The "holy" war against Darwin.
By Johan

There is a common misconception that theologians left and right were the first people to oppose Darwin’s origin of species for "obvious religious" purposes while the scientists were the ones to embrace it since it was "scientifically obvious".

It’s exactly the other way around, the theologians were the ones who accepted Darwin’s theory with pleasure and praised his work, in fact very few theologians were opposed to Darwinism and very few remain skeptical today in fact theologians today defend evolution for religious reasons. Among the theologians who praised Darwin's theory was a famous preacher named Kingsley, who sent Darwin a letter congratulating him on the publication of his book. Another preacher called Josiah Strong wrote a famous pamphlet called America’s Destiny, where he said that Scripture and evolution go hand-in-hand. Others in the British Isles to praise Darwin were Frederick Farrar, James Orr, and Henry Drummond, all famous preachers during Darwin’s day. In America, A.H. Strong and Henry Ward Beecher championed evolution as a valid idea whose time had come.

The scientists on the other hand were not persuaded. Many of whom were better qualified in the relevant fields to have a professional opinion on the matter, ie Darwin was not an embryologist nonetheless he thought it offered the most powerful evidence for evolution, while Karl Ernst von Baer who was an embryologist, in fact one of the leading in the world at the time remained a bitter skeptic.

The most prominent scientists and biologists in the world at the time of Darwin rejected Darwin’s theory of natural selection and many criticized it still for decades after it was widely accepted.

Among Darwin's critics were the founders of embryology, developmental biology, genetics, systems theory, cellular pathology, biocybernetics, theroretical biology and biosemiotics see (Jacob V. Uexkull (1864-1944), Karl.E.v.Baer (1792-1876), Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822 -1884),Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972) Richard Owen(1804-1892), Johann Reinke (1839–1931), William. Whewell philosopher of science (1794-1866) James C. Maxwell physicist (1831-1879), Rudolf Virchow anthropologist (1821-1902), Oscar Hertwig (1849-1922) St. George Jackson Mivart (1827—1900)

This doesn't make a very good case for the theologians. It makes them sound gullible and willing to jump on the bandwagon before the theory could be thoroughly tested. This simply says that the theologians were willing to accept the theory uncritically. Maybe this is why theologians aren't scientists?

Shouldn't you have said "The "UNholy" war against Darwin"?

Polanyi wrote:... theologians were the ones who accepted Darwin’s theory with pleasure

Well, great, then that removes your spurious objections to accepting Darwins theory on "metaphysical or religious grounds" as you often state in other threads.

So, when can we expect the great announcement that you have seen the light of Darwin ?

By the way, for anyone encountering our dear friend Polanyi for the first time, his posts are copies of "articles" he previously pasted into Facebook under the name Max. Where his user avatar is a stained-glass haloed saint

Enjoy !

This doesn't make a very good case for the theologians. It makes them sound gullible and willing to jump on the bandwagon before the theory could be thoroughly tested. This simply says that the theologians were willing to accept the theory uncritically.

Upon the surface this appears to be the case, but upon closer examination something rather interesting emerges, theologians today defend evolution for theological reasons, as many evolutionists still do today, in fact Darwin felt theologically evolution had to be true. As for Darwin it was simply unacceptable to accept that God was in any way involved in creation as this would mean God is on the hook for the cruelty of the natural world. Darwin and many theologians believe that evolution and nothing else can get God off the hook for the cruelty of the natural world, and this is why they defend it so vigorously.

So, when can we expect the great announcement that you have seen the light of Darwin ?

To embrace or defend evolution for religious reasons is to embrace evolution for the wrong reasons just like rejecting design for religious reasons [like Darwin did] is to reject design for the wrong reasons.

rejecting design for religious reasons [like Darwin did] is to reject design for the wrong reasons.

Ayep. It should be reject because it's STUPID.

Ayep. It should be reject because it's STUPID.

I would never reject design for religious reasons like Darwin did, just like I wouldn't reject evolution for religious reasons, because this would be to reject evolution for the wrong reasons.

Polanyi wrote:

Ayep. It should be reject because it's STUPID.

I would never reject design for religious reasons like Darwin did, just like I wouldn't reject evolution for religious reasons, because this would be to reject evolution for the wrong reasons.

Ayep, it should be rejected because it's STUPID.

I just said that. Please pay attention. If you can, of course. Wouldn't want to make undue demands, after all.

Sorry Polly, willful ignorance is also a wrong reason (the worst reason actually).

Polanyi wrote:

This doesn't make a very good case for the theologians. It makes them sound gullible and willing to jump on the bandwagon before the theory could be thoroughly tested. This simply says that the theologians were willing to accept the theory uncritically.

Upon the surface this appears to be the case, but upon closer examination something rather interesting emerges, theologians today defend evolution for theological reasons, as many evolutionists still do today, in fact Darwin felt theologically evolution had to be true. As for Darwin it was simply unacceptable to accept that God was in any way involved in creation as this would mean God is on the hook for the cruelty of the natural world. Darwin and many theologians believe that evolution and nothing else can get God off the hook for the cruelty of the natural world, and this is why they defend it so vigorously.

Okay. I think I understand what you mean. I agree that it is possible for a person to hold on to theories for reasons that have nothing to do with reality. However, when I look at the evidence available to me, as much as I would prefer it, it does not point to a designer, intelligent or otherwise.

I'm not in a position to declare the theory of evolution as ultimate truth and I don't think it ever should be viewed that way. If someone ever decides that they have found the complete truth on a matter they, are lying to themselves. They will close themselves off to any new, expanded ideas.

reddix wrote:

Polanyi wrote:They will close themselves off to any new, expanded ideas.

LIke Polanyi does, stopping at ideas of more than a century ago and closing off all new ideas, including ones as fresh as this thread.

I agree that it is possible for a person to hold on to theories for reasons that have nothing to do with reality.

Reality is unfortunately just what reality is, not what we decide or what we want it to be, and this goes for you too. I would agree with you that theology has no place in science but not because I believe all theology is false, the real problem is there is no way that we can verify or prove a theological argument scientifically, however this doesn't mean theology is not true. The problem with a theological argument is not that science cannot disprove it if it was false, science wouldn't even be able to prove or disprove it even if it was true in every respect.

Suppose God exists, but God for his own personal reasons would never create cats to play with mice, this is just what it is.

Now even if this was true in every respect, there would still be no scientific way of verifying it, this is the tricky thing about theology, theological questions should be addressed in the realm of theology. Just like scientific questions should be addressed in the realm of science. Charles Darwin confused the two all the time, and many evolutionists still do today.

Reality is unfortunately just what reality is, not what we decide or what we want it to be, and this goes for you too.

So made-up shit can be a reality substitute? I thought that went out in the '60s.

Gawdzilla wrote:

Reality is unfortunately just what reality is, not what we decide or what we want it to be, and this goes for you too.

So made-up shit can be a reality substitute? I thought that went out in the '60s.

The presence of things like ArsebiscuitsInGenesis show this still happens.
Makeshitupology is still going.

Polanyi wrote:Reality is unfortunately just what reality is, not what we decide or what we want it to be, and this goes for you too. I would agree with you that theology has no place in science but not because I believe all theology is false, the real problem is there is no way that we can verify or prove a theological argument scientifically, however this doesn't mean theology is not true. The problem with a theological argument is not that science cannot disprove it if it was false, science wouldn't even be able to prove or disprove it even if it was true in every respect.

If theological ideas cannot be tested, how does one know if an idea is theological, or just plain crazy?

Polanyi wrote:Suppose God exists, but God for his own personal reasons would never create cats to play with mice, this is just what it is.

I also think that we shouldn't presume anything, because that can make a person closed-minded. Is it not better to assume that god does not exist and then find evidence to show this idea to be false?

Polanyi wrote:Now even if this was true in every respect, there would still be no scientific way of verifying it, this is the tricky thing about theology, theological questions should be addressed in the realm of theology. Just like scientific questions should be addressed in the realm of science. Charles Darwin confused the two all the time, and many evolutionists still do today

I think creationists could be put in this category as well then. They are obviously not scientists. Maybe if they would stop trying to use science to verify their claims when they really should be using theology, there would be less confusion.

Alan C wrote:

Gawdzilla wrote:

Reality is unfortunately just what reality is, not what we decide or what we want it to be, and this goes for you too.

So made-up shit can be a reality substitute? I thought that went out in the '60s.

The presence of things like ArsebiscuitsInGenesis show this still happens.
Makeshitupology is still going.

Whatthefuckness follows closely.

Polanyi wrote:

I agree that it is possible for a person to hold on to theories for reasons that have nothing to do with reality.

Reality is unfortunately just what reality is, not what we decide or what we want it to be, and this goes for you too. I would agree with you that theology has no place in science but not because I believe all theology is false, the real problem is there is no way that we can verify or prove a theological argument scientifically, however this doesn't mean theology is not true. The problem with a theological argument is not that science cannot disprove it if it was false, science wouldn't even be able to prove or disprove it even if it was true in every respect.

Suppose God exists, but God for his own personal reasons would never create cats to play with mice, this is just what it is.

Now even if this was true in every respect, there would still be no scientific way of verifying it, this is the tricky thing about theology, theological questions should be addressed in the realm of theology. Just like scientific questions should be addressed in the realm of science.

Okay so far, you're on the right track.

Charles Darwin confused the two all the time, and many evolutionists still do today.

That's where your post ran off the track.

Well we don't have a scientific opposition against evolution right now. that's the real point. Appeal to history fallacy?