by Chris W.

Member since:
September 12, 2006

"Origin of Species" has 150th birthday.

November 24, 2009 03:36 PM EST

views: 218 | comments: 20

How time flies, it seems like only yesterday that we were all arguing about the theory of evolution, is it the truth.

Oh yeah, actually that WAS yesterday!

A few observations that will probably clue you in to where I stand on this topic.

1. Charles Darwin was not a satanic guy. He was a believer in God by all accounts, and came from a family of anti-slavery activists, a moral movement to which Darwin also game his allegiance. By the way, it was the United Kingdom that ended the African Slave trade by blockading the west coast of Africa for years. So those people that try to tell you Darwin was a bad guy? Ignore them.

2. The issue of evolution will just not go away, despite essentially ALL scientists accepting it. That is because certain Bible Literalists find it threatening. Hey, you don't really need Evolution to make you feel threatened, if you are a Bible Literalist. How about the fact that the old and new testaments are basically not even the same religion?

3. Richard Dawkins will try to tell you that Evolution is not only true, but also compels all humans to accept atheism as their world view. Although I happen to be an atheist myself, I disagree strongly with Richard on this one (see article:)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html

Why? Because it is not possible to disprove the existence of God. An all powerful being could hide him/herself anywhere. All Evolution actually does is to provide a science based explanation for the existence of life on Earth. Can't prove that God did not step in and zap a muddle puddle with lightning or whatever to create the first proto-virus.

4. Civility mattered before the theory of Evolution, and it still does. The ground rules need to be: Do not bother to proselytize, people will find the truth without your help. Do not kill anyone because of their beliefs. Assert your own right to believe what you must believe. Refrain from asserting your nonexistent right to tell others what to believe.

Have a nice day, and please continue to evolve.

Comments: 20

Holly C. Nov 24, 2009, 3:43pm EST

There was a movie released about Darwin this year that was not released in the U.S. because the movie distributors in this country were too scared of threats from the religious right. It is called "Creation" and the main subject is Darwin's inner struggle with himself about whether or not to even publish "Origin of Species" or let the manuscript gather dust. His wife was deeply religious and he feared upsetting her by publishing it.

Peter Joseph Swanson Nov 24, 2009, 3:46pm EST

I saw a made for PBS version and the man who played Darwin looked nothing like Darwin - it was like they wanted it to look like a "romance novel" ...

Holly C. Nov 24, 2009, 4:25pm EST

ha!

Lee C. Nov 24, 2009, 5:59pm EST

I heard about this movie you are talking about Holly.

Do you have any documented evidence of threats by the "religious right"?
I highly doubt this accusation about threats. Considering what other movies that pass as entertainment such as Hound dog , the Da Vinci Code, and the Last Temptation of Christ it makes no sense why a movie about Darwin losing his faith in God would not easily be accepted. Most hollywood movies already try to discredit Christianity any chance they can so why is one more movie going to change things?

My guess is the move is a flop and no distributor wants to take a chance on it here in the US. It's all about the money.

reply to this comment

Linda B. Nov 24, 2009, 3:46pm EST

"Refrain from asserting your nonexistent right to tell others what to believe."

Going to stir up lots of controversy with that one, Chris.

Not that I'm stirring the pot, mind you....just that the entertainment value of your posts is rather high because of such statements.

reply to this comment

Jim G. Nov 24, 2009, 4:21pm EST

Great post, Chris. I'm not going to state my views; I get into enough trouble stating my political views, LOL.

reply to this comment

Chris W. Nov 24, 2009, 4:43pm EST

thanks guys. I guess I must admit to not being open minded on everything. For example, as science, I uphold both evolution and climate science. But I refuse to follow evolution into arguing against the existence of a deity with people who are not going to be the least bit receptive to that concept. Such a time waster.

Holly C. Nov 24, 2009, 4:51pm EST

I'm open minded about pretty much everything except for willful ignorance and arguing against evolution and climate science is willful ignorance, in my humble opinion at least.

reply to this comment

Chuck L. Nov 24, 2009, 5:18pm EST

All Evolution actually does is to provide a science based explanation for the existence of life on Earth.

No, Chris, it doesn't... and that's one of the biggest problems we have with the bible literalists. They keep insisting that it DOES (and that you can't make life out of death, and you can't make something out of nothing, and... yadda - yadda-yadda).

The reality is... Darwin, AND the Theory of Evolution both pass on the origin of LIFE! On the Origin of Species explains ONLY why we are not all amoebas, along with every other living thing on Earth. Darwin himself was perfectly happy to assume that "God" had advanced the spark of life.

Chuck L. Nov 24, 2009, 5:21pm EST

But that's not what gets people upset. On the Origin of Species argues that we're not "special." We're just animals. And THAT'S where the wheels come off for the literalists.

Larry M. Nov 24, 2009, 6:07pm EST

Those literalists just cannot contain their animal passions. :-)

Linda B. Nov 24, 2009, 9:41pm EST

Good one. Admitting their animal nature would mean not having dominion over themselves.....as if they're out of control? Who'd a thunk it?

reply to this comment

Betty Clark Nov 24, 2009, 5:43pm EST

Chris, we're exactly in the same camp.

Chris W. Nov 24, 2009, 6:00pm EST

nice to meet you, Betty!

Betty Clark Nov 24, 2009, 10:01pm EST

Geez, we're not that far from each other either. I'm in Front Royal!

reply to this comment

November Girl .. Nov 24, 2009, 7:45pm EST

I enjoyed reading this. It's interesting. I also disagree with Richard Dawkins for the same exact reason you do. Even the scientists can't disprove the existence of God. It's nice to meet an open-minded atheist. I have a good friend, going back 20 years now, who is an atheist. She has zero tolerance for people who believe in the existence of God and still buys into 1980's propaganda that the religious right is going to take over our lives. Just because someone has spiritual beliefs doesn't mean that they're Bible Literalists! I'm always urging her to live and let live ... Anyway, we're able to accept each other. Sometimes I tease her and remind her that I believe in a higher-power and, wow, I've never tried to take over her life ! ! ! People can have spiritual beliefs and accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution also. Thanks for being open-minded. It's nice to hear that you let people have their beliefs!

John S. (arizona) Dec 2, 2009, 2:01pm EST

I have no conflict with evolution and the existence of God either.

reply to this comment

Ken S. Nov 27, 2009, 10:20am EST

Darwin was a good scientist and was (and certainly would be today) appropriately skeptical of his own theory. He is not the issue. The poster boy of modern neo-Darwinian thing, Richard Dawkins, blew it all up when he famously claimed that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This claim grows hollow when faced with the modern evidence of science like the Big Bang, the precise tuning of physical and chemical constants necessary to allow a life supporting universe to exist, and the overwhelmingly improbable information (independent of matter and energy) found in even the simplest cells.
These are not easily (much less intellectually fulfilling) imagined as happening via undirected chance and blind mechanical processes. Dawkins overstates his case continually.
Sure, Darwin never made a claim about the origin of life but the willingness of neo-Darwinists (like Dawkins) to claim his theory gets us to a purposeless universe is hardly defensible even as it is (to them) wishful.

reply to this comment

Shira C. Dec 2, 2009, 1:27pm EST

Hi, Chris!

Happy anniversary to all of us who find evolution to be a fruitful and enlightening work of human understanding.

I have the same problems you do with Dawkins (and Hitchens, and sometimes Sam Harris). The good thing is, many much more thoughtful and interesting books have been written lately as a response to the "New Atheism". Some of the responsa are by atheists, and some by theists, but the level of discourse seems to be going up. So, reluctantly, I think we owe these guys a debt of gratitude, no matter how annoying it may be to acknowledge it, lol.

reply to this comment

Chris W. Dec 2, 2009, 1:43pm EST

"Happy anniversary to all of us who find evolution to be a fruitful and enlightening work of human understanding."

It is the human understanding element that stands out about Darwin's discovery. The reality-based nature of his work stands out too.

on the new Atheism- being an atheist, I think it's interesting, despite the way it pushes the envelope on civility. (on the other hand, it could perhaps in some cases be considered a "push-back" against invasive religion).

reply to this comment