Congratulations, Chuck!
by KrauzeIn response to my post about a biological textbook claiming that you need to believe in "philosophical materialism" to accept evolution, Andrea Bottaro dropped by to leave a comment. Andrea Bottaro is a member of the anti-ID blog The Panda's Thumb, and to add some "more context", he quoted the whole section, from Kenneth Miller's and Joseph Levine's Biology: Discovering Life:
Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless – a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit.
Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us. These realizations troubled Darwin deeply, for in his day, materialism was even more outrageous than evolution (Figure 8.14). Some scholars speculate that fear of being branded a heretic for his materialism contributed to Darwin's 21-year delay in publishing his theory. The same antimaterialistic reasoning also drives much modern-day opposition to evolutionary thought.
Yet as pointed out by evolutionary scholar Douglas Futuyma, seldom do the detractors of the Darwinian world view take note of its positive implications. In Darwin's world we are not helpless prisoners of a static world order, but rather masters of our own fate in a universe where human action can change the future. And from a strictly scientific point of view, rejecting evolution is no different from rejecting other natural phenomena such as electricity and gravity.
Darwin remained to the end a devout, if somewhat unorthodox, Christian. "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone," he wrote. Like religious scientists of many faiths today, he found no less wonder in a god that directed the laws of nature than in one that circumvented them.
In Andrea Bottaro's version, the last paragraph was in bold, as if it negated what was written in the first paragraph. But it doesn't take long to see that it just makes things worse. According to Miller and Levine, the textbook authors, Darwin knew that believing in materialism, the "purposeless" and "heartless" view that "matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products", was required to accept his theory. What person with an IQ above room temperature would not think that this would "shock the religious feelings of anyone" Mind you, I think Miller and Levine are talking out of their rectums regarding the materialistic assumptions behind evolution. But if we are to believe the quote above, someone will have to award Darwin with an award for being the most naive person in Western history.
Also, don't miss Salvador dismantling the spin about Darwin remaining a "devout, if somewhat unorthodox, Christian" to his death.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
My point was of course that in the previous post you had sarcastically only quoted the first sentence as "dishonestly portraying evolution as being incompatible with theism". I just thought it would help to add some context, since the later passages belie that simplistic characterization. Personally, I find that whole section poorly written, if not more profoundly muddled.
As for Darwin's belief system, as far as I know (and it isn't much) he was conflicted between theism and agnosticism, and he attributed the conflict to the premature, painful death of some of his children. He certainly disliked closed-minded, irrational religiousness. Not sure what his feelings were with regard to Christianity per se - I very much doubt he was "devout", though he may well have been "unorthodox", especially by the days' standards.
Comment by Andrea — July 7, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Yeah, if you actually take the trouble to be rational and look at the whole passage in context, it is a muddled attempt at characterizing the history of the reaction to Darwin's ideas. Although I doubt either one now remembers exactly what happened, I bet that Miller wrote the bit about Darwin being a theist, to counteract the bit written by Levine about Darwin being a materialist, and neither had a particularly advanced understanding of Darwin's philosophical and theological religious views when they wrote the passage in their first textbook attempt in 1990.
See the full quote and discussion here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc...
Like I said, it wouldn't win any awards for history. But pretending that this is the equivalent of the Pandas drafts or something is ludicrous.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 7, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
[I already made this statement at the thread that preceded this one]Well, I'm a little confused by Miller's statements. I read (and very much liked) his book, Finding Darwin's God. And in it he very clearly states that he believes that God does not intervene in natural history, and that the events that lead up to our evolution were random. He defended this view as being consistent with Theism, and I think he made a very good case for it. So I don't know why he would try to back out of it.
Comment by Bilbo — July 7, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Hi Andrea,
"My point was of course that in the previous post you had sarcastically only quoted the first sentence as "dishonestly portraying evolution as being incompatible with theism"."
That I only quoted the first sentence isn't very surprising, as that was the only part of the text I had access to (from Luskin's post at Evolution News & Views). As for the sentence "portraying evolution as being incompatible with theism", that's entirely correct.
In fact, reading over the text again, it strikes me that the first three paragraph form a coherent train of thought, whereas the last paragraph just come of out of nowhere. Consider the argument being presented in the first three paragraphs: Evolution requires materialism – materialism was seen as a bad thing in Darwin's day – however, the Darwinian world view also has positive implications, presenting us with a science-approved worldview with humans as "masters of our own fate in a universe where human action can change the future." The last paragraph seems tacked on, with a message that doesn't relate to any of the other paragraphs, and in fact contradicts them.
So it seems as if the text isn't "poorly written" as such, but more likely the result of two different authors and/or a later revision. Which raises the question: If the original argument for materialism was considered inappropriate, why was it merely softened with some irrelevant handwaving about Darwin's opinion on religion, instead of removed entirely?
"Not sure what his feelings were with regard to Christianity per se – I very much doubt he was "devout", though he may well have been "unorthodox", especially by the days' standards."
Well, I suppose writing that "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true … this is a damnable doctrine" would confine one to a fairly unorthodox branch of Christianity, namely the "Christians Who Don't Really Like Christianity" branch.
Comment by Krauze — July 7, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Krauze, when will you learn that you need to check what is in the ellipsis of Creationist quotations? Here's the complete quote from Darwin:
The damnable doctrine is the one that condemns those who do not believe to eternal damnation, simply for their lack of faith (or for a different form of faith). This literal reading of the texts was for Darwin (and is for me, for what it's worth) a cruel and "damnable" doctrine, one which indeed many Christians today also reject.
Comment by Andrea — July 7, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Wow, talk about being prescient! While I was slaving over my comment, composing my little theory, Matzke actually came out and confirmed it!
"Like I said, it wouldn't win any awards for history. But pretending that this is the equivalent of the Pandas drafts or something is ludicrous."
Huh? Who said anything about the Pandas drafts? My point was clearly spelled out here:
In fact, the information that Nick provides raises even more questions: If Miller did know about Levine's argument for materialism and recognized it as inappropriate for a biology textbook, why didn't he tell Levine to remove it (like he did with the "random and undirected" statement), instead of trying to "counteract" it with some irrelevant handwaving?
Comment by Krauze — July 7, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Here's a source for the original quote that was mangled above, plus more thoughts on religion by Darwin, from his autobiography:
http://pages.britishlibrary.ne...
Comment by Andrea — July 7, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
How exactly is the full sentence supposed to help? All it does is show why Darwin disliked Christianity. The original point, of course, was that Miller's assertion that Darwin remained a "devout Christian" throughout his life was false (to the point of being risible). How this is supposed to be anything but confirming evidence for that beats me. I suppose you can try to hedge on the definition of "devout Christian" here, but I'll leave it to others to decide if they find that plausible.
Comment by Deuce — July 7, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Hi Andrea,
There was no need to check the ellipsis, as I was well aware of the context of that quote, and what it was that Darwin found repugnant in Christianity. The point remains, though, that Darwin explicitly distanced himself from Christianity, which clearly rules him out as a Christian, orthodox or not. Similarly, you could also argue that Darwin's beliefs were consistent with some version of Hinduism, watered-down to the statement that you should be nice to others. But that wouldn't make Darwin an "unorthodox Hindu", unless he specifically claimed to be a follower of that religion.
Comment by Krauze — July 7, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
The sentence shows that Darwin disliked the form of Christianity that condems all non-believers to eternal damnation. As I am sure you are aware of, many mainstream Christian Churches have since joined Darwin in rejecting the doctrine of exclusive salvation. Groundbreaking once again, Chuck was.
Comment by Andrea — July 7, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I see. And Ken Ham is the sort of enthusiastic Darwinist who says he's not a Darwinist, and who only rejects the form of Darwinism that claims the world is over 6,000 years old, and that organismal forms came from random mutations and natural selection. In fact, everybody is a devout everything from now on!
Comment by Deuce — July 7, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Hello, Andrea.
Groundbreaking in theology, Chuck obviously wasn't. Try over 1600 years before Darwin. Origen already said that (i.e. challenged exclusive salvation).
Perhaps a little too fixated on the cult of Darwin? Expecting too much from Down, instead of looking Up?
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 7, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Andrea:
Can you name those "mainstream" Christian churches who have rejected the judgement aspect of Christ's teachings? I ask because I once challenged my church (PCUSA) over the practice of infant baptism. It came accompanied by a doctrine claiming that babies who weren't sprinkled with water by someone ordained to preach PCUSA theology are sent to hell by God. I found it absolutely horrendous and rejected the premise utterly.
So my preacher wrote up the complaint, sent it to the Presbytery, it got semantically tweaked and voted on by the Synod, and went before the General Assembly where it passed by majority vote. Doncha just love religion-by-parliamentary procedure? Now PCUSA no longer claims that unbaptised infants who die go to hell because they're not sprinkled. I also know that the Catholics no longer push the Purgatory scam or sell tickets to heaven (indulgences).
But so far as I know, PCUSA and the Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox, and Baptists, and Methodists, and Lutherans, and… ) still believe in judgement and heaven/hell. This may have changed recently, but if "mainstream" Christianity has rejected these teachings of Jesus surely we would have heard about it before now.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Hi Andrea,
There was no need to check the ellipsis, as I was well aware of the context of that quote, and what it was that Darwin found repugnant in Christianity. The point remains, though, that Darwin explicitly distanced himself from Christianity, which clearly rules him out as a Christian, orthodox or not.
This is true, but note that this was not known for quite some time, because Darwin's family edited out all of the controversial bits in the first published version of Darwin's Autobiography:
Charles Darwin's Autobiography was first published in 1887, five years after his death. It was a bowdlerized edition: Darwin's family, attempting to protect his posthumous reputation, had deleted all the passages they considered too personal or controversial. The present complete edition did not appear until 1959, one hundred years after the publication of The Origin of Species.
Source
So for 72 years most commentators on Darwin's religious views didn't have the full picture, and for 31 years between 1959 and 1990 (when the Levine/Miller textbook was written) commentators they did. Some of the modern picture of the evolution of Darwin's religious views was only done in 1970's and 1980's, e.g. the role that the death of Darwin's daughter played was basically uncovered by James Moore in fairly recent history.
I still see the confusion pop up regularly today, often based on Darwin mentioning the "Creator" in certain versions of the Origin or some such, or people who just haven't read the Autobiography.
It is still true that Miller & Levine made a mistake that they shouldn't have made (and several others in that passage), but that just proves they weren't Darwin experts at the time, and/or they didn't spend much time on this passage compared to all of the molecular, cell, organismal, evolutionary, and ecological biology they had to assemble for the book.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 7, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Whoops, I meant to say:
This is true, but note that this was not known for quite some time, because Darwin's family edited out all of the controversial bits in the first published version of Darwin's Autobiography:
Source
So for 72 years most commentators on Darwin's religious views didn't have the full picture, and for 31 years between 1959 and 1990 (when the Levine/Miller textbook was written) commentators they did. Some of the modern picture of the evolution of Darwin's religious views was only done in 1970's and 1980's, e.g. the role that the death of Darwin's daughter played was basically uncovered by James Moore in fairly recent history.
I still see the confusion pop up regularly today, often based on Darwin mentioning the "Creator" in certain versions of the Origin or some such, or people who just haven't read the Autobiography.
It is still true that Miller & Levine made a mistake that they shouldn't have made (and several others in that passage), but that just proves they weren't Darwin experts at the time, and/or they didn't spend much time on this passage compared to all of the molecular, cell, organismal, evolutionary, and ecological biology they had to assemble for the book.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 7, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Guys, take it easy – I don't really think Darwin was theologically groundbreaking, it was just a joke. Phew.
Regarding the doctrine of exclusive salvation, I'll leave it to the theologically-oriented to discuss, for I know little of, and have even less interest in it. To my superficial knowledge, neither the Catholic Church nor the Anglican Church (and probably several other protestant Churches) preach anymore that lack of belief guarantees damnation anymore, which is what upset Darwin in the quote above. If that's the case, assuming Krauze was being serious when he said that that partial quote by itself put Darwin in the group of "Christians Who Don't Really Like Christianity", he'd be there with the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, among others.
Finally, you won't hear me defend that section from Miller and Levine – as I stated, it seems to me to be the result of muddled writing and/or muddled thinking. However, quoting only the first sentence just to play "Gotcha!" is clearly unfair, in light of the entire section. Unless for some obscure reason, you believe the first sentence expresses the real thoughts of the author(s), and the last one does not.
Comment by Andrea — July 7, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Andrea, it is alright for you to admit that you are wrong to an IDer. The world will continue to spin and the physical laws in the universe will not change (I think). Even if you are right about some (if any, certainly not many) Churches disavow eternal punishment, certainly that was not the case in Darwin's days. How could you possibly defend him as a Christian, even an unorthodox one, certainly not by any standard in his days? You and Darwin's view of the doctrine of eternal punishment is irrelevant to the adherence of Christianity. What is important is that when you deny one of the basic tenets of Christian theology, shouldn't it be more appropriate to call yourself something else other than Christian?
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
Comment by teleologist — July 7, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
LOL! This is an obvious attempt at obfuscation and to salvage your mistaken defense of Darwin's Christianity. The Catholic Church might dislike the Protestants but do they deny the trinity, eternal punishment, or exclusive salvation through Jesus Christ? Sheesh.
Comment by teleologist — July 7, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
and
I am confused. First of all, I never said that Darwin was a Christian, in fact, I said:
Krauze replied with a quote bearing a very significant ellipsis, which he claimed proved Darwin was in the group of those who "disliked" Christianity. That happens to be a known misquotation commonly used by Creationists to suggest Darwin thought Christianity per se is a "damnable doctrine". I just pointed out that the "damnable doctrine" referred specifically to "exclusive salvation", and that therefore in the same group would be counted many modern Christians.
Now, I cannot say I recall much of my Catechism, but I have this vague memory that Pius IX in the 19th century already pointed out that unbelievers can be saved through their pure heart and actions, which is to say exclusive salvation as a doctrine is wrong. This is commonly accepted today, again to my knowledge and direct experience, among Catholics and Anglicans/Episcopalians, as well as many non-fundamentalist protestants.
By all means, correct me if I am wrong – does the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church, state that unbelievers are, by necessity, "everlastingly punished" What other Churches do?
Comment by Andrea — July 7, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Yet here we have the same statement, having been in a biology textbook since 1992, and no one's said a peep. Where's the NCSE in all of this? Aren't they supposed to be the Center for Science Education?
Just in case anyone wants a dash of reality with their rhetoric…
The Levine & Miller (1991) textbook was a college biology textbook last published in 1993. Back then, NCSE probably had about 2 employees, and even now with more staff we don't have the resources to closely monitor high school biology texts in general, let alone college and high school biology texts. If someone sends us something to review, we are happy to do that, but in general textbook companies hire their own reviewers. Just keeping track of the creationists keeps us plenty busy.
PS: When is Telic Thoughts going to address how the ID Network's now-passed revisions to the Kansas Science Standards and the Discovery Institute's new propaganda push supporting them fit into the idyllic post-Wedge world you guys talk about so much? Do you support the insertion of "irreducible complexity" and the evolution-can't-produce-new-genetic-information argument into the Kansas Science Standards? Because they are in there now, under the cover of "critical analysis" and "we're not teaching ID, no sir!"
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 7, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Arrgh, every blog uses different coding…try this:
Just in case anyone wants a dash of reality with their rhetoric…
The Levine & Miller (1990) textbook was a college biology textbook last published in 1993. Back then, NCSE probably had about 2 employees, and even now with more staff we don't have the resources to closely monitor high school biology texts in general, let alone college and high school biology texts. If someone sends us something to review, we are happy to do that, but in general textbook companies hire their own reviewers. Just keeping track of the creationists keeps us plenty busy.
PS: When is Telic Thoughts going to address how the ID Network's now-passed revisions to the Kansas Science Standards and the Discovery Institute's new propaganda push supporting them fit into the idyllic post-Wedge world you guys talk about so much? Do you support the insertion of "irreducible complexity" and the evolution-can't-produce-new-genetic-information argument into the Kansas Science Standards? Because they are in there now, under the cover of "critical analysis" and "we're not teaching ID, no sir!"
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 7, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
It was my recollection that Miller allowed "the divine foot in the door" through quantum events. So after denying supernatural causes, he then tried to make room for them, as long as they were undetectable. Miller's muddled. A closet creationist for sure. Watch out Ken, they'll be coming for you next. Can't have that mention of Darwin being a Christian in a textbook ya know.
Comment by Mung — July 7, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Why are folks conflating doctrines of exclusive salvation with doctrines of eternal punishment?
Ah, that explains it
. But it would seem you are not alone.
cheers
Comment by Mung — July 7, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I never said that you did. As you've quoted, I said you were mistaken to "defend his Christianity", which you unequivocally did. Let's review.
Are you expressing your personal disagreement with the quote because you think Darwinian evolution is compatible with theism, even though the quote was attributed specifically toward Darwin? Or are you saying the quote was dishonest because it does not reflect the fuller context of Darwin's caustic remarks about Christianity, which is compatible with theism and specifically Christianity in this context? If the former then you are out of context, if the later then you are defending Darwin's Christianity.
You are not sure what Darwin's feelings were toward Christianity, but it may well be "unorthodox". Unorthodox what, his view as an unorthodox agnostic? That doesn't seem to be congruous with the first part of your sentence. Maybe you meant Darwin was an unorthodox Christian for his time. Would that constitute as defending Darwin's Christianity?
Then we have the response that you made to this comment by Krauze.
Your response:
Now I am forced to interpret Krauze too. It seems obvious to me that Krauze was engage in a bit of sarcasm because in general people wouldn't use the kind of caustic language that Darwin used, toward the object of their allegiance. The implication of Darwin's comment and Krauze's remark is that Darwin is not a Christian. You then responded by reiterating that "damnable doctrine". Was it your intention to indicate to Krauze that he was wrong about Darwin disliking Christians? Was it your intention, by your response, to indicate that Darwin was an unorthodox Christian who just hated that doctrine? Is that defending Darwin's Christianity? If you didn't mean to defend Darwin's Christianity, then what is meant by the last part of your sentence, "which indeed many Christians today also reject"? That seems to suggest a link between today's Christian belief and Darwin's belief. Is that suggestive of Darwin's Christianity?
Finally we have this quote,
When you use the phrase -put Darwin in the group of "Christians Who Don't Really Like Christianity"-, are you not calling him a Christian? When you say he -be there with the Pope and Archbishop-, isn't that equating him with Christianity, or are you saying the Pope and Archbishop are not Christians? Are you sure you are not saying Darwin was a Christian? Can you honestly tell me that a rational thinking scientist would not conclude that you are defending Darwin's Christianity?
Comment by teleologist — July 7, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Because you asked.
(Sproul, R. (2000, c1993). Vol. Book two: Before the face of God)
(Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals)
Comment by teleologist — July 7, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Teleologist, I suggest you review this thread carefully, because you seem to be a bit confused.
Here, you seem to be completely misunderstanding what quote I am referring to. It's the first sentence in the passage quoted in the o.p., which has nothing to do with Christianity, and is neither from nor "attributed to" Darwin, but from Miller and/or Levine, in their own words. It also does not refer to any "chaustic remarks" by Darwin about Christianity. The only chaustic remarks by Darwin were those in the misquote provided by Sal in another thread and repeated uncritically by Krauze in this thread, referring specifically to the doctrine of exclusive salvation. And nowhere do I "defend Darwin's Christianity". Christians and non-Christians alike can and do find the the doctrine of exclusive salvation abhorrent.
No it wouldn't – you are completely misinterpreting. I explicitly said that I don't know in detail what his precise views on Christianity were, but from what I know they seemed unorthodox.
Right, Krauze quoted that partial sentence from Darwin that implied he thought Christianity was a "damnable doctrine", i.e. expressed a "dislike" of Christianity. As I pointed out, that's a misquote, and Darwin was expressing dislike of the doctrine of exclusive salvation. That position regarding that doctrine is hardly un-Christian or anti-Christian, and many Christians share it. And as I said above, this has no bearing whatsoever on Darwin's Christianity. Krauze has just to find a genuine, undoctored quote from Darwin to make his point that Darwin "disliked Christianity", assuming he still wants to make that point.
And here you are attributing to me a phrase from Krauze. He said that Darwin belonged to the group of "Christians Who Don't Really Like Christianity", based on the misquote above, a group to which, if one reads Darwin's original sentence correctly and completely, a large part of modern Christians also belong.
To make things really simple for you, all I am saying is a) that the long quote from Miller and Levine in the o.p., despite being rather clumsy and at times inaccurate, does not actually support Krauze's original point, made in another thread based on a selective quote from the very first sentence, that M&L were arguing the exact same erroneous point that Creationists often make regarding the metaphysical implications of Darwinin theory; b) that to my knowledge Darwin tended more towards conflicted agnosticism than "devout" Christianity, contrary to what the last sentence in that M&L passage seems to suggest; c) that Krauze's attempt to present Darwin as "chaustically" hostile to Christianity in toto was based on an egregious misquotation (not of his fault, he just trusted Sal), which when appropriately examined implies nothing of the sort.
PS: your last post, which i just noticed on refresh, refers to the doctrine of eternal punishment, and not the doctrine of exclusive salvation, which is a different beast. The first says sinners go to hell forever, the second that only people who believe in some fundamental tenets of some Church or other can avoid going there. It is the second which upset Darwin, as it does many others, Christians and non-Christians alike. So, I did a quick search and I found this page referring to views on exclusive salvation in the modern Catholic Church, which pretty much seems to go along with what I said before: the doctrine has been superseded by a more inclusive view of salvation, starting already in the 1800's, in fact already in Darwin's own times (so perhaps Darwin was very much aware of the theological issues, and his quote above was not in a cultural vacuum, but may have reflected an ongoing public debate).
Comment by Andrea — July 7, 2006 @ 11:29 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
To be clear, in point c) in the post above "chaustically" refers to teleologist's representation of Darwin's views of Christianity, not Krauze's. Krauze simply stated that the misquotation provided implied Darwin "didn't like" Christianity.
Comment by Andrea — July 7, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
July 8th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Andrea, whatever.
Comment by teleologist — July 8, 2006 @ 12:00 am
July 8th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Come on, teleologist, it is alright for you to admit you were wrong to an evilutionist.
Comment by Andrea — July 8, 2006 @ 8:51 am
July 8th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Misuse of quotations is a bad thing in scholarship (or elsewhere, for that matter). But the weird fixation on finding misleading quotations in this area is really hard to understand. There really was just nothing even arguably improper about the ellipsis in the quotation of Darwin above with respect to the point being made. I'm as happy to condemn "quote mining" as the next guy, but really.
Best regards to all.
Comment by cthomas — July 8, 2006 @ 10:33 am
July 8th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Miller's misrepresentation of Darwin should really not be a surprise to anyone.
One of the central tenets of the anti-ID crowd is that you can be an evoutionist and keep your faith – just as long as you sufficiently compromise your faith. Thus Miller proudly declares that his God is "Darwin's God", all the while knowing that 'Darwin's God' is simply a euphemism for "I have no idea which God I believe in but it sure ain't the one in the bible."
This dogma is reinforced boldly over at the NCSE where they have managed to coopt the services of Josephine Borgeson, an ordained episcopalian minister. "Not all Christians are creationists" she says with one side of her mouth, while espousing the episcopal catechism from the pulpit with the other side. (Note that the episcopal church believes in sustained divine intervention)
So which is it Phina? Is Jesus Christ the agent of creation (as your church believes), or is it just purposeless, undirected RM+NS (as your other 'church' believes)?
So which is it Miller? Did Jesus perform miracles (as your church believes), or do you still contend that the creator does not intervene in natural history (as your other 'church' believes)?
The NCSE apparently has determined that Miller and Borgeson have sufficiently compromised their christian beliefs to be admitted into the fold. Miller apparently thought that Darwin had sufficiently rejected Christianity to identify himself with 'Darwin's God'.
One good litmus test in debate is to quantify the hypocrisy, then take note of who is turning a blind eye.
Comment by chunkdz — July 8, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
July 8th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Mung wrote:
Naw. I read the last section of Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God, twice. In fact, he makes it clear that he thinks that God must not intervene in Natural history, but allow random quantum events to take place. I think this stronger argument of his is mistaken, but it was clear that he didn't think that God somehow intervened in nature in an undetectable way.
Comment by Bilbo — July 8, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
July 8th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Would this be agnosticism, or merely an "unorthodox" version of Christianity?
Comment by Mung — July 8, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Andrea, when will you learn that 'Darwinist' accusations of "quote-mining" don't make it so? When will you learn that "clarification" used as a guise for dishonest accusations of "lying" is generally easily seen through? But then, if the point is distraction and disruption, I suppose I shouldn't fault 'Darwinists' for seeking to acheive their ends.
This "damnable doctrine" is a misrepresentation of Christianity. This "damnable doctrine" is NOT a "literal reading of the texts" — not that I really expect this knowledge to even be acknowledged, much less sink in.
The "literal reading of the texts" does not say that anyone at all is condemned due to lack of belief. Moreover, the "literal reading of the texts" emphatically emphasizes that it is not "belief" that redeems us. (cf. "The demons believe and tremble.")
The "literal reading of the texts" teaches us that all are condemned; that is our default condition, we are born condemned.
The "literal reading of the texts" teaches us that redemption begins with cessation of the insistence that we can redeem ourselves, begins with cessation of the insistence that we don't need redemption in the first place, begins with cessation of the insistence that we are "good enough."
Redemption follows from acknowledging that we are indeed in need of redemption, that we are not and can never be "good enough," that nothing at all we can do will ever redeem us. Redemption follows from trusting God to do what we cannot do ourselves.
Darwin was indeed rejecting the "literal reading of the texts" … but he was doing so in the guise of rejecting a straw-man critique of a Christian doctrine.
You folk don't really get irony, do you? Even when you all produce so much of it.
Let's see: 'Darwinism' condemns all persons to being accidents of chains-of-accidents AND to not *really* existing in the first place. This is the Credo of 'Darwinism:' "You're born; you're deluded by the illusion you exist; you die, the illusion ends. Finis."
Let's see: 'Darwinists' routinely condem those who dessent from 'modern evolutionary theory' as moral reprobates. It doesn't matter whether one rejects 'modern evolutionary theory' outright, as I do, or thinks it can be tweeked, as so many IDists do. We're all "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked …)" [and you, not one of you, really has a problem with considering that last part].
Let's see: 'Darwinism' "deals" with cruelty by denying the concept has any real meaning.
Or, let's be rational (I know that's quite a stretch) about this. Why in the hell do you care what Christianity says? You know The TrVth: you nor I exist in the first place, there are no such things as "Heaven" and "Hell," there is no "Judgment," there is no "Eternal Life" nor "Eternal Death."
Sheesh! Your concerns make no more rational sense than were I to concern myself one whit about my fate according to the decrees of Mohammed (Peas Be Upon Him [or, at least one Pea]).
Comment by Ilion — July 9, 2006 @ 8:23 pm