Darwin's Debt to Christianity

Many words have been written about the differences between evolution and Christianity. But in many ways the ideas of evolution parallel that of Christianity. For example both Evolution and Christianity have transformation as a central theme. For Christianity it is the transformation of the inner person and for evolution it the change of the outer person. While the two focus on different things they are both still talking about changing what we are.Evolution and Christianity follow a "redeemer" scenario. In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival. The themes of transformation and redemption in Christianity became "mutation" and "survival" in Evolution. Finally, in evolution this changed member of a species must out procreate the other members for the species to be changed. Even in this Evolution parallels Christianity. For while Jesus did not have children - the spiritual "genes" of his identity are in billions of people making him the most “imitated” person to have ever lived.So similar are underlying themes between Evolution and Christianity that it seems unlikely that they are a product of chance. It seems unlikely that Darwin would have developed his theory if he had not lived in a Christian society or had he not trained to be a clergyman. His interest may have been in the natural world but his training was in medicine and then divinity. His theory did not come out of a vacuum but adapted what he already knew, Darwin barrowed heavily from a Christian worldview for his theory which is basically a Christian framework with new names.

Hi
Yes, I have made posts lately on about 6 sites. I haven't tried to hide this as I don't think that this is a bad thing. Some people have something they want to say and I am one of those at the moment. While others prefer to react to other people's contrubitions. I have put forward a different view on Darwin and would like to test it in the open forum which could be helpful to everyone. I hope that at some point you will reconsider my post and let it go forward.Edited by no1nose, : grammar error

My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See red block.

I am trying to point out that despite many differences both Evolution and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another. For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. Darwin’s scenario begins with one member being different at birth. This follows Christianity as Jesus was different - being conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival. Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor. Finally in evolution the member of a species are not like this new individual becomes “extinct”. This too follows the Christianity in that those who do not accept Jesus are lost. Please note that none of these ideas are self evident in the natural world. They are read into it by Darwin’s preconceived Christian ideas.The survival issues that face humanity are hunger, overpopulation, war, disease. Even from an evolutionary point of view if everyone became like Jesus there would be no hunger because he was able to feed people. Neither would be there be sickness, war or death. The same can not be said for Buddha, Mohamed, or Moses or anyone else one can think of. So even from an evolutionary point of view Jesus is the one.

"Not one member, all members"Besides being a math free zone there seems to be no consensus as to exactly what Evolution is. Please excuse me for not conforming to your version. What difference would the detail make anyway?

"don't recall Jesus having passed the ultimate test of Darwinian 'survival of the fittest,' namely passing his genes onto any progeny. Do you know something no one else does about Jesus having kids? Perhaps you are referring to ideas more than a given genetic code. {ABE - OK, having reread the OP, I see you are referring to the latter}"Born again believers have Jesus living in them - in this regard Jesus has billions of "progeny" far more than anyone else.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionary ideas such as common descent and the transmutation of species have existed since at least the 6th century BC, when they were expounded by the Greek philosopher Anaximander.[165] Others who considered such ideas included the Greek philosopher Empedocles, the Roman philosopher-poet Lucretius, the Arab biologist Al-Jahiz,[166] the Persian philosopher Ibn Miskawayh, the Brethren of Purity,[167] and the Eastern philosopher Zhuangzi.[168]What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour. All Darwin did was adapt this to the natural world."Oh, and welcome to EvC."
"nice observation"Thank you

"At any rate here is as good a place as any for such a debate, give it your best shot."The redeemer scenario is the model that Darwin used as an outline for his theory. Darwin used this archetype from the subconscious to fill in the blanks. The theory of evolution presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.From Gdel's incompleteness theorems - WikipediaQuote:In mathematical logic, Gdel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gdel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.

Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.

"This would be false."Please show me some math in the Theory of Evoulation. The data you refer to is really independent of the evolution - like a ship can sail the sea under any flag.“Incompleteness” for want of a better word is evident throughout nature. For example in physics there is the uncertainty principle. And in the natural world life is organized in way a way that prevents conscious life from being in direct contact with it ultimate source of lifeLight flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.“. . there is a Gestalt psych term for what the mind does when it has incomplete information; it is "the closure principle". It means that, when a person is given an incomplete set of data, his mind will fill in the gaps to make a whole picture so that he can interpret it.”Quote:
The principle of closure applies when we tend to see complete figures even when part of the information is missing. Our minds react to patterns that are familiar, even though we often receive incomplete information. It is speculated this is a survival instinct, allowing us to complete the form of a predator even with incomplete information.Darwin just filled in the blanks with a twisted form of Christianity.

"He makes no allusions to Christianity, whatsoever, and the supposed one's you give seems to be completely invented in your mind. Think about how easy it is to draw parallels, real or imagined, for just about anything, as Larni has already shared?"Darwin was culturally bound in his thinking. He didn’t have the same perspective as we do today.

There must be an easier way.

Interesting post but weather people go to hell or not is another topic. I was just trying to show where Darwin got some of his ideas from. How's life in Wyoming? We lived there for few years - it was great for getting outdoors - but sometimes the wind would blow for months.

Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.

When did it stop being a chance process?

If I might step in, Thanks for that. Thats not the point at all. I wonder if you have read this thread from the start. If not please do and comment. If you have already read it from the start then said so and I will try to make my point more clearly.