"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[ecco]

Creation will never be off the table unless it's disproven, which is probably impossible, even if it never occurred.

People still believe that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

 

[charlie sc]

I always found it confusing why people, especially monotheists, seem to think a famous person's personal belief has any relevance. People's ideas are important and relevant, not what they personally believed in.

 

[sealchan]

Just so nobody gets distracted it's pretty concrete Darwin's view on the subject of God........

A Letter About Darwin’s Belief in God Just Sold for Nearly $200,000 | Smart News | Smithsonian

The letter is 40 words long and it says this....

"Private
Nov. 24 1880
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to have to
inform you that I do
not believe in the Bible
as a divine revelation
& therefore not in Jesus
Christ as the son of God.
Yours faithfully
Ch. Darwin"

So the OP's quote is just Darwin citing the Creator as a sort of poetic flourish in order to close out his book from a "high level" viewpoint. Sort of like Hawking refers to God but only to make a point about the unnecessity of God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

On the second to the last page of "Origin of the Species," Charles Darwin writes,

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

You have failed to realize that what Darwin said was "this view of life." He did not claim he shared it...in fact, he didn't.

 

[KelseyR]

I'm not sure of your point?

I don't think of it as theistic or atheistic.

I don't know if Darwin believed in God or not. His acknowledgement could be to prevent censure.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You do realize that most modern day theists see no conflict between the theory of evolution and the concept of a creator God, right?

Oh, yes, of course. MOST of those who accept evolution are theists. But the atheists try to claim that it dispenses with God, and of course the creationists are worse, insisting that it is an atheistic doctrine.

 

[blü 2]

On the second to the last page of "Origin of the Species," Charles Darwin writes,

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Wikipedia has a good article on Darwin's religious beliefs from initial faith and confidence to disbelief in revelation and to agnosticism and skeptism.

Darwin had stopped attending church by 1848, and essentially his religious views were in place by then. The first edition of Origin of Species appeared in 1859. According to material elsewhere on the net, it mentioned 'the Creator' in a few places but not in the closing paragraphs. However, the 2nd and subsequent editions read as you quote above.

Why? That's a matter of speculation. One potential reason was that Darwin's wife was a believer, and continued to attend church with the family after he stopped going. He was at all times concerned not to offend her; and more widely he saw no advantage in having his book read as an attack on religion rather than a work of science, something we know from his writings and correspondence.

So it would be reasonable to guess that the words are there both for domestic harmony and as an attempt to minimize distractions.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Wikipedia has a good article on Darwin's religious beliefs from initial faith and confidence to disbelief in revelation and to agnosticism and skeptism.

Darwin had stopped attending church by 1848, and essentially his religious views were in place by then. The first edition of Origin of Species appeared in 1859. According to material elsewhere on the net, it mentioned 'the Creator' in a few places but not in the closing paragraphs. However, the 2nd and subsequent editions read as you quote above.

Why? That's a matter of speculation. One potential reason was that Darwin's wife was a believer, and continued to attend church with the family after he stopped going. He was at all times concerned not to offend her; and more widely he saw no advantage in having his book read as an attack on religion rather than a work of science, something we know from his writings and correspondence.

So it would be reasonable to guess that the words are there both for domestic harmony and as an attempt to minimize distractions.

Sure Darwins views evolved over time. None of us are static (at least it would be unusual). The point is, his one time theism at the time of proposing evolution shows to anti-theists and hard core creationists that there really isn't this artificial war between evolution and theism.

 

[ecco]

But the atheists try to claim that it dispenses with God,

In and of itself, Evolution does not dispense with god(s). It dispenses with the need for god(s) insofar as the origins of humans.

There are many other things that dispense with god(s).

 

[blü 2]

Sure Darwins views evolved over time. None of us are static (at least it would be unusual). The point is, his one time theism at the time of proposing evolution shows to anti-theists and hard core creationists that there really isn't this artificial war between evolution and theism.

Hmm. That depends on which theist you're talking to. Anyone who believes in a literal bible, or, near to that, thinks that the stories in the bible are essentially accurate reports, is already of the view that Darwin has outraged theism by doing away with Genesis biological creation; just as at the start of the 19th century when geology was beginning to reckon the age of the earth in years incompatible with Ussher, the same people had similar views, though they were not far from all Christians back then.

On the other hand, those who understand science and take the bible figuratively haven't had, and don't have, problems of that kind. But these days they're the majority of Christians.

 

[tosca1]

Y

Created in the text isn't a literal nor a metaphor. And certainly morphology of language makes understanding what was meant rather difficult. One would think artists would be better at explaining that but alas not generally. But the mystery of life is a something to be experienced not explained, so how would one go about "explaining" that exactly with any clarity is rather difficult since the explanation is never the experience.

Even science can be wrong!

Nothing can match personal experience. Thus, the ultimate evidence for the supernatural (GOD) are in the billions of testimonies from those who've had experience(s) with Him!

 

[tosca1]

The real sin is when people that dislike evolution on non-scientific grounds misrepresent it - either on purpose or out of ignorance - to make themselves feel better about their poor choice.

It's not a matter of "disliking" evolution (Macro-evolution).......but, there's really no clear evidence for it.
I don't want to get into it since it's another interesting topic. But, I can support that claim that I've made.

 

[Audie]

Oh, yes, of course. MOST of those who accept evolution are theists. But the atheists try to claim that it dispenses with God, and of course the creationists are worse, insisting that it is an atheistic doctrine.

Atheists do that? Sez who? I dont. Nobody here does.
IOW you made it up.

At least some of the creos so claim, you got that partly
correct.

 

[tosca1]

I think it was. Them Bible attempts to explain how the world works, how it got to be that way, and what will come - all issues that science tackles. The fact that the Bible got so little right doesn't mean that its writers didn't try and fail.

There's a big difference between a science book and...........
...............a Book that proves the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation!

This is an analogy I could think of at the moment. Is a recipe book a science book, since the chef who came up with his own recipes, had compiled them in a book?

The Bible had made so many claims - and since we know the Bible is full of different figures of speech, a lot of those claims are considered just that - figures of speech.........until some turned out - thanks to science - that they're not!

Your comment is one of the many adaptations Christianity has had to make as science marches on and disproves its mythology.

You are regurgitating the usual cliche by new atheists - perhaps, from new atheists site - which I must say, are borne out of ignorance!

Science does not disprove Christianity.
Who do you think the God that is referred to in Theistic Evolution is? The ABRAHAMIC GOD!

How do I know? Most scientists who believe in theistic evolution are Christians! Foremost is FRANCIS COLLINS!
Do you know who Collins is? Check him out.

These days, many Christians are saying that biological evolution occurred and is still occurring here on earth, and that there is no such thing as hell or damnation.

So what?

Some christians too, don't believe in Jesus Christ! In fact, I debated someone who calls himself to be a christian - not because he believes in Jesus - but because, he likes the philosophy of Christianity!

Is fact determined by........popularity contest?

That's the problem these days. Relativism abound.
Truth is what relativists want it to be.

Science was developed to discover the ways that physical reality works. Gods aren't needed in science, and in fact have no place in it. No scientific theory contains a god, needs a god, or could benefit in terms of explanatory or predictive power by the ad hoc insertion of a god into any scientific theory.

You should review what I wrote.

 

[Windwalker]

Like most people of Darwin of day, he had little choice but theism.

Somehow people at that time were incapable of not believing God exists? Can you explain how that works? You'd think understanding that evolution really is what was responsible for the origin of the species, the title of his work, that would have made him realize God doesn't exist. Perhaps science and evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving God? Perhaps atheism has something to do with something other than the data?

On the Origin of Species is a book based on observations, he will of course flavoured it with his core values.

So you're saying that someone who is an atheist will look at evolution and "of course flavored it with [their] core values", since that is what somehow explains Darwin's understanding? In other words, both the theist and atheist will take their core values and interpret evolution to fit their views about God. Correct?

The book was a good starting point, although by no means visionary. Since then the study of evolution has progressed considerably

And people who believe in God see God at work in evolution, and people who do not believe in God don't. I'm not seeing a lot of support for atheism over theism because of evolution here.

 

[Windwalker]

Just so nobody gets distracted it's pretty concrete Darwin's view on the subject of God........

A Letter About Darwin’s Belief in God Just Sold for Nearly $200,000 | Smart News | Smithsonian

The letter is 40 words long and it says this....

"Private
Nov. 24 1880
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to have to
inform you that I do
not believe in the Bible
as a divine revelation
& therefore not in Jesus
Christ as the son of God.
Yours faithfully
Ch. Darwin"

That does not translate into not believing in God. Great many numbers of people don't believe that either, yet believe God exists.

 

[Cooky]

I've never felt that Darwin believed anything that was hostile to Creationism. The Creator breathed the life into a biological organism that is self replicating and self evolving. The only sin is that ignorant and arrogant men try to make it all a random accident.

I struggle deeply with coming to terms with the randomness of evolution.

Deep down, I ultimately just cannot accept it.

 

[Windwalker]

That's the problem these days. Relativism abound.
Truth is what relativists want it to be.

Truth is seen as truth by whoever is seeing it as truth. That is simply a statement of fact. And relativism is simply the observation of that fact, understanding that everyone sees the truth according to the set of parameters, or the context, through which they are seeing them. Relativism is simply recognizing that's what's going on. That's all it is.

That some ignorant person might take that to mean that garbage nonsense beliefs are valid too, such as saying anti-vaccine beliefs are valid because of relativism, is a distortion of meaning of what relativism recognizes as a fact of the nature of truths and how they are held though different cultures. Relativism is not a belief or system of values in itself. It's simply an explanation for differences of truths between cultures. Something that's pretty obvious actually.

 

[Polymath257]

Even science can be wrong!

Nothing can match personal experience. Thus, the ultimate evidence for the supernatural (GOD) are in the billions of testimonies from those who've had experience(s) with Him!

OK, this is a viewpoint I find quite strange. A single personal experience is *one* data point. A hundred would be a hundred data points. You can *interpret* experiences as being due to some deity, but that is a *hypothesis* about that data. It still needs to be challenged, tested, used to make predictions, etc.

In my viewpoint, personal experience, because of the possibility of self-delusion, is one of the *least* useful sources of information. The scientific method is far, far, far better as far as I can see.

 

[Audie]

Truth is seen as truth by whoever is seeing it as truth. That is simply a statement of fact. And relativism is simply the observation of that fact, understanding that everyone sees the truth according to the set of parameters, or the context, through which they are seeing them. Relativism is simply recognizing that's what's going on. That's all it is.

That some ignorant person might take that to mean that garbage nonsense beliefs are valid too, such as saying anti-vaccine beliefs are valid because of relativism, is a distortion of meaning of what relativism recognizes as a fact of the nature of truths and how they are held though different cultures. Relativism is not a belief or system of values in itself. It's simply an explanation for differences of truths between cultures. Something that's pretty obvious actually.

Our noob has a lot to learn.