Did Darwin Kill Religion? Evolution disproves creationism?

[rickeybojey 0]

Evolution does not necessarily imply that religion and all the other views related to religion are being refuted by Darwin's ideologies.

[dangerdan 0]

No. But since Darwin posited his theory of evolution by natural selection, and like I mentioned before the Englightenment, people started to shift away from religion and faith towards science and reason. I think the idea is definitely against creationism, but not the wider concept of religion at all. Darwin himself was religious and I do not think his idea and religion are incompatible.

[fermin25 3]

Of course not. The Darwin?s theory isn?t totally true. Darwin was a scientist that look a view for the past but i don?t think his theory can explain this great question. From where the human race come? I think the Big Bang theory is more complete than Darwin?s.

[truefusion 3]

But since Darwin posited his theory of evolution by natural selection ...

Darwin wasn't posting up anything new, though. It was actually a current craze from those around him as well. Also, i hear it can be traced back to ancient times, where some Greek fellow brought up "from monkey to man." I hear the reason why Darwin is often marked as the father of this is because of how he described everything in his book.

... people started to shift away from religion and faith towards science and reason.

Who says religion and faith is unreasonable or can't be used as a starting point for scientific research or that it doesn't mention anything scientific? Science and religion aren't at odds.

[andresf91 0]

No. But since Darwin posited his theory of evolution by natural selection, and like I mentioned before the Englightenment, people started to shift away from religion and faith towards science and reason. I think the idea is definitely against creationism, but not the wider concept of religion at all. Darwin himself was religious and I do not think his idea and religion are incompatible.

He was religious, but most scientists who proposed controversial ideas in their times, which led to confront Christian doctrine nowadays, were religious. In the case of Darwin, his father wanted him to be an Anglican parson.

There's a study, by Robert K Merton, Puritan Impulse to Science, in which he tries to show how much Protestant religions transformed the idea of what we call now "science", and the use of reason to reach "God's glory", and learn about "his creation". Lots of quotations from the Royal Society and stuff like that. I disagree with Merton's conclusions, but I admit that the Reform and the new changes in religions, gave a lot of excuses to research in science.

 

Of course not. The Darwin?s theory isn?t totally true. Darwin was a scientist that look a view for the past but i don?t think his theory can explain this great question. From where the human race come? I think the Big Bang theory is more complete than Darwin?s.

Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory explain different things. The former explicates the origin of the universe, an area of knowledge which can be situated in Physics or Astronomy. On the other hand, Darwin's studies are about life: it's biology.

They are not comparable in that way. You can say that both strike against Creationism dogmas, but not that one is better than the other.

 

 

Yet, to the question of whether Darwin killed religion or not, sadly or not, he didn't, in my opinion. We still have them around, that's a fact. They have fluctuations, from time to time, they grow strength, and decades later they are weaker... But they still have a place in society: they're people's opium, a cohesive and coercive structure trying to keep US the herd quiet.

[dangerdan 0]

"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx

andresf91 you say

We still have them around, that's a fact. They have fluctuations, from time to time, they grow strength, and decades later they are weaker...

I think this is critically the point. Since Darwin's theory there has been a huge decline in the number of people practising religion...and despite fluctuations the level has never fluctuated anywhere near the level it was before Darwin's theory - where I would say 90% of the UK was religious (Christian specifically). Since Darwin this level of religious following has gone into chronic decline and has, and never will, return to a level where everyone believes religion. Too many people see science and religion as being directly juxtaposed and therefore I do not think religious beliefs will ever be the mainstream again.


Off topic: andresf91 is your image in support of Israel or Palestine? It's a bit ambiguous to be honest. On the one hand it highlights the plight of the Palestinians, whilst on the other hand showing bombs being dropped on them....

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well, you can't blame a theory for the decling of a system such as religion but rather look at specific points in time especially each new generation of people. If you were to compare the baby boomers to generation x and y, it is the baby boomers that are the most religious and that is because of many evolutions that have taken place in the last 60 years. As for the types of evolutions that have happen in the last 60 years, you have the technology evolution, fashion evolution, material possessions evolution, science evolution and sadly the de-evolution of religion.Now I know that the idea that de-evolution of religion is happening is just wrong because of how many people are in one of the big three and then their various branches. However, if you were to to ask people how religious they are or attend services on a weekly basis odds are most of them will say 0-2 times a month and that's if you talk to you generation x and y, but you ask the baby boomers and they are maxing out the number of times they are going to a religious service. So you could say it is the people who have decided to look away from religion and not just cause of science but a myriad of things as to why people are beginning to turn away from a system in the last decade or so.

[andresf91 0]

VERY OFF-TOPIC:

Off topic: andresf91 is your image in support of Israel or Palestine? It's a bit ambiguous to be honest. On the one hand it highlights the plight of the Palestinians, whilst on the other hand showing bombs being dropped on them....

A real genocide happened in Gaza... that's what I mean with my pic.
You're not the first one to ask, tough... so I may have to change it

[Diffusr 0]

Darwin did not really disprove creationism, he merely presented a viable theory of evolution. This is the theory that all life started as simple forms and then over a period of hundreds of millions of years adapted through natural selection into the array of biodiversity that we see today on earth.

While it is a credible theory given what we know about the geological record of our planets' past, for instance the fact that the world or indeed the entire universe is only 6000 years old is completely disproven, Darwins theorem only presents a process, it does not disprove intelligent design for example the design of the process itself.

The very fact that matter exists and that we can cognise, discuss and further analyse from seemingly out of "nowhere" has not been given a satisfactory explanation as yet by anyone. The fact that existance exists. Space allows everything to be within itself. Darwins theory of evolution seemed and still seems revolutionary to fairly small minded individuals, but it deals with very surface issues of our existance. Knowledge has moved on past the seven day creation story and may even be moving past the amoeba to human evolution theory, though of course there are countless millions who vehemently continue to cling to antiquated ideas.

As we "evolve" we learn more and more about our truer selves. We may find that in truth the answer to how we got here and why we are here is a combination of religious theory, Darwinism and quantum field consciousness theory all rolled into one. It could go something like this: The Universe is a giant intelligent being who consciously creates all parts of itself. In order to create itself it uses physical laws from which springs evolution, but it only exists within its own consciousness.

There it is in a nutshell. Now you'll never please everybody but I think I pleased myself. Thank you, good morrow and goodnight.