Darwinism News Religion

Pastor finally gets it? Has changed mind about Darwinism?

Spread the love

But does he still really understand?

Here:

So I’ve changed my mind about Darwinism. I guess I have to tell you where my mind was to tell you where it now is.

But here is what still puzzles some of us: How could he have been a “follower of Jesus”  (he says he is) and believed what Darwin said about dark-skinned people? Surely he did not know:

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

But that was an essential aspect of Darwin’s theory, and his theory would be untrue without it.

Is it because Darwin’s defenders are “superheroes” that we can’t confront this?:

I don’t believe in superheroes but do believe in the unity of the human race.

Does the pastor really understand how awful and wrong it has all been?

16 Replies to “Pastor finally gets it? Has changed mind about Darwinism?

  1. 1
    Dinoguy says:

    I don’t know if he understands everything about Darwin, but I do know that he has stated important truth. I have long felt that the rhetoric of book reviews is rarely about content. It is about defending one’s worldview without considering the data. This pastor is stating just that, and he has taken a first step toward clear thinking. That is to be commended. If he is truly interested in the subject, then he will eventually explore Darwin on a deeper level.

  2. 2
    johnp says:

    I’m just thankful that he came around. Also I doubt he ever read Darwin’s writings- he admitted that he never really studied the subject. Sounds to me like he just sort of went with the flow. To answer your question, no he doesn’t understand the implications of his former belief in darinism.

  3. 3
    congregate says:

    Anyone in the 1800s who believed that “Caucasians” are more civilized than Africans or Australians could not have been a follower of Jesus? I think you are uncharitable.

    I don’t understand. How is Darwin’s view of the “civilizedness” of various races an essential aspect of his theory?

  4. 4
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    I enjoyed the pastor’s blog article over morning coffee. And I do exactly what he does: I read the negative reviews of a book. And I go to Amazon and see how the dialogs in the comment sections go. You can learn a lot.

    (Quite surprised to find that he’s the pastor of a church that is one block away from the house I grew up in, in Glendora CA.)

  5. 5
    Barb says:

    congregate @3:

    I don’t understand. How is Darwin’s view of the “civilizedness” of various races an essential aspect of his theory?

    Because Darwin was theorizing that certain races were “fitter” than other races and would therefore dominate in civilization. This belief has led to social Darwinism, which is alive and well in most parts of the world. It was used to justify the attempted creation of a master race in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

  6. 6
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @Barb:

    attempted creation of a master race

    Shouldn’t it be called “social intelligent design” instead of “social Darwinism”?

  7. 7
    Barb says:

    JWTruthinLove @6: Not if Hitler used Darwinian evolution to make his point. “Hey, it works in nature; why not see if it works in politics?”

  8. 8
    goodusername says:

    Not if Hitler used Darwinian evolution to make his point.

    Except he never did.

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    Except he never did.

    Really? Then on what theory was “racial hygiene” based? Check out this excerpt about halfway down the page.

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/.....2759931737

  10. 10
    goodusername says:

    Really? Then on what theory was “racial hygiene” based? Check out this excerpt about halfway down the page.

    Racial hygiene (rassenhygiene) indeed was a very common term used by German Darwinist eugenicists (along with eugenik). Tellingly, Hitler never used either term (as far as I can tell).

    Instead, Hitler’s ideas match those of H. S. Chamberlain, Gobineau, Schopenhauer, etc (which happen to be the people that Hitler tells us were the sources of his ideas. None of which were Darwinist).

  11. 11
    Robert Byers says:

    Come up before.
    I read darwin and he insisted races were not intellectually superior to each other. Yes men were intellectually superior to women. But he would say the black/brown man was superior innately in intellect to a English women.
    He noted that other evolutionists said race was relevant in intellect between peoles, and morality, but didn’t agrere with them . JUst respectful and needing the team to stick together in early days.
    darwins clean on the race issue.
    is modern evolutionists clean on the race/smarts issue? not from what I’ve read.
    People knew europeans, west, were superior in intellect and morality to the rest but just said it was from the happanchance of roman/Renaissance/reformation etc influences.
    in reality it was just the reformation or rather gods blessing on the true faith people and motivations thereto.
    People don’t read Darwins stuff very closely.
    Everyone should read his second book and have a good laugh but get his ideas accurately.
    he said so much nonsense that its surprising no one ever wrote a book about it. I can’t write books but come on creationists. the harvest is plenty.
    i’m the only one I see point out his women theories!
    Creationist or evolutionist girls should have something to say in rebuttal.
    By the way. If a creationist doesn’t write DUMB THINGS DARWIN SAID AND INSITED ON then a friendly evolutionist will one day and steal our thunder.

  12. 12
    wd400 says:

    What has Darwin’s view on race, or the Nazi’s view on Darwin for that matter, have to do with the truth or otherwise of evolution?

  13. 13
    tjguy says:

    @ JWTruthin love

    @Barb:

    attempted creation of a master race

    Shouldn’t it be called “social intelligent design” instead of “social Darwinism”?

    Good point. Yes, you are right. But of course the point is that these people were trying to speed up the evolutionary process by helping it out. They thought they were doing what evolution itself would do.

    True “social intelligent design” would be using intelligence to do what, for the most part, evolution is incapable of doing. (I’m sure there are times when scientists use intelligence to do what natural selection could do, but if we use intelligence to create a new gene or something like that, then our experiments have left the realm of darwinian evolution.)

    But, yes, basically I agree with you. Anytime you use intelligence to control the results of experiments, your results can not be applied to darwinian evolution.

  14. 14
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @Barb:

    Social darwinism and eugenics are based on artificial selection. Artificial selection is intelligent design.

  15. 15
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @tiguy: And furthermore you don’t have to be a Darwinist to believe that species can change (into a “master race”) — we’re still in the realm of microevolution here.

  16. 16
    Paul Giem says:

    I think the original post failed to emphasize something. Yes, I am aware that the implications of Darwinism destroy the idea of love, particularly love to those who are not related to you. And I agree that there is a fairly direct line from Darwinism to Social Darwinism and racism.

    But what I found revealing, and hope gets emphasized, is this author’s realization, without being able to do the science, that those arguing against Darwin’s Doubt were ideologically motivated and did not have the best arguments, and in fact may never have the best arguments.

    His takedown of Matzke was priceless. Matzke obviously did not read the book in any meaningful way. And his observation of Bezerkeley, from one who has seen it first-hand,

    Somehow Berkeley selects the crazies and the militants who show the most promise and then teaches them that knowledge is a completely subjective power tool which should be manipulated by those on an ideological crusade to undermine authority. I’m not kidding. I went to Berkeley. That’s what we did.

    strongly supports his suspicion that what we have here is a power play, not a search for truth.

    Personally, I hope this review gets more attention.

Leave a Reply