Darwinism or Theism (is there a political slant too)?

[shunyadragon]

This supports my position.

I am not sure how this supports your position, both Charles Darwin and Lincoln were luke warm at best toward religion, and distanced themselves from traditional religious beliefs

From: https://www.issr.org.uk/issr-statements/charles-darwin-on-religion/
Darwin and the insufficiency of sound bites
There is no simple answer to questions about Darwin’s religious sympathies. This is partly because they changed over time. To a first approximation, his trajectory was from the Christian orthodoxy of his Cambridge years to a non-biblical deism at the time the Origin was published to a more thoroughly agnostic position in later life. This makes a neat and ironic story, given Darwin’s initial training to become an Anglican priest and given the clerical attacks on his theory that he had to endure. But it means that what was credible for him at certain times in his life was not at others. For example, the sensitivity with which in the early 1830s he responded to the sublime beauty of the Brazilian rain forest, and which he said had been associated with his belief in God, faded in old age. In 1859, at the age of fifty, he could still believe that the laws governing the evolution and diversification of life had their origin in a Creator.

A second reason why Darwin is difficult to pin down concerns the fluctuation of belief. In private correspondence he admitted that his beliefs often fluctuated, even within his most agnostic phases. There were times when, in his own words, he supposed he deserved to be called a theist. At other times the strength of his belief in an ultimate Creator waned. He did, however, insist that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God – a point sometimes overlooked by his fundamentalist critics and his atheistic champions."

The prevalent view among Christians at the time of Charles Darwin was that whites and blacks were not created equal.

Abraham Lincoln was faced with the same world view of Christianity, even though he was closer to secular Deism than Theism in his life.

 

[metis]

I am not sure how this supports your position, both Charles Darwin and Lincoln were luke warm at best toward religion, and distanced themselves from traditional religious beliefs

From: https://www.issr.org.uk/issr-statements/charles-darwin-on-religion/
Darwin and the insufficiency of sound bites
There is no simple answer to questions about Darwin’s religious sympathies. This is partly because they changed over time. To a first approximation, his trajectory was from the Christian orthodoxy of his Cambridge years to a non-biblical deism at the time the Origin was published to a more thoroughly agnostic position in later life. This makes a neat and ironic story, given Darwin’s initial training to become an Anglican priest and given the clerical attacks on his theory that he had to endure. But it means that what was credible for him at certain times in his life was not at others. For example, the sensitivity with which in the early 1830s he responded to the sublime beauty of the Brazilian rain forest, and which he said had been associated with his belief in God, faded in old age. In 1859, at the age of fifty, he could still believe that the laws governing the evolution and diversification of life had their origin in a Creator.

A second reason why Darwin is difficult to pin down concerns the fluctuation of belief. In private correspondence he admitted that his beliefs often fluctuated, even within his most agnostic phases. There were times when, in his own words, he supposed he deserved to be called a theist. At other times the strength of his belief in an ultimate Creator waned. He did, however, insist that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God – a point sometimes overlooked by his fundamentalist critics and his atheistic champions."

The prevalent view among Christians at the time of Charles Darwin was that whites and blacks were not created equal.

Abraham Lincoln was faced with the same world view of Christianity, even though he was closer to secular Deism than Theism in his life.

Considering that Darwin only had a small fraction of the information that we now have at our disposal about evolution, he has to be considered a sheer genius.

 

[shunyadragon]

My position stands. This post had nothing to do with the validity of science or evolution even if that is what you are trying to make it about.

It was about the political slant.

What has the political slant have to do with the science of evolution?

I do not think many of the quotes like those by Stalin and Karl Marx have anything to do with the political slant. There was a lot of misinformation about the science of evolution as there is now among religious perspectives.

I believe that the problem 'religious and political slants' on the science of evolution would be in terms of the history of misinformation by layman, political and religious leaders concerning the science of evolution.

The choice you offer in the title 'Darwinism or Theism" leads to misunderstandings unless you clarify your position.

Is this where you are going with this?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ohhh... oh perfect one!

I'm not perfect, but you'll have to find someone else to pin that "sin" stuff on.

 

[Kenny]

What has the political slant have to do with the science of evolution?

I do not think many of the quotes like those by Stalin and Karl Marx have anything to do with the political slant. There was a lot of misinformation about the science of evolution as there is now among religious perspectives.

I believe that the problem 'religious and political slants' on the science of evolution would be in terms of the history of misinformation by layman, political and religious leaders concerning the science of evolution.

Is this where you are going with this?

Religion was a foundation that was used to kill people and save people.

Darwanism was a foundation that used to kill people... I'm sure that at some point it can save people. Maybe you can help with the bringing life like I use faith to bring life.

 

[columbus]

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Abraham

Lincoln was quoting a slaver, in case you are unaware of the source.
Tom

 

[columbus]

was a foundation that was used to kill people and save people.

Mostly kill.
Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. To get good people to do bad things usually takes religion.
Tom

 

[shunyadragon]

Religion was a foundation that was used to kill people and save people.

Darwanism was a foundation that used to kill people... I'm sure that at some point it can save people. Maybe you can help with the bringing life like I use faith to bring life.

If this is where you are going with this religious agenda, I will reassert my previous objections and more. Use of the nonexistent 'Darwinism' is not the scapegoat for the acts of Cruel Despots is over the top religious agenda.

It is the misinformation and misuse of the science of evolution by politicians and religious leaders that may contribute, but not likely, to the problems you describe, and more over the millennia, but leaders have been murderous despots for the whole history of civilized humanity, and nothing to do with the science of evolution. World Tyrants like Stalin and Hitler would have done what they did regardless of their beliefs in evolution. The concept of 'Christian Manifest Destiny' has been responsible for a great deal of historical violence against humanity than any influence by the science of evolution, which is indifferent to religious and political motives.

The science of evolution does not kill people. It is the misuse of science that may be used to kill people.

The science of evolution is a product of over a 150 years is a product of the basic Physics, Chemistry, and Biology and not responsible for killing anyone People kill people, and not science.

 

[Kenny]

Lincoln was quoting a slaver, in case you are unaware of the source.
Tom

Lincoln is also quoted as a supporter of freedom for slaves.

Context?

 

[Kenny]

If this is where you are going with this religious agenda, I will reassert my previous objections and more. Use of the nonexistent 'Darwinism' is not the scapegoat for the acts of Cruel Despots is over the top religious agenda.

It is the misinformation and misuse of the science of evolution by politicians and religious leaders that may contribute, but not likely, to the problems you describe, and more over the millennia, but leaders have been murderous despots for the whole history of civilized humanity, and nothing to do with the science of evolution. World Tyrants like Stalin and Hitler would have done what they did regardless of their beliefs in evolution. The concept of 'Christian Manifest Destiny' has been responsible for a great deal of historical violence against humanity than any influence by the science of evolution, which is indifferent to religious and political motives.

The science of evolution does not kill people. It is the misuse of science that may be used to kill people.

The science of evolution is a product of over a 150 years is a product of the basic Physics, Chemistry, and Biology and not responsible for killing anyone People kill people, and not science.

If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.

 

[columbus]

Lincoln is also quoted as a supporter of freedom for slaves.

Context?

Like Darwin, he was still a dreadful racist by modern secular standards. He believed that white people are superior to non-white people. Abolitionism doesn't mean equality.
Tom

 

[shunyadragon]

Lincoln is also quoted as a supporter of freedom for slaves.

Context?

Considering all the facts of both men like other intellectuals of the period, uncomfortable with establishment religion, shared deist views, and more in common than differences. they were still a product of the culture of the time that blacks and whites were not equal.

 

[shunyadragon]

If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.

No coherent response here.

Science, including the science of evolution, has never killed anyone, but the misuse, misinformation of science, and technology developed for war by humans for political and religious purposes can and do kill people.

 

[columbus]

Considering that Darwin only had a small fraction of the information that we now have at our disposal about evolution, he has to be considered a sheer genius.

And not only did Darwin identify the rudiments of species and speciation. He also did it in a modern way.
He put huge efforts into compiling a ton of documentation and then published both his conclusions and also his evidence. He didn't just rely on human authority, as was generally done for all of history. He put it out there for scrutiny and criticism, letting the evidence speak for itself and do the convincing.
It's hard for modern people, accustomed to scientific methods, to realize how different that was from how things used to be done.
Tom

 

[metis]

Lincoln is also quoted as a supporter of freedom for slaves.

Context?

Lincoln didn't have strong feelings against slavery other than the fact that he knew the issue was tearing the country apart. Also, he was strongly encouraged to take a strong stance by many within his party.

BTW, if slavery supposedly is over, then why does my wife treat me like one?

 

[Kenny]

Lincoln didn't have strong feelings against slavery other than the fact that he knew the issue was tearing the country apart. Also, he was strongly encouraged to take a strong stance by many within his party.

BTW, if slavery supposedly is over, then why does my wife treat me like one?

I will deal with the wife point since it is the most difficult of the two... It is all in perspective since she really is trying to love on you! You are just interpreting it wrong.

As far as Abraham L.; I see a problem in us trying to capture his real thoughts without talking to him personally, but it is hard to believe that his only concern was that the issue was tearing the country apart. I think he was more of a realist in his expression about it.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 271.

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 492.

"So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Fragment on Slavery" (April 1, 1854?), p. 222.

There are so many more.

 

[metis]

I will deal with the wife point since it is the most difficult of the two... It is all in perspective since she really is trying to love on you! You are just interpreting it wrong.

As far as Abraham L.; I see a problem in us trying to capture his real thoughts without talking to him personally, but it is hard to believe that his only concern was that the issue was tearing the country apart. I think he was more of a realist in his expression about it.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 271.

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 492.

"So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Fragment on Slavery" (April 1, 1854?), p. 222.

There are so many more.

Oops, I have to admit that was wrong as I conflated two different things, namely his personal opinion that slavery was morally wrong versus a view that blacks and white should be treated as equals, with the latter being wrong in regards to Lincoln.

No wonder my wife treats me like a slave.

BTW, here's an interesting account of this: 5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation

 

[Kenny]

Oops, I have to admit that was wrong as I conflated two different things, namely his personal opinion that slavery was morally wrong versus a view that blacks and white should be treated as equals, with the latter being wrong in regards to Lincoln.

No wonder my wife treats me like a slave.

BTW, here's an interesting account of this: 5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation

Interesting points about Abraham. When I said he is a realist, I wonder (have no way of verifying) if he knew how far he could go within the climate of the time since he knew "Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution" (from your site)

Could it be that if he pushed the right to vote along with freedom for slaves he knew the ship would sink and there wouldn't even be freedom for all people?

Or, for that matter, maybe he wasn't a fullfledged abolitionist but at least knew that slavery was wrong and God used him to take humanity to the next level.

Although, with today's sex slavery trade proliferating, I'm not sure we are any better off today. It's quite sickening.

 

[shunyadragon]

I will deal with the wife point since it is the most difficult of the two... It is all in perspective since she really is trying to love on you! You are just interpreting it wrong.

As far as Abraham L.; I see a problem in us trying to capture his real thoughts without talking to him personally, but it is hard to believe that his only concern was that the issue was tearing the country apart. I think he was more of a realist in his expression about it.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 271.

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 492.

"So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Fragment on Slavery" (April 1, 1854?), p. 222.

There are so many more.

I have agreed that Lincoln was anti-slavery, but he was racist, and did not propose racial equality for blacks in society, and with the same cultural context of Christianity of the time that Charles Darwin lived and expressed racist views. There is no evidence that Charles Darwin supported slavery. They had more in common than differences.

 

[Milton Platt]

Darwin & Lincoln were born SAME day but had OPPOSITE views of Man made in Image of Creator!

Excerps:

Karl Marx wrote to Lassalle, January 16, 1861:

" Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history."
If by Darwinism, you mean the theory of evolution through natural selection, the Karl Marx did not understand evolution. He was certainly no authority on it.
Karl Marx dedicated a personal copy his book, Das Kapital, to Charles Darwin, inscribing that he was a "sincere admirer" of Darwin.

Darwin continued:

"Civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world ...
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
It has been a long time since he wrote this....we understand the mechanisms that drive evolution much more clearly.
Sanger founded a 501(c)3 called Planned Parenthood.

Sanger began a "Negro Project" in 1939 to reduce the African-American population. Her racist views are seen in statements, such as:

"The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development."
Sanger obviously didn't fully understand what she was talking about, either. So I don't see the reason to quote her on a subject she had deficient knowledge in.
Joseph Stalin stated of the Soviet state-controlled "common core" type indoctrination:

"There are three things that we do to disabuse the minds of our seminary students. We had to teach them the age of the earth, the geologic origin, and Darwin's teachings."
Okay, so he wanted them to be scientifically literate......
Darwin influenced Mao Zedong who stated:

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwinand the theory of evolution."
Maybe in his mind.......but not in reality.








Franklin D. Roosevelt stated January 6, 1942:

"Our enemies are guided by ... unholy contempt for the human race.

We are inspired by a faith that goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His own image."
Vague characterizations from a politician giving a grand-standing speech......