How to Argue for Creationism

by cofty 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Earnest

    cofty, what an interesting article that is. One other factor which is barely touched on in the article but which I think may well be central to Darwin's concessions to people of faith, is the fact that his wife, Emma, who he had known all his life and to whom he was devoted, was a very devout believer. He knew of the concerns she had about the work he was doing and no doubt did not want to cause her any pain while still remaining true to his convictions.

    I cannot help myself but to tease you with the conclusion of the article:

    He could still find it inconceivable that the universe was the result of chance alone. But – and with Darwin there is so often a nuance - if the human mind was itself the product of evolution, what confidence could one place in any metaphysical or theological conviction - even one’s own?

  • cofty

    Yes Earnest I am certain you are correct about Emma. It was not until Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a letter in which he laid out almost identical ideas about Natural Selection that Darwin decided to publish his proposed work in parts beginning with Origins.

    Emma was a conventional English Christian with no interest at all in science. She bore ten children because Darwin refused to use contraception, thinking it his duty to produce as many middle-class Englishmen as possible!

    The quote is interesting. Of course the advancement in science in the last 150 years has confirmed the truth of Darwin's central tenet so thoroughly that it would be obtuse to reject it as a fact. If we make concise predictions and then observe the accuracy of those in multiple independent ways then we can have a very high degree of confidence in our convictions. If the truth of evolution depended on abstract thought alone then of course it would be a concern.

  • TD

    In a similar vein, Emma's 1839 letter to Charles is touching. (The conflict is eerily familiar to many of us)

    If you look closely you can see the little note he added at the end:

    "When I am dead, know that many times, I have kissed & cryed over this. C. D."

  • cofty

    Brilliant! Thank you TD.

    I have been reading 17th and 18th century documents recently as part of local history research. It takes a while to get your eye in.

  • cofty

    Darwin's frequent bouts of illness seems at least in part, to have been triggered by stress over the implications of his ideas. He was no bold critic of belief in the way Huxley was.

  • Vidiot

    Nice OP.

    Once again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...

    ...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

  • Vidiot

    BTW, I find it astonishing how similar "arguing for creationism" and "arguing for Trump" are... :smirk:

  • slimboyfat

    Emma was not a conventional Christian. She was a Unitarian. We were discussing this in church last Sunday. Unitarianism in the nineteenth century was not as liberal as today, but it still stressed tolerance, reason and personal faith rather than literal reliance on scriptural texts. Emma was troubled by her husband's lack of faith, but perhaps less troubled and more supportive than a conventional Christian might have been.

    My reason tells me that honest & conscientious doubts cannot be a sin, but I feel it would be a painful void between us. I thank you from my heart for your openness with me & I should dread the feeling that you were concealing your opinions from the fear of giving me pain … my own dear Charley we now do belong to each other & I cannot help being open with you.

  • pale.emperor

    My favorite creationist arguments include:

    If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?

    If you put all the components of an iPhone into a blender and switch it on, it's not going to make an iPhone

    If you were walking along a beach and found a slab of stone that had JOHN JONES WAS HERE 1892 you wouldn't say that it was carved in there by natural occurrence or by chance.

    Science has been wrong before.

    Isaac Newton believed in God!

    But it's only a theory.

    Oh, yeah, i suppose it "just happened"?

    I do believe in science... and God is the greatest scientist.

    There are laws of thermodynamics, laws of physics, laws of gravity... so who put those laws in place?

    Annoying isnt it?

  • Vidiot

    re. pale.emperor's post...

    I'd like to reiterate a modified form of a previous post...

    ...if you have to resort to semantics, flawed comparisons, and circular arguments to shore up your stance, your stance is probably fundamentally flawed.

    (Presumably, whoever "disliked" said previous post will probably do so again for this one.


Share this