Debate: Atheist vs Jew (Christopher Hitchens vs Rabbi David Wolpe)
NEWTON
WAS A CREATIONIST ONLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE?
Not
so — evolutionary ideas were not invented by Darwin. Some of the
ancient philosophers before Christ — such as Anaximander (d. 546),
Empedocles (d. 435), Democritus (d. 370), Epicurus (d. 270) and
Lucretius (d. 55) — had evolutionary ideas that life arose
spontaneously and that different life forms arose from one another.
The ‘great chain of being’ idea pervaded English society well
before Darwin came on the scene. In fact, Darwin’s grandfather,
Erasmus, wrote about evolutionary notions of beginnings. See
also Darwinism:
it was all in the family: Erasmus Darwin’s famous grandson learned
early about evolution.
so — evolutionary ideas were not invented by Darwin. Some of the
ancient philosophers before Christ — such as Anaximander (d. 546),
Empedocles (d. 435), Democritus (d. 370), Epicurus (d. 270) and
Lucretius (d. 55) — had evolutionary ideas that life arose
spontaneously and that different life forms arose from one another.
The ‘great chain of being’ idea pervaded English society well
before Darwin came on the scene. In fact, Darwin’s grandfather,
Erasmus, wrote about evolutionary notions of beginnings. See
also Darwinism:
it was all in the family: Erasmus Darwin’s famous grandson learned
early about evolution.
There
were plenty of atheists before Darwin and they had to have some
naturalistic notion of beginnings (or try not to think about it,
which many do today). Darwin just gave atheism greater intellectual
respectability by providing what seemed to many at the time, ignorant
as they were of the incredible inner workings of even the simplest
bacterium, to be a coherent framework for biological naturalism
(nature is all there is). Darwin was seen as countering William
Paley’s watchmaker argument — that an intricately integrated
watch must have an intelligent designer, so, by analogy, must living
things, which are even more complex.
were plenty of atheists before Darwin and they had to have some
naturalistic notion of beginnings (or try not to think about it,
which many do today). Darwin just gave atheism greater intellectual
respectability by providing what seemed to many at the time, ignorant
as they were of the incredible inner workings of even the simplest
bacterium, to be a coherent framework for biological naturalism
(nature is all there is). Darwin was seen as countering William
Paley’s watchmaker argument — that an intricately integrated
watch must have an intelligent designer, so, by analogy, must living
things, which are even more complex.
It
is probably indisputable that such individuals would have believed in
the literal truth of biblical creation, but there is obviously no way
of knowing whether or not they would have rejected such beliefs in
light of Darwinian theory.
Exactly,
so we can only cite what they actually believed,
and leave it up to the evolutionists to assert that they would have
changed their minds had they known about Darwin. Counterfactuals are
easily countered:
so we can only cite what they actually believed,
and leave it up to the evolutionists to assert that they would have
changed their minds had they known about Darwin. Counterfactuals are
easily countered:
Their
science was motivated by their belief that the Universe was created
by a God of order — see Creationist
contributions to science.
Many
leading scientists who knew of Darwin’s ideas rejected Darwin,
including Maxwell, Kelvin, Herschel, whereas much of his support
came from compromising clergy such as Newman and Kingsley
posted by Unknown @ 12:36 PM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home