Re: [asa] Former YEC's on ASA and Henry Morris - WAS Denver RATE Conference

From: PvM <>
Date: Mon Oct 01 2007 - 00:37:38 EDT

On 9/30/07, Ted Davis <> wrote:
> >>> PvM <> 09/30/07 9:34 PM >>>writes:
> Some creationists believe the lies that Darwinism is a religion and
> that evolutionary science is the underlying cause of immorality and
> other evils in the world.
> Ted comments:
> The latter, Pim, is very far from truth. We agree on that, although we could
> probably identify more than a few people who might be examples of using
> Darwin to *justify*immorality-- as vs having evolution genuinely be the

Sure, Darwinism can be abused by any. But the problem is that some
religious movements are actually presenting Darwinism as necessarily
leading to immorality. I should have been more careful in my
statement. evolutionary science is not the underlying cause, evolution

> *cause* of immorality, which is indeed what the creationists often believe.
> Rockefeller, e.g., used evolution to justify business practices that I would
> myself regard as immoral, despite the fact that he was probably a
> fundamentalist Christian. And Lenin used aspects of Darwin's theory to
> justify his political views, at times.

> As for the former--Darwinism as religion--this is where we may part company.
> For quite a few modern thinkers, Darwin is a saint and evolution is at the
> core of their gospel of atheism. I know we have not agreed about how to

Gospel of atheism... Let me quess, the Dawkin's quote...

> understand Dawkins, e.g., but Dawkins himself does use the term "religion of
> science," probably without much knowledge of others who have done likewise
> in the past, and Dawkins himself has said that Darwin made it possible to be
> an intellectually fulfilled atheist. NASA scientist Eric Chaisson gave a

A true statement. Does that make Darwinism a religion? Or does it make
the atheist to be possible to be intellectually fullfilled? See also Is Science a
Religion by Dawkins

Dawkins on "religion of science"

Understanding Dawkins takes time..

> paper 20 years ago, in which he said exactly that cosmic evolution was his
> God--I heard the paper at a conference near San Francisco. I find now this
> statement from him:
> "Abstract. My conclusions are threefold: The subject of cosmic evolution is
> my religion. The process of change itself (especially developmental change)
> is my God. And global ethics and a planetary culture, which cosmic evolution
> mandates, are the key to the survival of technologically competent life
> forms, both here on Earth and perhaps elsewhere in the Universe." Source:

Hard to determine how serious this person really is. Of course, that
still does not make Darwinism a religion.

Note how the title used quotes around "religion"


> I think one could multiply these examples with much difficulty.

> There's fire underneath this smoke, Pim, IMO.

I am sorry to hear that you take these issues to be valid. I thought
that these viewpoints/strawmen were mostly linked to YEC/ID.

> Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 1 00:37:56 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 01 2007 - 00:37:56 EDT