Did Darwin Kill Religion? Evolution disproves creationism?

[dangerdan 0]

Darwin's book 'On the Origin of Species' shook the world. His theory of evolution by natural selection could be used to explain the eternal mystery of where we all come from, and why we're here.

 

Darwin's idea is premised by the following ideas;

If all the individuals of a species reproduced successfully, the population of that species would increase uncontrollably.

Populations tend to remain about the same size from year to year.

Environmental resources are limited.

No two individuals in a given species are exactly alike.

Much of this variation in a population can be passed on to offspring.

His theory states that the most favourable traits will be passed on and the weaker will die out "survival of the fittest" as it often dubbed.

 

My question is this, to what extent is evolution directly juxtaposed to creationism? Is there any common ground?

[truefusion 3]

Did you so happen to get the title of this topic from the BBC documentary? It's the exact same title.

 

My question is this, to what extent is evolution directly juxtaposed to creationism? Is there any common ground?

The theory of evolution doesn't deny all forms of creationism, but it does imply—but not from the premises you provide, but from Darwin's "big if"—that if there is a god, all that god has done is just create the ingredients for a specific recipe but left these ingredients to themselves to cook themselves to form a meal. Since creationism is mostly, if not always, about the Biblical creation event, the only common ground would be that the stage was set up (i.e. regardless of how it was set up) and that life formed from the ground or existing, non-living matter (a.k.a abiogenesis). The differences is what follows next: one states common ancestry, the other states (or greatly implies) individual creations; one states (or greatly implies) that the abiogenesis occured through natural means, while the other states that it was a miracle that caused it and implies that it would not have otherwise occured without such miracle. There are other reasons, and it is for these reasons that one is fully or mostly or somewhat denied while the other is fully or mostly or somewhat denied.

[dangerdan 0]

The premises I provide are support of his theory, not specifically how it disproves creationism. I think Darwin's own views on religion, and the turmoil he suffered whilst writing, were particularly interesting.

[CopyJosh 0]

Since Darwin's theory of evolution is widely accepted, and religion is still a large part of our society, I can immediately conclude that no, Darwin did not kill religion.I can however say that Darwin has raised a lot of questions, but I for one accept evolution and believe in the book of Genesis... kind of interesting how human's can accept two conflicting ideas at the same time, huh? The interesting part is that a lot of things in nature are very "perfect", and you can look at it in a mathematical sense, or believe in something greater. What interests me a lot more than any Darwinist theory, is the Big Bang. There's nothing like a very powerful documentary on the universe to make you feel absolutely insignificant to the big picture. But think about it, of all the lightyears of galactic trash floating around, our hunk of rock had all the right "stuff" to make life. We're that one in infinity that succeeded (as far as we know). So maybe G-d had a hand in that. Maybe he didn't. It's all up to belief, but I think scientifically Darwin's theory of evolution is pretty solid, we just need to find that missing link(s) [many ppl don't realize that there are several].

[truefusion 3]

The premises I provide are support of his theory, not specifically how it disproves creationism.

That's why i said "but not from the premises you provide." However, i wouldn't say the premises you provided actually support his theory. In fact, although i wouldn't necessarily call the first one a premise since it is a conditional statement, the second one pretty much contradicts the first one if the first one were to be true, that individuals reproduce(d) successfully. The reason being that from the first premise we are given the impression that the size of the population of any one species should be significantly bigger than the previous year. But premise two says that it is not significant but about the same size each year. Since the first premise is a conditional statement, if it is not true that all the individuals reproduce successfully, then it would follow onto the second premise. However, there seems to be a false dilemma for premise one, that something is not being considered. For even if individuals (though it generally requires a couple) reproduce successfully, it doesn't necessarily follow that it would be out of control. This would explain premise two. But you should be able to see the dilemma this would bring for the entire argument.
With any given argument, if any of the premises are false, so must be the conclusion, because the conclusion relies on the premises. But another thing i noticed is that certain premises are irrelevant or too general to be a premise for the theory of evolution and that certain ones are ambiguous. Take for example the third one. Resources being limited, how is this a case for the theory of evolution? Overpopulation? That wouldn't follow from the premise previous to it. Nevertheless, limited resources could be because of a fire, or no rain for a very long time, or bad cultivation, or bad hunting seasons—there are many reasons why there could be limited resources; it is too general to be a premise. If we move onto the fourth premise, depending on how it is interpreted, it could actually be used as a premise for creationism. However, the fourth premise is ambiguous. What's an individual? And what is it meant by "not exactly the same"? That is, on a molecular level? Or on the naked eye level? Since the last premise requires for number four to be completely understood, until it is understood, number five cannot be reached, so there becomes no point for number 5. Nevertheless, the last one can be used for creationism, but not necessarily in the way a Darwinist would perceive number 5.

[dangerdan 0]

The first two don't contradict, they go hand in hand. The fact populations stay the same year to year means that not all animals reproduce successfully and it was from this that Darwin concluded survival of the fittest.He didn't literally kill religion, but he forced them to relook at the events in Genesis and regarding creation and start to view them as metaphors as oppose to taking them literally.

[truefusion 3]

The first two don't contradict, they go hand in hand. The fact populations stay the same year to year means that not all animals reproduce successfully and it was from this that Darwin concluded survival of the fittest.

Actually, Charles Darwin wasn't the one to coin the term "survival of the fittest." Charles Darwin was too busy using "natural selection." But they do contradict if the condition evaluates to true (though there are other problems with the first premise). Though the term "uncontrollably" may be a bit ambiguous, i would mark insects to be quite reproductive in an uncontrollable way. Something cannot logically be both true and false at the same time.

He didn't literally kill religion, but he forced them to relook at the events in Genesis and regarding creation and start to view them as metaphors as oppose to taking them literally.

People were doing that before Charles Darwin's time; for example, Philo of Alexandria, et al.

[dangerdan 0]

But we're not all philosophers. Darwin destroyed the 'average' man's conception of the creationism. I do not think it is unfair to say that creationism was widely accepted before Darwin's theory, nor do I think it is unfair to say that it is NOT widely accepted any more.The Enlightenment probably did play a major role in this too, but I think Darwin's theory was definitely a key player in shifting society from religion to science. The emerging scientific method and finally industrialisation were the final nails in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.Yeah, I know he was not the one to actually coin the term "survival of the fittest" but it is probably the best way to sum up his theory, especially when teaching it to a younger audience who are only just beginning to engage with the evolution.

[longtimeago 0]

Do you know something, at last when Darwin was in his last days on this earth, he himself told that all his findings were not the one which is to be followed or something like that. I am not sure about the exact words which he used but the message which he tried to convey was that his findings are nor true.He was Baptized an Anglican and steeped in his mother's Unitarianism.

"I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided."

[dre 0]

I'm not sure how you equate religion with creationism.

[kleong 0]

Two of them is wrong

If all the individuals of a species reproduced successfully, the population of that species would increase uncontrollably.

- One species may reproduced successfully but if another species increase the rate of their killing act, that species will be wiped out from the face of earth.

Populations tend to remain about the same size from year to year.

- If this is true, there will be the fear the Earth will be over-populated. The fear arise from the fact that the populations of human race is increasing.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well in recent years some big name name people in the science industry have been distancing themselves from Darwin and somehow that is where Intelligent Design has come into play. With Intelligent Design, it takes from both ideas and pretty much mods them together.As for the question at hand, Darwin never had a chance to kill creationism, that is how power religion is, especially in the last 2000 years. Of course, the interesting part to this is there is some common ground in life, but that is if you don't believe in carbon dating and its suppose "inaccuracy". However, Truefusion was right for the most part, Darwin didn't make the initial theory but rather a man by the name of Alfred Wallace. Wallace had the theory but he couldn't really back it up with data, and that is where Darwin shined after years of studying various species on his travels.Of course, I am not saying Wallace killed creationism either, but you have to remember though people like Darwin and Wallace were thinking outside the box and lets be honest religion isn't perfect and never will be. Neither will science, however, science has proved a lot more then any religion.

[Veradesigns 0]

Religion is a belief.
Evolution is a fact that has been proven throughout many years and centuries.
my though is no, religion killed evolution.
Religion is what causes violence against other human beings example. 9/11/01
Religion is what others use to put a thought in someone's head that something out of the ordinary exists.
and magical things will happen if they follow a certain path.

For myself im an Atheist. For those who do not know what one is here is a def. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the assertion that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), which was derogatively applied to anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist.[4] Up to 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers; and up to 48% in Russia.[5] The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges between 6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden).[5]

Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical.

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unspiritual.[6] However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have been described as atheistic.[7] Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[8] rationalism, and naturalism,[9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[10]

[truefusion 3]

Religion is a belief. Evolution is a fact that has been proven throughout many years and centuries.
my though is no, religion killed evolution.
Religion is what causes violence against other human beings example. 9/11/01
Religion is what others use to put a thought in someone's head that something out of the ordinary exists.
and magical things will happen if they follow a certain path.

This propaganda is irrelevant to the discussion and would never hold in a proper debate. You could have at least added premises to your statements, especially the second statement, rather than begging the question, so that it can at least be a little bit relevant to the discussion.

[dangerdan 0]

I think the human population is a VERY specific case when discussing evolution and we shouldn't place too much emphasis on any one species when discussing evolution because lets not forget - this isn't a process that began with Darwin - it had been happening for millions of years and is, arguably, still happening. Humans have far too much influence over populations of other species now.


If not evolution, then....intelligent design? (just to blow this wide open!)

"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]"

- source WikiPedia