Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin’s Final “Resting” Place

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at Larry Moran’s blog, where I am identified as one of the ID movement’s stellar idiots, there is a picture of Darwin’s tombstone with the caption: “Here’s a photo of Darwin’s final resting place in Westminster Abbey.”

I posted the following comment:

Darwin doesn’t have a resting place. When he died he entered eternal oblivion. Nothing he did, and nothing that any of us do, has any lasting significance or meaning.

One day our sun will turn into a red giant. When that happens its corona will expand beyond the orbit of the earth. The earth’s atmosphere will be stripped away, the seas will boil away, the sands will fuse into glass, and all life will be exterminated. There will be no record of anything anyone has ever done, created, or thought.

For those familiar with me at UD, the irony should be self-evident.

Comments
Borne: Okay I've read a fair amount of Gould and I would love to see where he says that nihilism is a necessary consequence of darwinism or anything of the sort. He was anything but a nihilist. Neither to the best of my knowledge is Dawkins. By your reasoning people like Carl Sagan should also be nihilists. Either there is a flaw in the logic somewhere or the vast majority of darwinists are too dumb to know what they should believe.jmcd
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
“If nihilism is neo-Darwinism’s logical outcome why bother?”
Indeed, but it isn’t.
I eagerly await your reasoning since virtually every Darwinist/atheist says as much or implies it, including Dawlkins, Provine, Lewontin, Gould... Denial of reality is the atheist/Darwinist's main stance in life. Darwinist atheists live on borrowed morals and think that feeling the suffering of the death of a loved one is a mere survival trait.Borne
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
"If nihilism is neo-Darwinism’s logical outcome why bother?" "if life has no ultimate purpose why do they get so upset with us?" For one to arrive at said conclusions simply because they do not have a firm belief in an afterlife shows such frailty of character. Can one not define their own purpose? Does one stop seeing beauty in life because they do not believe that there is necessarily a loving and forgiving God waiting to welcome us into its bossom when our time here ends? For most people the answer is of course not silly goose. Where the notion comes from that nihlism is the logical endpoint of darwinism I can not fathom. I could see how a few people might be led down that path, but again I would call that a failure of character.jmcd
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
I meant to say: "In a sense, I almost feel like it would be wrong to do so.. that’s just a feeling of mine."JGuy
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
[kind of related topic] I saw this article on Yahoo news today.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070206/sc_nm/italy_embrace_dc Should the archaeologist, upon discovering this... decide to not disturb the remains much further? ..or at least keep the orientation correct. In a sense, I almost feel like it almost be wrong to do so.. that's just a feeling of mine. State a perspective and thoughts...anyone? --------- BTW Gil: Excellent post to the blog. Maybe, someone will think about what you wrote.JGuy
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Here's an interesting quote from your link to Larry's blog: "Of course GilDodgen can't resist taking a few other potshots at Monod. After all, Monod is French, an atheist, and (gasp!) a socialist to boot. Those evil socialist evolutionists, where do they get off caring for the downtrodden and the oppressed?" I've just started reading "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur Brooks, who started researching charitable giving patterns among conservatives and liberals in the USA, expecting confirmation of the stereotype that the former are stingy and the latter generous. To his surprise, the data show that conservatives are much more likely to give to charity, while liberals are more likely to advocate government assistance. However, he shows that it's religious practice--not mere political affiliation--that made the difference. Liberals who practices some sort of religious discipline, regardless of what it is, were just as charitable as conservatives who practiced religion.russ
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
"If nihilism is neo-Darwinism’s logical outcome why bother?" Indeed, but it isn't.trystero57
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Great summation, Gil. And if life has no ultimate purpose why do they get so upset with us?tribune7
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Gil, your post reminded me of this:
"...the fact that one's life eventually will come to an end casts doubt on the meaningfulness of life. Consider: The day will come when you will die. A hundred years later, everyone you ever knew will also be dead. When there is no one alive who remembers you, will it make any difference how you lived your life? But, you may say, I expect to become a famous person. My memory will survive. Perhaps. But how many people are remembered two or three hundred years after their deaths? Moreover, the day will come when the entire human race will become extinct. Even if we avoid nuclear war and other immediate threats, the universe will, according to physicists, eventually either collapse into a black hole or else continue to spread out and cool until it is just one vast, lifeless expanse. Either way, the universe will then contain no life and no evidence that life ever existed. When that day comes, will it make any difference how you lived or even whether you lived? (James W. Kalat, Introduction to Psychology.)
j
February 7, 2007
February
02
Feb
7
07
2007
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
I feel sorry for folks like Larry. I really do. BTW, I've been meaning to tell you what a fantastic pianist you are, Gil. Your masterful performance of Liszt is especially impressive! Bravo!crandaddy
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
Indeed, why do Darwinists buy coffins and tomb stones at all. If nihilism is neo-Darwinism's logical outcome why bother? What will the evo "psychologists" come up with on this one? Another survival or fitness trait? Ha! Another vestige from religious beliefs and superstitions? They are vehemently against these so go figure. No matter what the inane answer the evo. psychos will invent, I bet they'll still continue paying a lot of $$$ for burying their dearly departed or conserving the ashes, for some non materialistic reasons that belie their true inner beliefs. "He has put the idea of eternity in their hearts" Ecc. 3:11 And they just can't get rid of it! ;-)Borne
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply