Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed Aug 03 2005 - 07:42:49 EDT

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Cornelius Hunter
  To: Pim van Meurs
  Cc: asa
  Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:05 AM
  Subject: Re: Stereotypes and reputations

  Answering Pim, Michael, and Glenn:

   

  Michael:

  Your idea that Darwin did not argue against divine creation is going to be difficult to defend. Arguments falsifying divine creation run throughout *Origins.* My dog-eared copy is chocked full of highlighter marks and stickers (and I'm still finding more). I can't imagine what you are thinking, unless you are defining "divine creation" as creation strictly via secondary causes while God rests (as Darwin allowed for in the closing paragraphs). Darwin distinguished between different flavors of creation theories, and spared none of them. He used a variety of terms, including:

  -independent creation
  -separate creation
  -ordinary view of independent creation
  -the belief that the species have been created
  -the belief of independent acts of creation
  -separate and innumerable acts of creation
  -the theory of creation
  -utility or doctrine of final causes.

  This is not an exhaustive list. In each case he argued it has been falsified by empirical evidence. These were, and are, the strong arguments for evolution. I use the term "divine creation" to represent all these versions of creation theories. Darwin argued against them all because he believed the empirical evidence revealed that God would not have created the species, regardless of the particulars of the creation theory. Thus, although the positive evidence for evolution was, and is, weak, Darwin and evolutionists today believe it is a fact because the alternative has been falsified. Christians accepted Darwin's theory (as opposed to many scientists) not because Darwin allowed for divine creation, but rather because he rejected it as Christians had been calling for long before Darwin. The Leibniz-Kant-etc. models of what we would now call theistic evolution had finally been fleshed out in Darwin's theory.

> I hadn't realised that Gould has passed on some revelation on the nature of
> God!!!

  This is not limited to Gould. The strong arguments for evolution are theological, though often subtle (eg, "evolution is the only explanation for vestigial structures ...").

  Cornelius

  Just what are you saying? I find you just plain confused.

   
Received on Wed Aug 3 08:53:54 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 03 2005 - 08:53:55 EDT