Christian Darwinism

“And then he just looked blank … “

Spread the love

The next time some learned person slowly and patiently begins to explain to you that “there is no conflict between faith and science, when both are properly understood … “, ask him point blank:

“Professor, by “science” I take it you mean Darwinism. Is that right? Few actual sciences are controversial for most Christians.

Now, you are asking Christians to change their basic understanding of human nature to conform to the latest from Darwinism/”evolutionary psychology”.

So is there any thesis in Darwinism that it would be right for a Christian to reject, on the basis of received wisdom from the millennia? Any thesis at all?”

Ask but don’t expect a coherent answer, never mind an honest or believable one.

After all, what can he say? If he knew enough about the evolution controversies to know that Darwinism is implausible as the key driver of changes in life, he would not talk the rot that he does. But chances are he can’t afford to know that much.

For him, the honest answer would be, “No, nothing. Every bit of Christian wisdom falls, once challenged, before the vagaries of Darwinism.”

In other words, the man isn’t a Christian. Fine, nice to get that straight. Except you won’t likely get that straight an answer from him.

So this exercise is only for fun.

8 Replies to ““And then he just looked blank … “

  1. 1

    “there is no conflict between faith and science, when both are properly understood…” That’s the sort of thing Mivart would say.

    We find then that no incompatibility is asserted (by any scientific writers worthy of mention) between “evolution” and the co-operation of the Divine will; while the same “evolution” has been shown to be thoroughly acceptable to the most orthodox theologians who repudiate the intrusion of the supernatural into the domain of nature. A more complete harmony could scarcely be desired.

    As to the old, worn-out saying, “There can be no discrepancy between science and religion,” it is quite true if religion is always careful to change its teaching in obedience to science, but not otherwise.

  2. 2
    Heinrich says:

    So is there any thesis in Darwinism that it would be right for a Christian to reject, on the basis of received wisdom from the millennia? Any thesis at all?”

    I guess received wisdom from the millennia would suggest any thesis without decent evidence to support it should be rejected.

    Luckily a lot of evolutionary biologists also reject a lot of evolutionary psychology. Isn’t it wonderful when we agree?

  3. 3
    O'Leary says:

    Yes, Heinrich, I am glad to hear that and am always on the lookout for more.

    If we could retire Fred and Wilma Flintstone, we could have a serious discussion of evolution.

  4. 4
    Capt. Haddock says:

    O’Leary’s argument is very strange indeed.

    If someone started off a debate with me by saying, as O’Leary proposes: “Now, you are asking Christians to change their basic understanding of human nature to conform to the latest from Darwinism/”evolutionary psychology””, I would certainly be dumbfounded. Is this how O’Leary would hope to start a serious discussion – by telling her interlocutor the conclusion of the debate before it has even started?

    It should hardly need saying (though it seems to have passed O’Leary by) that her assertion would be seen as nonsensical by any educated member of most of the Christian denominations – whether a scientist or not. Most Christians long ago came to an interpretation of God’s purpose for Mankind, the Fall, Redemption, etc., that has no conflict with the ascent of man from the rest of the animal kingdom by natural processes.

    But I get the feeling there’s no real interest in having a debate about that, when there’s fun to be had traducing the views of scientists and then chucking custard pies at them.

    P.S. If you want to make an enemy of science, be my guest, but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

  5. 5
    Clive Hayden says:

    Capt. Haddock,

    P.S. If you want to make an enemy of science, be my guest, but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

    I don’t want to be taken seriously by evolutionists, because I certainly don’t take them seriously.

  6. 6
    Capt. Haddock says:

    Clive, since 99.99% of scientifically trained people accept evolution as the best model, it comes to the same thing.

    And I notice that, as I predicted, neither you nor anyone else engages with my main point.

  7. 7
    Clive Hayden says:

    Capt. Haddock,

    Clive, since 99.99% of scientifically trained people accept evolution as the best model, it comes to the same thing.

    This is false to begin with. And what does “scientifically trained” mean anyway? Some preeminence in ability to think by comparison to the rest of the world? Please.

  8. 8
    Capt. Haddock says:

    Clive, the world is not like the US Bible Belt.

    Scientifically trained? Oh, I meant something along the lines of a university degree in natural science – I do not include Mathematics, Philosophy or Law in this category, by the way.

Leave a Reply