed frommany pulpits in Europe and America, and theological opposition as such was ended.

Occasionally appeared, it is true, a survival of the old feeling: the Rev. Dr. Laingreferred to the burial of Darwin in Westminster Abbey as a proof that England is nolonger a Christian country, and added that this burial was a desecrationthat thishonour was given him because he had been the chief promoter of the mock doctrine ofevolution of the species and the ape descent of man.

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/eden.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/eden.jpg


19/38

Photo - Thomas Carlyle

Still another of these belated prophets was, of all men, Thomas

Carlyle. Soured and embittered, in the same spirit which led himto find more heroism in a marauding Viking or in one ofFrederick the Greats generals than in Washington, or Lincoln, orGrant, and which caused him to see in the American civil waronly the burning out of a foul chimney, he, with the petulancenatural to a dyspeptic eunuch, railed at Darwin as an apostle of

dirt worship.

The last echoes of these utterances reverberated between Scotland and America. Inthe former country, in 1885, the Rev. Dr. Lee issued a volume declaring that, if theDarwinian view be true, there is no place for God; that by no method ofinterpretation can the language of Holy Scripture be made wide enough to re-echo theorang-outang theory of mans natural history; that Darwinism reverses the revelationof God and implies utter blasphemy against the divine and human character of ourIncarnate Lord; and he was pleased to call Darwin and his followers gospellers of thegutter. In one of the intellectual centres of America the editor of a periodical called

_The Christian_ urged frantically that the battle be set in array, and that men find outwho is on the Lords side and who is on the side of the devil and the monkeys.

To the honour of the Church of England it should be recorded that a considerablenumber of her truest men opposed such utterances as these, and that one of them

Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminstermade a protest worthy to be held in perpetualremembrance. While confessing his own inability to accept fully the new scientific belief,he said: We should consider it disgraceful and humiliating to try to shake it by an adcaptandum argument, or by a clap-trap platform appeal to the unfathomable ignoranceand unlimited arrogance of a prejudiced assembly. We should blush to meet it with ananathema or a sneer.

All opposition had availed nothing; Darwins work and famewere secure. As men looked back over his beautiful lifesimple,honest, tolerant, kindlyand thought upon his great labours in

the search for truth, all the attacks faded into nothingness.

There were indeed some dark spots, which as time goes onappear darker. At Trinity College, Cambridge, Whewell, the

omniscient, author of the History of the Inductive Sciences,refused to allow a copy of the Origin of Species to be placed inthe library.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/180px-darwin_ape8.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/180px-darwin_ape8.jpghttp://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/180px-darwin_ape8.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/180px-darwin_ape8.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/240px-thomas_carlyle_lm.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/240px-thomas_carlyle_lm.jpg


20/38

At multitudes of institutions under theological controlProtestant as well as Catholicattempts were made to stamp out or to stifle evolutionary teaching. Especially was thistrue for a time in America, and the case of the American College at Beyrout, wherenearly all the younger professors were dismissed for adhering to Darwins views, isworthy of remembrance. The treatment of Dr. Winchell at the Vanderbilt University in

Tennessee showed the same spirit; one of the truest of men, devoted to science but ofdeeply Christian feeling, he was driven forth for views which centred in the Darwiniantheory.

Still more striking was the case of Dr. Woodrow. He had, about 1857, been appointedto a professorship of Natural Science as connected with Revealed Religion, in thePresbyterian Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina. He was a devoted Christian man,and his training had led him to accept the Presbyterian standards of faith. With greatgifts for scientific study he visited Europe, made a most conscientious examination ofthe main questions under discussion, and adopted the chief points in the doctrine ofevolution by natural selection. A struggle soon began. A movement hostile to him grew

more and more determined, and at last, in spite of the efforts made in his behalf by thedirectors of the seminary and by a large and broad-minded minority in therepresentative bodies controlling it, an orthodox storm, raised by the delegates fromvarious Presbyterian bodies, drove him from his post. Fortunately, he was received intoa professorship at the University of South Carolina, where he has since taught withmore power than ever before.

This testimony to the faith by Americanprovincial Protestantism was very properlyechoed from Spanish provincial Catholicism. Inthe year 1878 a Spanish colonial man of science,Dr. Chil y Marango, published a work on theCanary Islands. But Dr. Chil had the imprudenceto sketch, in his introduction, the modernhypothesis of evolution, and to exhibit someproofs, found in the Canary Islands, of thebarbarism of primitive man. The ecclesiasticalauthorities, under the lead of Bishop Urquinaonay Bidot, at once grappled with this new idea. Bya solemn act they declared it falsa, impia,

scandalosa; all persons possessing copies ofthe work were ordered to surrender them atonce to the proper ecclesiastics, and the authorwas placed under the major excommunication.

But all this opposition may be reckoned amongthe last expiring convulsions of the old theologictheory. Even from the new Catholic University at

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/defending_children2_s5.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/defending_children2_s5.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/defending_children2_s5.jpg


21/38


22/38

Photo - Bertrand Russell

That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the

end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopesand fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome ofaccidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, nointensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual lifebeyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all thedevotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human

genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solarsystem, and that the whole temple of Mans achievement must inevitably be buriedbeneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute,are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Onlywithin the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair,

can the souls habitation henceforth be safely built. ~ Bertrand Russells acceptance ofthe heat death (1903)

Saint Paul to the Church at Rome:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with theglory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for therevealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, butbecause of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from itsbondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For

we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirthuntil now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of theSpirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of ourbodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For whohopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it withpatience.

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/russell3.gifhttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/russell3.gif


23/38

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness.For we do not know what to pray for as weought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for uswith groanings too deep for words. And he

who searches hearts knows what is the mindof the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes forthe saints according to the will ofGod. Andwe know that for those who love God allthings work together for good for those whoare called according to his purpose. For thosewhom he foreknew he also predestined to beconformed to the image of his Son, in orderthat he might be the firstborn among manybrothers. And those whom he predestined healso called, and those whom he called he

also justified, and those whom he justified healso glorified ~ Saint Paul (Romans8:18-30).

Romans 8 USCCB Destiny of Glory:Consider that the sufferings of this presenttime are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. For creation awaitswith eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was madesubject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, inhope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in theglorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labor

pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits ofthe Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption ofour bodies. For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. Forwho hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait withendurance (see: here).

Catholic Encyclopedia Eschatology: The Consummation of All Things

There is mention also of the physical universe sharing in the general consummation (2Peter 3:13; Romans 8:19 sqq.; Revelation 21:1 sqq.). The present heaven and earth will

be destroyed, and a new heaven and earth take their place. But what, precisely, thisprocess will involve, or what purpose the renovated world will serve is not revealed. Itmay possibly be part of the glorious Kingdom of Christ of which there shall be no end.Christs militant reign is to cease with the accomplishment of His office as Judge (1Corinthians 15:24 sqq.), but as King of the elect whom He has saved He will reign withthem in glory forever.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co015.htm#vrs24http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/bible/2pe003.htm#vrs13http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom008.htm#vrs19http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev021.htm#vrs1http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htmhttp://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans8.htmhttp://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans8.htmhttp://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans8.htmhttp://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans8.htmhttp://esv.scripturetext.com/romans/8.htmhttp://esv.scripturetext.com/romans/8.htmhttp://esv.scripturetext.com/romans/8.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co015.htm#vrs24http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co015.htm#vrs24http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co015.htm#vrs24http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co015.htm#vrs24http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev021.htm#vrs1http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev021.htm#vrs1http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom008.htm#vrs19http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom008.htm#vrs19http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2pe003.htm#vrs13http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2pe003.htm#vrs13http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2pe003.htm#vrs13http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2pe003.htm#vrs13http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htmhttp://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans8.htmhttp://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans8.htmhttp://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans8.htmhttp://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans8.htmhttp://esv.scripturetext.com/romans/8.htmhttp://esv.scripturetext.com/romans/8.htmhttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/saint-paul.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/saint-paul.jpg


24/38

See: The Future Glory ()

http://richarddawins.net A Clear-Thinking Oasis of Reason and Science? Or AMuddle-Headed Sloughof Emotion and Science Denial?

The Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science An Clear-Thinking Oasis

Pope: Humanity isnt random product of evolution Comments (2011) (Seehere.)

Comment 1 by sbooder

If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of theuniverse, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature, hesaid. But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.

And the evidence for this creative, divine reason? Oh yes, none what so ever!

Monday, 25 April 2011 at 8:50 AM | #619179

http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://richarddawkins.net/profiles/9317http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/9317http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619179http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619179http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1http://richarddawkins.net/http://richarddawkins.net/http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/the-future-glory-%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%AF%E1%BE%B3/http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/the-future-glory-%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%AF%E1%BE%B3/http://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpghttp://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppn-peaceable-kingdom21.jpg


25/38

Comment 2 by HardNosedSkeptic

Someone needs to explain how evolution works to this chap. Who says its randomchance?


Comment 3 by liq

Everytime I hear someone say It cant have happend by chance I hear Prof. Dawkinsvoice in my head saying WELL OF COURSE IT CANT


Comment 4 by Chrisss212

How many times do people like Richard have to spell out ITS NOT RANDOM CHANCE!


Comment 5 by bujin

The pope isnt merely a random product of evolution. I think he dropped out of acamels arse.


Comment 6 by plasma-engineer

I wonder whether anyone has any evidence to suggest that we should expect anythingmore rational from Ratzinger. I dont think I have seen any yet!

I would like to issue a challenge to photographers too. Has anyone ever seen a photo ofhim were he does not look like the embodiment of all evil?


Comment 7 by Stafford Gordon

The headline should read Old Man in a Frock and Funny Hat Makes a Declaration on aSubject About Which he is Totally Ignorant.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619186http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/5456http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619186http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619185http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/90301http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619184http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/360http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619183http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/98559http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619182http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/170587http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619182http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/170587http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619180http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/90110http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619180http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/90110http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/5456http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/5456http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619186http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619186http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/90301http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/90301http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619185http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619185http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/360http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/360http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619184http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619184http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/98559http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/98559http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619183http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619183http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/170587http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/170587http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619182http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619182http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/90110http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/90110http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619180http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619180


26/38


Comment 8 by Pete.K

Oh come on now, he has to spout this clap trap in order to keep himself in the luxury towhich he has become accustomed, if he couldnt sell the god idea he would have towork for a living like the rest of us mere mortals.

Attack being the best form of defence we are now seeing an increase in attacks on thesecular movement, they just dont want to let go of the privileged position they hold insome governments, unelected positions I might add. I dont ever recall voting for anyone of the 26 bishops in the House of Lords. (But neither did I vote for the othertossers!).


Comment 9 by Monkey Man

Someone needs to photoshop a picture of The Pope vs. The Wicker Man


Comment 10 by Jos Gibbons

First the original article:

Humanity isnt random product of evolution

Indeed, its an unintentional but non-random product of evolution, like all species. (Donot conflate intention with non-randomness.)

Benedict emphasized the Biblical account of creation

The Vatican has already conceded at least bits and pieces of evolution are right, and

certainly enough of them to mean there never was a Garden of Eden or an Adam, Eveor talking snake. Do not emphasize a wrong Biblical account.

If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of theuniverse, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619191http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/77231http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619188http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/100120http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619187http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/83164http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619187http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/83164http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619187http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/83164http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/77231http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/77231http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619191http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619191http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt145/enredadosaweb/TheWickerMan.jpghttp://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt145/enredadosaweb/TheWickerMan.jpghttp://richarddawkins.net/profiles/100120http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/100120http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619188http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619188http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/83164http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/83164http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619187http://richarddawkins.net/articles/619172-pope-humanity-isn-t-random-product-of-evolution/comments?page=1#comment_619187


27/38

Ive already dispensed with the random thing. Our ability to reaso

creation, evolution, teleology and the myths we live by

Documents