Kinda the way Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers describe it.

Remember - The argument was never "the instant a Christian adopts the compromised assumption of both Christianity and Evolutionism -- they become an atheist".

The argument is that it is an eventual progression not an instantaneous one and not that every one that starts down that road of compromise will always reach the final destination.



So while we SEE that evolutionism will destroy Christianity due to the contradiction between the two -- we also know that other factors also work against Christianity -- and who knows maybe ( a wild maybe in this case) those other factors BEAT evolutionism to the punch. The idea presents itself as an interesting red herring.

But that is "wishful thinking" about "other factors" combining to the same 95% plus saturation point as evolutionism -- and thus they account for the demise of Christianity instead of the blatantly obvious saturation point of 95% evolutionism.

Certainly nobody is arguing that at this massive 95% saturation point - ONLY evolutionism EVER caused any Christian to lose Christianity. But continually drying to milk that point as if you could eventually overcome the documented saturation of evolutionism AND its documented effect on Christianity - is again "wishfull thinking".

in Christ,

Bob

Have you read Jack London (The Sea-Wolf), Theodore Dreiser (American Tragedy), Frank Norris (McTeague) and other writers of the realistic school? They were heavily influenced by both Marx and Darwin. I don't know if you have read their books, but the influence of evolutionary theory is unmistakeable. In fact, both writers talk at length in their autobiographies about the influence of evolutionary theory on their whole outlook on life and on their creative works. These are well-known facts that are discussed in any course on their writings.

What was the influence of evolution on those writers? Was that influence, which led them to a particular view of life, coincidental or was it directly connected to the evolutionary theory itself? London, Dreiser, Norris, and many others, would answer that it was a view that could not be avoided in the light of evolutionary theory. (Herbert Spencer was probably the greatest influence in Dreiser's thinking.)

Perhaps they were wrong, but I think you'll agree that it is a thought which deserves to be seriously looked at.

OK, I'm leaving the discussion with Bob aside. He's satisfied with his position, I'm satisfied with my lack of a firm position (just a raft of questions), and I don't think there's anything to be gained by prolonging the agony.

The discussion with John317 is, as always, very interesting and engaging. I tend to feel overmatched in knowledge of history, literature and just about everything else, but that's a good thing because I can learn a lot (and I'm not here trying to 'win').

I think that those authors are confused about the nature of evolutionary theory, although I enjoy their books very much.

To claim that 'survival of the fittest' means war and death and competition between humans is evolutionary nonsense, since all evolution 'cares about' (to use a horrible anthropomorphism) is the genes of a whole species. Human genes are human genes, and the differences between individuals and between races are completely negligible. So Hitler's (and everyone else's) eugenic and racist impulses might have been *blamed* on evolution, but they are nonsense in evolutionary terms.

This is part of why I work so hard to educate people about evolution here even though I am not an evolutionist myself: critiques that are factually incorrect based on a proper understanding of evolution do not do damage to evolution, they do damage to the credibility of the critics. If someone wishes to *really* fight against evolution, then s/he needs to really understand it.

I agree that the writers of the Realism school of fiction-- Zola, de Maupassaunt, Crane, etc.-- no doubt were "confused" about the nature of evolutionary theory. After all they were just discovering the theory, and they were the first writers to apply the theory to literature. These were men who were reacting to a revolution in thinking and values that was taking place during their lifetime as a result of this new "science." They were discovering and experimenting with what it meant both for literature and for human values. They saw the effect of "no God" in very exaggerated terms because it was still a rather new idea.



I understand what you're saying here, and I agree up to a point. The problem is that when we analyze the significance and philosophical meaning of evolutionary theory, there is no objective way to measure it. We may acknowledge that people are wrong to interpret evolutionary theory in a certain way, but people who believe in evolution and whose views are influenced by it in a way we disagree with or consider nonsense, nevertheless hold the view they have because of evolution.

It's pretty hard to read Dreiser's autobiography in which he describes the effect on him of studying Spencer and Darwin, and conclude that Dreiser had absolutely no reason to think as he did.



I agree that we can't blame evolution for what Hitler did. The world had its share of evil long before Darwin. What happened during the Nazi period was not simply a result of evolutionary theory, for sure. There were many other contributing factors.



I think it's great you can be a member of the Forum and make that contribution.

Back to the OP then --



A recent proposal is of the form "maybe it is just coincidental" that the full acceptance of Darwinism is followed by the EU entering a post-Christian era. That is truly a by-faith-alone argument I must say.

Not sure that kind of "hopeful monster" theory ever did pan out -- but we will see.



Not sure we ever got an answer to that --

in Christ,

Bob

So not only do we have the support of Academic freedom -- we also have the issue of support for the discussion of origins we find in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White --


The reader will notice at once that many Adventist "just so happen to agree" with the presentation of Creation quoted below. Yet Will they also "notice" how it fits perfectly with the Bible version "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE.."??



Contrast that classic adventist POV with the more Darwinian concept that all species "really came about" via starvation, predation, disease and death -- i.e the law of "tooth and claw". A system so horrific that even atheist darwinists conclude this as proof that there is no God since that slow brutal method of evolution is NOTHING close to efficient, loving, peaceful and harmonious.

No wonder Darwin so freely admitted the obvious fact that he was forced with a choice between Darwinism and Christianity.

in Christ,

Bob