Darwin's Debt to Christianity

By coincidence I was listening to the free HHMI lectures DVDs this week.In them a Catholic monk and educator puts forward the concept that his religious views suggest that God had to have created the world with some way for life to be developing, changing etc.He then pointed out that the biologists are willing to say that natural selection is a requirement for this (ie. there is no other way).From this the Catholic suggests that God had to create life that evolves just as we see.Your ideas have some resonance with what he has to say.

I'm not seeing any inherent similarity, and I suppose Larni said it best. Any parallel can be made if one tries hard enough to find one.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

So, you are no longer interested in your OP and now your beef with evolution is that it's too plausible?What kind of position is that?

I have to agree with Larni (and thankfully his opinion avoided crankiness). Please note my "red block" addition in message 13. Good luck.NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE.Adminnemooseus

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.

quote:

---

Darwin's scenario begins with one member being different at birth.

---

Not one member, all members.I think if you really wanted to make a correlation between Evolution and Christianity, you would have to compare the principles of Evolution and the tenets of Christianity (perhaps just the ten commandments). In that case I think you would find that there are few similarities.

"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?

The term 'new man' has also been used by Marx in referring to the goal of communism and by Nietzsche in reference to the ubermensch or superman. Would you also like for Christianity to take credit for their ideas as well? I 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} Sorry, I don't recall a return from the dead being part of Darwin's TOE. From Wikipedia on evolution:

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]

---

So how did these guys figure out the basics of evolution without benefit of the Christian religion if the Christian belief system is required as a prerequisite? If everyone became as Buddha, achieved Nirvana, and escaped eternal reincarnation, would they not also be no sickness, war or death? If the members of Heaven's Gate had truly gone to the UFO behind comet Hale-Bopp as they believe, would they not have escaped sickness, war or death? I think the last paragraph is more preaching from a presumed final authority on truth rather than someone who seeks to discover truth through logical debate.Sorry, I consider your observations nothing more than coincidence with a lot of filtering of facts to support a preconceived notion. Got anything more than this to support your thesis?Oh, and welcome to EvC. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

some of the most celebrated of science were Christians or creationists. even Darwin in his book finalized his observation that all things were "marvellously created".i believe that a lot of the discoveries in science were gifts that God visited upon scientists who sought the truth.God made all that is with great care and perfect balance. and loved individuality enough to give mankind a choice for their own placement in the natural order.sadly, we destroy the balance instead of maintain it. and im sure that it has not gone without notice.although your topic is Darwin's debt; i believe all have their debts. and God paid them in Christ Jesus.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

"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

I have no problem with discussing the possible parallels between Christianity and evolution, the problem I have is any blanket statement that the concept of evolution requires Christianity, or that evolution somehow provides some irrefutable proof of Christianity in absence of sufficient evidence to make such a claim. You may not have explicitly stated that this is the purpose of this thread, but I have discerned that it may be a possibility and seek to let you know the case for either assertion may not be as easy as you may assume.At any rate here is as good a place as any for such a debate, give it your best shot.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

UniversalRemonster provided you correct information. This is not an issue concerning which there is any disagreement within evolution. With few exceptions, all offspring differ from parents. So when you say this in Message 20: "Darwin's scenario" has no beginning. Evolution is just an ongoing process of descent with modification and natural selection. Almost all descent involves modification. There was never a "one member being different at birth," because nearly all members are different at birth. It is the rare exception when this is not the case. We've even discovered that identical twins are not 100% genetically identical. You're comparing a single event in Christianity with all reproductive events over the entire history of life on this planet.--Percy

"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.

This would be false. The theory of evolution, like all other theories, is tentative and open to change in light of new evidence or improved insight.--Percy

What you seem to forget is that Jesus did not breed and pass on his wonderful genes: no evolution.