h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> So what does his autobiography actually state? <<

Have you looked at the site above.
It's huge!
I haven't read all of it (yet!)

I saw the quote you had earlier. They might be wrong though, I assume you have more than one source. Seeing Darwin´s actual wording would let us know better.

I´m still not sure what the point of this thread is.

The point of the thread seems to be that warner believes he can use his amazing skills of rationalism(still to be seen) to make 150years of Darwinian 'athiesm' crumble beneath him by simply saying..eh, wasn't Darwin a theist? And not actually really investigating what actually happened. More prominent god-botherers have made the same claims and yet have still been shown as being utterly and absolutely wrong.

If people researched the treatment of 'athiests' in the past then they would realise why scientists and others kept stchum over their beliefs.

Good post 3Dotsplus1!

Guilty!

But, you see

using my (limited) powers of rationalism,
I find his life very interesting and are familiar
with many of the places he lived and visited and studied
(apart from his maritime travels).

His background and study of theology makes it very difficult for
me to think that most of his life was
spent without faith of any kind.

Even if he was an atheist (I doubt it!),
I'm not!

So you don´t think him discovering through decades of research that very basic and important parts of the bible were incorrect, might have had an impact on his religious beliefs?

Xantic,

on the contrary, they MUST have had an impact.
Most 'specially talented' people find it difficult
to accept 'the norm'. I know where you're going with this.
Bible creation stories etc.

Reddyfreddy seems to have gone 'offline' atm.
I just wanted to add:-

You actually don't need a brain to have strong faith
(you might need it for other things, such as walking, talking etc. )

the most important thing is your heart!

No a brain often seems to be a hindrance.

not worth the energy.

I think it is worth the energy.
Ladies seem to value hearts.
Men often think with their lower organ.

That wasn't supposed to be insulting! I'm a man.

But you DO have to have a brain to be a scholar.
I'm not a 'proper' scholar. I don't have a formal theological
education.
Just 'DIY'.

>> You actually don't need a brain to have strong faith
(you might need it for other things, such as walking, talking etc. )

the most important thing is your heart! <<

No, the most important thing is a noodly appendage.

I've shown you a website, it must be true.

RF

This strikes me as yet another ham-fisted argument from authority.

It doesn't matter whether Darwin himself believed in one, several or no diety.

The multiple lines of evidence which confirm his observations and go further, extend the theory into realms not considered by Darwin, are the proof that his ideas are valid and are simply not undermined in any way by any attempt to posit some level of theistic belief in the man himself.

This is just the death-bed confession all over again, postponed!.

Even if Darwin had recanted every last doubt in a public and historically verifiable way it wouldn't change the truth of what he is responsible for uncovering.

As for the actual man himself, schooled as he was in William Paley's biological ideas of creation and his seminarian training, his hesitancy in publication was only bested by the thought of being scooped by Alfred Russell Wallace, in the end I think they shared a joint credit at the royal society when their papers were read out otherwise I think he would have been contented to have his work published post mortem. However, quiet irrespective this fruitless speculation, it's likely but not confirmed whatever faith he had wavered over the course of his life, and that for many reasons not least his scientific research but including the death of his child. However given the time and context of his life (including the devout belief of his wife who was well aware of declining certainty in the creator god) it is hardly surprising to find little confirmation of this, and besides it doesn't matter what he believed in, the theory of evolution is not a matter of belief of any kind, but a matter of accepting evidence.

I am not clear what Warner hopes to achieve by pursuing this. Frankly I'd be embarrassed to be called ignorant (post 23), but some of the militant christian bent seem to take this on as a badge of honour. It's perplexing.

Ah, Clive

>> It doesn't matter whether Darwin himself believed in one, several or no diety. <<

I'm sure it mattered to him, as it matters to you and me.

>> the theory of evolution is not a matter of belief of any kind, but a matter of accepting evidence. <<

That's another 'question/argument'. My daughter seems to know more about that than me. She tells me that there is 'strong proof' that Darwin's theories are not all correct. I'm working on it.

I'm not embarrased by labels, and I accept we all have limitations and relatively speaking, have little knowledge.
How could anybody know the lot!

What am I trying to achieve?
I'm trying to show, in a roundabout way, that it is possible for an intelligent human being (perhaps even Darwin himself )
to believe in God and the principles of Evolution, at the same time.

We already know Darwin was wrong about some things, such as what happened at the K-T boundary. However he was right about almost everything, just as Newton was. It is still clear that evolution happened and is happening.
Fitting God into evolution is like fitting a square peg into a round hole. It can be done, but it requires some shoving and pushing and fits quite uneasily.

Ah Warner....

>>I'm sure it [the question of god's existence] mattered to him<<

>>there is 'strong proof' that Darwin's theories are not all correct.<<

1) This does not pass the "so what?" test. Charles Darwin could have been a practising Mormon for all that it matters to the substantive point that what he realised about biology is largely correct and verifiable.


2) Yes, that is quiet correct, Charles Darwin got plenty of things absolutely wrong. Xanatic mentions the KT boundary, Personally I'd nominate his ideas about inheritance since it depends on a view of blood and heredity that is plainly false. What matters though is not that some of Charles Darwin's ideas where wrong but that one of them wasn't and has since gone on to be verified in ways unimaginable to him personally. Which is why genetics is such a good example because in the century after Darwin the mechanism of inherited characteristics was finally understood in terms of DNA, chromosomes, sexual recombination etc. And what this shows is incontrovertible proof that the theory of evolution can make testable predictions and for which there is corroborative evidence.

For example: why do humans have one less chromosome pair that our great ape cousins? Human Chromosome 2 demonstrates quite clearly the fusion of two separate chromosomes that are still found in great apes. Indicating that in our evolution from our common ancestor this was a mutated change that was naturally selected in our speciation and not in theirs.

This is precisely the kind of evidence that we can expect to find on the molecular level if shared common ancestry as a part of evolution by natural selection is true; it is precisely the kind of evidence around which sound scientific hypotheses can be constructed; and whaddayaknow, when they perform the test and publish the results for peer review the data is upheld and confirmed.

So whether or not Darwin found it possible or even desirable to think that God had a hand in super-gluing that chromosome together I've no idea and frankly I'm not even interested in the question. So what? It does not matter. I'll say it again: It does not matter. Evidence is not the same as opinion and whatever the man's opinion, the evidence itself is and ought to be persuasive.

Which is why it strikes me that this is just an argument for authority, because it's reaching for a popular figure and saying 'if he could believe it' then it's valid for me too as well'. People are quiet capable of believing a vast array of things, many of them without evidence and none of which makes what they believe in any way true, and that includes Charles Darwin. And whilst declining the point your challenge, I think the evidence that Darwin's faith wavered is circumstantial at best and rather trivial in point of fact.
What Charles Darwin thought about such matters is irrelevant compared to his scientific theory.

If christians want to persist in believing that god and evolution can be somehow combined and that evolution is just how god did it - well whatever helps them sleep at night - but you can't test for that.

>> What Charles Darwin thought about such matters (supreme authority)
is irrelevant compared to his scientific theory. <<

No, not in my opinion. If you want to use Charles Darwin's 'life studies' to assist proving 'there is no God',
why just take the part that suits you from them?
He was a naturalist and theologian.

He was from a fairly affluent background and was well educated.
He must of thought about 'spiritual matters' alongside his publishing of 'theory of evolution'.

That's what it is. A theory. You can't really prove anything, without a hypothesis to begin from.
Our brains accept or reject theories.
Looking at the evidence, as Darwin must have done, I accept most of what he postulates.

I have a theory 'God exists', and a lot of people in the world accept it, wholeheartedly.
I have already stated, imo, it can't be proved conclusively with material evidence, either way.

But we will all find out the answer(if we don't know already ), when we die.

Have you ever wondered what 'the present Queen' thinks about Darwin.

I don't know for sure. But if you look on an english £10 note, you will see the Queen on one side,
and Charles Darwin on the other.
I do believe that 'She believes in God' ( ), and also respects great scientists.

PS Please do not reply with disrespect to our Queen!

Does she decide who gets to be on the pound notes?

What the Queen thinks about Darwin? This just gets better and better!

What's next? An academic paper on the Special Theory of Relativity drawing on the writings of Hugo Chavez?

Much as I'm sure Hugo and Lizzy are both lovely people, they aren't any more likely to know anything about science than the man beside me on the train today, are they?