Yes; but this isn't Creationism.Mrs. Maggott said:It is not true that creationism is peculiar to America or Americans. When Darwin's theory was first voiced, it was English churchmen who spoke out strongly against it. Americans at the time may have as well, but I would say that the vast majority of those holding Christian views in Darwin's time took issue with his statement regarding the implications of his theory on the origin of the species known as man.
Yes; but this isn't Evolution .It would be false to conclude that only Americans - and Americans of a particular Christian denomination - had a problem with Darwin's implications. Indeed some of the best refutations of the belief that creation - including life - arose "spontaneously" are Roman Catholics and the group involved distributed a tape on the issue many years ago which was excellent.
Apparently, you're right .But I believe that we are mixing oranges and apples in this discussion - and getting confused thereby.
No, no, no. Sorry about that. But no. Darwinism is not involved at all with the origin of the universe (!?).There are a great many aspects of this discussion that are getting mixed together like a salad. First and foremost is the aspect of the origin not only of life but of the universe itself. Darwinism is inextricably involved in that although Darwin might not have theorized on the matter specifically.
I'm trying to separate what is getting mixed together like a salad, but you insist on mixing them, Mrs. Maggott.
True again. But that's not a problem of Darwinism, it is a problem of the humanists at the time.The mere fact that his "theory" implies a "natural" progression rather than a "created" one, affects the matter of the origination of all things. Furthermore, at the time Darwin advanced his theory, the humanists at the time adopted it as a refutation of the existence of God and not just the Genesis account of creation.
What you call "great doubt" is no doubt at all, Mrs. Maggott. None! It is as certain as the round earth.Secondly, is the matter of how things progressed once they existed and this is more to the point of Darwin's theories. No matter what anyone says, strict Darwinism is not accepted by most scientists. They do not doubt that species "evolved", but there is great doubt that one species "evolved" into another over the passage of time.
But missing links are abundant; and the "sudden arising" is in accordance with modern Darwinism, which is, like it or not, "Darwinism with a little tinkering" -- not something very different from the original theory.The absence of so-called "missing links" in the evolutionary chain and the apparent "sudden arising" of various life forms has made formal Darwinism obsolete.
I don't doubt it. And I've read two biographies of him . The modern theory keeps the two most important notions in Darwinism (according to Darwin) -- the fact that organisms change (i.e. Evolution proper) and the central role of natural selection in this process.Therefore, although present theories of evolution continues to make mention of Darwin as a sort of "founder" of the genre, I doubt very much if - were he alive today - he would recognize them as his own.
We (evolutionists) call it "Darwinian" for a reason, and it is not out of respect for the dead. The theory is eminently Darwinian.
True, without any reservations this time .Thirdly, there is the argument that arises among the "orthodox" on both sides that one must choose one side or the other of the debate; that is, that one cannot be a "believer" in both God and evolution. As I have pointed out in previous posts, that, of course, is not true. Many believers - myself among them - have no problem with God going about His business in such a way that the earth is older than the 5,000 or so years that some British bishop computed from the Genesis account back in the 1900s! So it is possible to at once hold religious beliefs and scientific ones - although it tends to stifle debate on these issues as most debate revolves around the presence - or absence - of a Creator in the grand scheme of things.