Searching for Ancient Truth

Putting in a post with just the word "bump" in it for the purpose of bumping the thread back to the top of the list is perfectly acceptable around here as long as you only do it a couple of times. After that, then you have to assume no one wants to talk about it and let it die.

Personally, I wish everyone who felt free to accuse all scientists who accept evolution as biased would be required to read the first few chapters of Darwin's Origin of Species as a minimum (and probably a few chapters from Lyell, too), so they could get a feel for these guys.I suppose it probably wouldn't do any good for most people, because they're so busy defending their beliefs that the willy-nilly and ignorant slandering of men like Darwin and his successors is perfectly acceptable to them. However, surely some of the Christian faithful have enough honesty in them to recognize the incredible honesty and humility that exudes from every page of Origin of Species and that those would have enough regard for Christ to cease the bearing of false witness against some incredibly brilliant, brave, and honest men.I fell in love with Charles Darwin when I read Origin and I found a kindred heart in him that I believe that God has great regard for.Shammah
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1(I don't normally sign my name or add our web site, but I wanted to put the greatest possible emphasis on my endorsement of Charles Darwin, because over a century after his death, he still managed to earn great respect from me.)

Ok, that's fine. However, this doesn't address the issue I had, which is your statement that "they have been working under the handicap of the ASSUMPTIONS already laid down in the field and cannot think outside that box, which means that all their thinking has gone into finding an explanation that fits those preconceptions."Darwin is very clear about what shaped his thinking, and it certainly wasn't assumptions already laid down in the field. He had a real problem, trying to pigeon-hole species and subspecies into holes they didn't fit in. That shaped his thinking, not assumptions.The accusation that scientists, especially the early ones like Lyell and Darwin were just proving their own preconceptions is so far from the truth that it's simply slander to suggest it.The reason you had the same reaction that I did when you read Darwin is because, right or wrong, Darwin was clearly an honest and humble man trying to see what's true.

What roxrkool is trying to point out to you is that your comment was NOT about present company. It was not specifically about Darwin, either, but it was about geologists in the century leading up to Darwin, most of whom were Christian ministers.Go back and read post 1 and look at the context of your quote; the statement of roxrkool's that it is a response to.