"In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. . . The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced of the long line of argumentation."

Charles Darwin. Autobiography

From: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/h...

"One does not need to know the origin of matter in order to study it. But the same can be said for life. We can comprehend the way a cell functions without understanding anything about its origin."

Indeed, which is why Darwin never speculated on the origin of life, or matter (or gravity, etc.) in any of his published works. In other words, he agreed entirely with Newton's hypotheses non fingo*. This why we concluded in our evolution/design seminar last summer at Cornell that ID as it is presently constituted poses no threat to Darwinian evolutionary theory at all. To be more specific, Michael Behe completely accepts "common descent, with modification," and William Dembski has repeatedly asserted that CSI is almost entirely focussed on the origin of life and the origin of the genetic code, neither of which Darwin wrote about in his published works. In other words, ID leaves the whole of Darwin's Origin of Species completely untouched.
–Allen

*See: http://members.tripod.com/~gra...

Welcome to Telic Thoughts. You write:

Stop playing Humpty Dumpty with the words.

I doubt Chris Cosans reads TT. If you have a problem with his words, you could also write up a response for the professional literature (where those words appeared).

Although usually ignored by neo-Darwinists, Darwin's hint about the supernatural origins of life is actually a critical aspect of his framework of analysis. Throughout the Origin, he usually contrasts his account not with that of other evolutionists such as Lamarck or Chambers, but with that of someone we would now call a "special creationist."

Almost always ignored by creationists, which means of course, Darwin is not a creationist.

Stop playing Humpty Dumpty with the words. Fact is Darwin had rather deep, rather orthodox theological views. He usually tipped his hat to faith and religion, not out of fear of offending his wife, but out of respect to the church and the faith, and the strength of the ideas. All of this is on display in Darwin's writings — but as your amazement shows here, mining Darwin for what Darwin thought is not a custom of creationism or defenders of intelligent design by any name.

Just as there are no labs that do research in alternatives to Darwinian theory among the creationist/ID-io crowd, so there are few who bother to read the work of the man they love to condemn. And so they stumble over and recycle Bishop Wilberforce's ill-thought arguments time and time again. Santayana was right — but who knows it if no one reads it?

Darwin to Hooker: But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.

Not the sentiments of a creationist. One does not need to know the origin of matter in order to study it. But the same can be said for life. We can comprehend the way a cell functions without understanding anything about its origin. OTOH, those who think like Darwin are in no position to make scientific statements about the relationship between origins and teleology given a lack of empirical guidance.

Darwin to Hooker: But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.

So was Darwin a creationist? It depends how you define creationist. If we define it as someone who believes life on Earth was created, then Darwin was a creationist - but that would make you a creationist, Mike, wuld it not? Personally, I would define creationist as someone who believes each "kind" was created separately, but I accept that might just be me.

Yes, and that is how Darwin understood "˜creationist' also. More wisdom from the article:

Although usually ignored by neo-Darwinists, Darwin's hint about the supernatural origins of life is actually a critical aspect of his framework of analysis. Throughout the Origin, he usually contrasts his account not with that of other evolutionists such as Lamarck or Chambers, but with that of someone we would now call a "special creationist." The position of Darwin's hypothetical creationist is the dialectical opposite of that endorsed in the Origin.The Origin's creationist would seem in fact to be a younger less sophisticated version of Darwin himself. In the introduction to the Origin, Darwin tells us he used to believe that "each species has been independently created" (p. 6). While the Darwin of the Origin believes all life is united by its common ancestor, his creationist rejects the unity of life. Darwin believes "all living and extinct forms can be grouped together in one great system" (p. 433), but his creationist believes each form is special and unique. Darwin accounts for the diversity of life as the result of natural selection acting on existing variation; his creationist accounts for it as the result of God creating the progenitors of the varieties of organisms.Whereas Darwin believes life came into being only once, his creationist believes "that at innumerable periods in the earth's history certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues" (p. 483).

And then this:

Owen claims that the special creationist and Darwin both ultimately rely on the action of God. Insofar as Darwin concludes the Origin with the Biblical phrasing, Darwin recognizes:"a direct creative act, something like that supernatural or miraculous one which, in the preceding page, he defines, as "˜certain elemental atoms which have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues'" (Owen 1860, p. 191). Darwin is no less a creationist than his dialectical rival merely because he limits God to one intervention. Indeed, Owen argues that in Darwin's theory, God's act of creation is even more miraculous. For it requires God, at that one moment, to impart to the progenitor the capacity to vary in such a way as to eventually result in the present organisms' "infinity of complications and their morphological results, which now try to the utmost the naturalist's faculties to comprehend and classify" (Owen 1860, p. 191). Darwin's theism requires God to have an incredible amount of foresight.

Whoa! You know what this means, Pixie? I'm not a creationist; I'm a Darwinist. My views simply pick up from where Darwin left off. And given that most critics hate it when you call them Darwinists (one reason I don't do this), I'm more than happy to be labeled as a Darwinist (as it would be more accurate than the term, creationist).

MikeGene "“ ID Darwinist.

What a strange Chesterton quote. And stranger still that you and David (a working scientist) seem to approve of it.

Chesterton seems to think that one first chooses a philosophy, which from then on determines what one is "allowed" to believe. While it's true that religious believers tend to do this, it's hardly the ideal approach for those who are interested in the truth. When your philosophy no longer comports with the facts, it's time to ditch it — not to ask slavishly what you are and aren't "allowed" to believe.

In Chesterton's view, the more one is "allowed" to believe, the better. But a scientist desires the opposite, which is to rule out alternatives on the basis of reason and evidence.

Very cool Chesterton quote.

Can anybody write like that anymore?