Posts Tagged ‘darwin’

the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand. God has revealed his existence and his government of the world so clearly and so authoritatively, that any philosophical or scientific speculations inconsistent with those truths are like cobwebs in the track of a

Theologian Charles Hodge, a critic of Darwin's...

tornado. They offer no sensible resistance.

Charles Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic Theology, 15 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).



In saying that this system is atheistic, it is not said that Mr. Darwin is an atheist. He expressly acknowledges the existence of God; and seems to feel the necessity of his existence to account for the origin of life. Nor is it meant that every one who adopts the theory does it in an atheistic sense. It has already been remarked that there is a theistic and an atheistic form of the nebular hypothesis as to the origin of the universe; so there may be a theistic interpretation of the Darwinian theory.

Charles Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic Theology, 16 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).





Professor Huxley says that when he first read Darwin’s book he regarded it as the death-blow of teleology, i.e., of the doctrine of design and purpose in nature. Buchner, to whom the atheistical character of a book is a recommendation, says that Darwin’s “theory is the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined, and far more atheistic than that of his despised (verrufenen) predecessor Lamarck, who admitted at least a general law of progress and development; whereas, according to Darwin, the whole development is due to the gradual summation of innumerable minute and accidental natural operations.”

Charles Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic Theology, 16-17 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

Charles Darwin, photographed by Julia Margaret...

Charles Darwin, photographed by Julia Margaret Cameron (Photo credit: Wikipedia)




Darwin, therefore, does teach precisely what Dr. Gray pronounces atheism. A man, it seems, may believe in God, and yet teach atheism.
The anti-theistic and materialistic character of this theory is still further shown by what Mr. Darwin says of our mental powers. “In the distant future,” he says, “I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.” Of this prediction he has himself attempted the verification in his recent work on the “Descent of Man,” in which he endeavours to prove that man is a developed ape. The Bible says: Man was created in the image of God.

Charles Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic Theology, 19 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).


Note that Hodge explicitly states that one can hold to Darwinism and be a theist. On the other hand, Darwin’s theory is essentially atheistic.

One does not have to be an atheist to hold to what began as an atheistic philosophical theory. One can be a committed theist, and even a Christian theist, and hold to this theory. The fact that Christian theists hold to some form of this theory does not make it correct, however. That is part of what Hodge is telling us here.

While the genetic fallacy is certainly a logical error, this is not a genetic fallacy. It is recognizing that Darwinian evolution is an atheistic philosophy that has been too carelessly accepted by many.

Ideas have consequences, and atheistic ideas will have atheistic consequences.

Enhanced by Zemanta

…two important themes are discernible in the writings of Darwin and his fellow naturalists: Gnosticism and natural theology. Gnosticism is an

ancient belief system that draws a strong distinction between spirit and matter. Spirit is good and matter is evil. Whereas the Bible says that God made the world, Gnosticism holds that God is separate from the world; thus Gnosticism is a theodicy. Yes, there is evil, but it is far from God. God is separate and distinct from the world and not responsible for its evils. In Darwin’s time the world was increasingly seen as controlled by natural laws. God may have instituted these laws in the beginning, but he had not since interfered; the laws were now his secondary causes. As in Gnosticism, God was seen as separate from the world.



The ancient Gnostics were also antihistorical. Whereas the Bible presents a history of God’s activity in the world, including dates and historical figures, the Gnostics believed that God’s revelation was not open but secret- revealed from within rather than in public documents such as Scripture. Furthermore, whereas the Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God, the Gnostics believed that one should not look for signs of God in nature. In Darwin’s day, a parallel view developed that urged the separation of religion and science…

Darwin’s God pg 129


Enhanced by Zemanta

It seems that Darwinian thought can easily lead to racism.

Hitler was a Darwinian racist.

Christianity, however, leads to reconciliation.

Read Acts 17:24-26

Just musing…

Naturalism, logic and reality

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

  1. A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

  1. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Read it here.