Questionable Motives

August 22, 2010

What might Darwin say?


  1. That would be a difficult issue…..and it depends on what you mean by todays creationists. For instance you have YEC’s which is different to Intelligent Design, which is different again to those who believe God created through evolutionary progresses.

    One of the things that I find interesting about those who promote Darwins theories is that Darwin himself refuted and modified his earlier thoughts in his older age and became a Christian himself a few years before his death.

    Comment by Craig Benno — August 22, 2010 @ 8:58 pm | Reply

    • As far as I can determine, your last sentence is absolute bunk in the sense that Darwin came to refute his theory of natural selection. And as far as him being a christian, he schooled in theology and without a doubt was nothing anyone today would recognize as a christian. Please cite your sources.

      And it is laughable that you can think there is any meaningful difference between creationists, young earth creationists, old earth creations, or between creationism and Intelligent Design. They are all one and the same.

      For an excellent history of the evolution of creationism into ID, check out Barbara Forest’s website and/or enjoy this video. Or read Laura Lebos’ excellent book. Or read the Judge Jones’ summation. Or… well, I mean, if you really want to find out what’s true rather than just mouth the same old tired creationist/Discovery Institute lies that have been thoroughly debunked and discredited by intellectually honest people.

      Comment by tildeb — August 22, 2010 @ 10:40 pm | Reply

  2. Hi Tilbed…

    There is a huge difference between what your calling the findings of the creationist / discovery instituite and the many scientists who believe or study science within the Intelligent Design field….many of whom are not Christian.

    It would appear to me that you are guilty of labling every Christian with YEC’s or within the narrow band of Christianity you have mentioned. There is a vast area of differences between Yec’s and those who believe otherwise.

    One of the things I would enjoy hearing is your thoughts about how life / earth / the universe started to begin with.

    Comment by Craig Benno — August 22, 2010 @ 10:54 pm | Reply

    • Again, source? As far as I know, there is no science in Intelligent design. There is ONLY creationism. ID IS creationism. As for the scientists working in this field, where are their peer reviewed and published papers? How much new research cites these sources? How has this ‘science’ invigorated biology? What you are writing is based on misinformation and falsely inflated data. There is no controversy in biology over evolution. It is solidly grounded in evidence. ID is not. ID has zero evidence, no scientific theory, no way to falsify the assumption of a designer, no way to test its hypothesis, and is treated by almost every biologist in the world as creationism (but there are always a few wing nuts in every profession).

      As for abiogenesis, I don’t know and neither do you but through evolutionary extrapolation we’re getting closer to animating the inanimate.

      As for what existed before the Big Bang, I don’t know and neither do you but astrophysics will probably yield far better information than theology.

      What the typical creationist does is find some area where our knowledge is weak and without shame stick some kind of supernatural nonsense into the gap. It’s tedious as well as intellectually dishonest.

      You see, it doesn’t matter how far removed we put god from evolution; those who insist on some kind of intervention or creation by god have made two significant mistakes: the first is that they have hypothesized without evidence for the assertion and the second is that they have undermined what evolution means: change through natural selection. That is why anyone – no matter what their education credentials may be – who inserts a creationist and/or designer god at ANY point is denying the theory of evolution without justification. And that’s not science.

      Comment by tildeb — August 22, 2010 @ 11:15 pm | Reply

  3. I have a lot of time for Eugenie Scott, she is gentle in her persuasion. A scientist of unquestionable integrity – who is incredibly well considered, and is always worth listening to – how refreshing to hear sense, and a world often confused by fundamental nonsense.
    I liked what she was saying about the demonising of Darwin, and the irrelevance of the ‘ism’ that is implied by the religious, and the grouping of creationism into sets of beliefs.

    As for the debate:

    “One of the things that I find interesting about those who promote Darwins theories is that Darwin himself refuted and modified his earlier thoughts in his older age and became a Christian himself a few years before his death.”

    What you forget Craig, is that Darwin was married to highly religious person (Emma Wedgwood) who he loved. In addition, many of his peers would have been highly religious to the point of being fundamental about their beliefs, this was normal in British society during the reign of Queen Victoria. The process of modern scientific enquiry was still in its infancy, so much of Darwin’s work would have been literally revolutionary. Darwin knew that his book of 1859 would cause a controversy, and it is believed that he held back publication until he could ensure that he had enough evidence to support his claims.

    Darwin’s idea was dangerous, he risked everything he owned and everyone he loved publishing his work – and indeed, he was forced and pressured socially to modify his first edition of his book. This is not a change of mind as you suggest – this is a man who is being forced to change his view because of the social unrest that it caused within the academic and religious elite.

    I suspect he would have wanted to make his view clearer and stronger, but was probably wise not to. If he was alive today he would almost certainly be candid with his view about religion, especially having the advantages that we have now with regard to modern DNA and genetic analysis – all of which I might add support his theory.

    The more we look at Darwin’s theory the more evidence we find to support it. Not only that, but we know exactly what it would take to disprove the theory, and since the publication of the theory every scientist, and religious person has been searching desperately to find evidence that will falsify it – so far nothing.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — August 23, 2010 @ 8:59 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: