If Only Charles Darwin Could See His Descendant Now

recourse

“That I freely chose to be a Catholic after much thought and analysis, and wasn’t brainwashed into it, baffle my friends and family alike,”

I am impressed how this young woman has so much Faith.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/13/descendant-of-darwin-becomes-a-catholic-apologist/

Doctor DooM

From what I know of the man, he'd probably say "Oh, ok, long as you're happy".

Benny_Cake

Doctor DooM wrote: »

From what I know of the man, he'd probably say "Oh, ok, long as you're happy".

I think so, I seem to remember hearing that he gave some thought to joining the Anglican clergy in his younger years. He retained a fascination with religion all his life although the rumour that he reverted to Christianity on his deathbed is nonsense.

recourse

Doctor DooM wrote: »

From what I know of the man, he'd probably say "Oh, ok, long as you're happy".

I think you are right, He certainly was not some rampant Atheist more Agnostic.

Manach

I'd say Dr. Doom fairly well captures it. From readings of Mr. Darwin and his social interactions I'd characterise as a humane person, of great insight but also aware of social justice and fairness.
I'd wish his great-Nth descendant well.

Doctor DooM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think so, I seem to remember hearing that he gave some thought to joining the Anglican clergy in his younger years. He retained a fascination with religion all his life although the rumour that he reverted to Christianity on his deathbed is nonsense.

Yup, the actual facts of his long changing thought out relationship with his faith are in fact way more interesting than the made up stuff.

recourse wrote: »

I think you are right, He certainly was not some rampant Atheist more Agnostic.

You'd probably do well to check out the actual meaning of those words- I guess you'd call me a "rampant" atheist (although I've never ramped anything, definitely not a god) but I am also agnostic. However, if someone I cared about said they'd decided to join a religion, I too would give the same response: Long as you've thought about it and long as you're happy. All atheist means is you don't believe in any current existent god claim.

Manach wrote: »

I'd say Dr. Doom fairly well captures it. From readings of Mr. Darwin and his social interactions I'd characterise as a humane person, of great insight but also aware of social justice and fairness.
I'd wish his great-Nth descendant well.

Yup, the man himself would probably not be happy with all this "Darwinist" stuff YEC's seem to obsess over. The man spent a considerable amount of his time coming to terms with all this stuff.

J C

recourse wrote: »

If Only Charles Darwin Could See His Descendant Now

He'd probably say it was an example of 'survival of the fittest'!!!:):D

recourse

J C wrote: »

He'd probably say it was an example of 'survival of the fittest'!!!:):D

Good one.... That made me laugh out loud.

J C

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Yup, the actual facts of his long changing thought out relationship with his faith are in fact way more interesting than the made up stuff.

Yes indeed, Darwin was a complex character ... a former Divinity student who struggled with the idea of Creation being 'red in tooth and claw' ... and perfected the concept of Natural Selection.
A person who married his first cousin and then blamed God / lost faith in God when some of his children had health problems.

An avowed Atheist/Agnostic ... who ended up buried within a Christian Abbey!!!

Nothing is ever quite as it seems, with Charles Darwin!!!:)

indy_man

And closely involved with Karl Marx in influencing communism to be attractive for the so called intellectual elite throughout Europe. There have been some bad results from that relationship.

J C

indy_man wrote: »

And closely involved with Karl Marx in influencing communism to be attractive for the so called intellectual elite throughout Europe. There have been some bad results from that relationship.

Darwin's ideas were co-opted by different elites ... from both the right and the left.

Brian Shanahan

Doctor DooM wrote: »

From what I know of the man, he'd probably say "Oh, ok, long as you're happy".

Followed by "but don't marry your cousin. It'll only cause trouble for any children you have. Trust me, I know."

J C

Manach wrote: »

I'd say Dr. Doom fairly well captures it. From readings of Mr. Darwin and his social interactions I'd characterise as a humane person, of great insight but also aware of social justice and fairness.

True.
Darwin was open-minded and willing to challenge the 'status quo'. He was also acutely aware of the limitations of his ideas.
The fact that his ideas were co-opted to other agendas is no fault of his.

Manach wrote: »

I'd wish his great-Nth descendant well.

So do I ... must be nice to be a descendent of such an amazing man.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

The fact that his ideas were co-opted to other agendas is no fault of his.

What other agendas?

recourse

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What other agendas?

Atheism.

Turtwig

recourse wrote: »

Atheism.

Atheism doesn't really have an agenda though. Anti-theism does. Atheism is just a vague description for a person's belief i.e they don't believe in a God. How or why and what motivates them isn't described by the label of 'atheist'. Just like theist doesn't tell us if the person is Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Catholic, believes in a deity that nobody else believes in. From theism alone one could not infer anything about an individual other than they believe in a god. Their ethics and behaviour are a complete mystery. The same applies to atheism.

recourse

Jernal wrote: »

Atheism doesn't really have an agenda though. Anti-theism does. Atheism is just a vague description for a person's belief i.e they don't believe in a God. How or why and what motivates them isn't described by the label of 'atheist'. Just like theist doesn't tell us if the person is Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Catholic, believes in a deity that nobody else believes in. From theism alone one could not infer anything about an individual other than they believe in a god. Their ethics and behaviour are a complete mystery. The same applies to atheism.

Maybe so, but if I had a cent for the amount of times Darwins name is mentioned to defend atheist views I would be rich.

Brian Shanahan

recourse wrote: »

Atheism.

In case you haven't noticed Darwin's work on evolution lead directly to his agnosticsim. And agnosticism is to atheism is what a sausage is to a jumbo breakfast roll.

Oh and calling atheism an agenda, questionable at best.

recourse wrote: »

Maybe so, but if I had a cent for the amount of times Darwins name is mentioned to defend atheist views I would be rich.

I'd have about €0.00. Darwin is never mentioned to defend atheism, it is not necessary. But then again a lot of theists when trying to disprove atheism say "but think of the eye (or bacterial flagellum, or some such thing). Only god can create it! It's too complex. Where's your Darwin now, eh?"

Then we have to explain how evolution works and how it has nothing to do with atheism, thus you have atheists referencing Darwin, but still nothing to do with "Darwins name is mentioned to defend atheist views".

recourse

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

In case you haven't noticed Darwin's work on evolution lead directly to his agnosticsim. And agnosticism is to atheism is what a sausage is to a jumbo breakfast roll.

Oh and calling atheism an agenda, questionable at best.

Hey.. I know exactly who Darwin was, I am just saying he appears a lot in Atheist Arguments as if to lend support to the arguments.

amen

So she is what 5 generations removed from Darwin. How many other descendants does he have and what religion are they (if any) ?

Brian Shanahan

recourse wrote: »

Hey.. I know exactly who Darwin was, I am just saying he appears a lot in Atheist Arguments as if to lend support to the arguments.

No, he appears a lot in threads about the reality of god, because a lot of theists think that by disproving the theory of evolution they prove god.

This despite a) their arguments against ToE are ridiculously bad, b) even if ToE were disproven we still have evolution happening and c) disproving a thing doesn't make another unrelated thing true.

recourse

amen wrote: »

So she is what 5 generations removed from Darwin. How many other descendants does he have and what religion are they (if any) ?

Interesting you bring that up, because he has a Jesuit priest who is also a descendent Fr John Keynes. I don't know how religious his other relations are.

Benny_Cake

Mod note: Not really sure where is going, but atheism can be discussed here and evolution vs creationism can be discussed here. Thanks!

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What other agendas?

His ideas were co-opted (in various ways and with varying degrees of legitimacy) by 'Social Darwinists', Eugenecists, Materialistic (and Theistic) Evolutionists, Secular Humanists, Christians of all persuasions, Atheistic Communists/Marxists and Nazi Fascists, to name but a few.
His Theory of Natural Selection is now so well established scientifically that it could be termed a Scientific Law ... and on the back of this well established Theory, a whole edifice of other (in many cases unfounded) extrapolations have been drawn to suit the various agendas of the above groups and many more besides.

I think that if Darwin were alive today, he would be utterly amazed (though not entirely surprised) at the various uses that has been made of his Theory of Natural Selection ... for both good and ill.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

In case you haven't noticed Darwin's work on evolution lead directly to his agnosticsim.

I think that Darwin's agnosticism was driven more by personal matters, and especially the death of his beloved daughter, as a child. He questioned why a Good God could allow the death of a young much-loved child. This is essentially a Theological question that is entirely separate from his work on Natural Selection / Evolution.

Morbert

Much of Darwin's loss of faith was due to personal events, but it was also due to his study of the "reproductive strategies" of Ichneumonidae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumonidae

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Much of Darwin's loss of faith was due to personal events, but it was also due to his study of the "reproductive strategies" of Ichneumonidae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumonidae

I fully agree.
However, this is but a further example of the same essentially Theological question as to why a Good God allows suffering in the world of people and other creatures ... which contributed to Darwin's Agnosticism/Atheism.
Darwin would have linked, in his mind, the death of his beloved child with the cruelty of nature as exemplified by Ichneumonidae.
Darwin wasn't alone in this ... Quote Wikipedia "The grisliness and apparent cruelty (at least, from a human perspective) of Ichneumonidae larval cannibalism troubled philosophers, naturalists, and theologians in the 19th century, who found the practice inconsistent with the notion of a world created by a loving and benevolent God."
Many Atheists and anti-Theists today also cite the cruelty of Nature as a reason not to believe in God ... but their mistake is that they don't recognise that there is a trade-off between God's omnipotence and His creation of free-willed, morally responsible Human Beings.

The theological answer is that God is balancing his omnipotence with His gift of free-will to Humanity ... a freedom that was abused at the Fall and ever since by Human Beings ... and which introduced sin ... and disease and death, into a perfectly Created Universe.
The situation where we currently find ourselves, is eloquently described by Paul in Rom 8:18-25:-
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

johnnyskeleton

recourse wrote: »

“That I freely chose to be a Catholic after much thought and analysis, and wasn’t brainwashed into it, baffle my friends and family alike,”

I am impressed how this young woman has so much Faith.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/13/descendant-of-darwin-becomes-a-catholic-apologist/

On my reading of it, she seems to have gone back to Christian faith more out of disillusionment with those atheist theorists who try to make their own religion out of disbelief rather than any strong conviction of faith.