-18 votes

Did Darwin Kill God?

I don't want to promote that neocon-running-for-office's thread about evolution anymore.

Here is a wonderful documentary, Did Darwin Kill God?, on how evolution and God can and should coexist.

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 1:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part2:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 3:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6 isn't worth watching.

You cannot argue that evolution occurs. It can be created in a laboratory, in our very own DNA mutation, and through observation of nature. Evolution does not equal atheism and it is a false dichotomy.

This issue is not black and white. It is gray. Both sides on the extreme should watch this series and realize the either-or fallacy.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

But, but, but,,

To me, this whole discussion can be easily explained.
The stumbling block is man’s interpretation of time measure.
We base everything on man’s accepted time concept, which limits knowledge.

Darwin only made an observation of God’s “Tool Of Creation” being God’s time measure is greater than we can grasp. A second in God’s time may be a billion of our years.

Evolution is merely a tool of creation,,,


Noted atheist and evolutionist

Richard Dawkins himself has contended that evolution has neither intelligence nor an end goal--- so how does a massive global undirected evolutionary process create complex organisms from simple ones from superior mutations that result in a a complex ecosystem that perpetuates millions of difference species to co-exist among each other without imploding?

Oh, I know, just throw eons of years, and by random chance it will eventually come all together in perfect harmony! Sorry, no way Jose. Even Dawkins admits his “Blind Watchmaker” allegory is flawed, and stated so.

The odds of such a complex ecosystem coming to together with multiple organisms evolving without destructive mutations wiping each other out during the process of transitional mutations which are small and take generations to occur is beyond astronomical. It’s worse odds than the “if you have enough monkeys with typewriters cliche” where theoretically given enough time they could write the entire works of Shakespeare. Except no one ever asks what intelligence made the typewriters, paper, ink, language, edits, spell checks in the first place, and most importantly, prevents the monkeys or an environment cataclysm destroying a generation of the monkeys work, preventing an accumulation or transfer of what has been done?

One might as well say intelligent design is unnecessary for humans to build complex technology--just get a couple of million humans to endless shake a box of rocks and sticks together over a couple of million years, and presto! out springs forth communication devices complete with the needed software, infrastructure, and language for the entire world!

It also does not explain the origin of life, i.e., biogenesis. Life from primordial soup has yet to be observed, or reproduced.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Sorry, couldn't resist

"One might as well say intelligent design is unnecessary for humans to build complex technology--just get a couple of million humans to endless shake a box of rocks and sticks together over a couple of million years, and presto! out springs forth communication devices complete with the needed software, infrastructure, and language for the entire world!"
----We can actually trace technology from early humans, from spear tips to IPads. So, yes, we did develop the technology, art, and language we have today and there is a wealth of evidence and proof of that. Technology, whether it is advances in making an arrow or a microchip, is exponential. Technology and new advances double every year now - whereas with less people and less technology across the globe 100 thousand years ago it took 20 thousand years for the technology to double. I'm no rocket surgeon but I think you just countered your own argument.

Were you drunk? Your first paragraph is completely unintelligible. Fine if you were, kind of funny actually. Then, you said this:

"The odds of such a complex ecosystem coming to together with multiple organisms evolving without destructive mutations wiping each other out during the process of transitional mutations which are small and take generations to occur is beyond astronomical." ---- That is how evolution works, "destructive mutations" in a sense. When there is a change to the environment or over time, an organism with the best adaptations survives while related organisms with less helpful "mutations" dies. And, calculating "odds" is something that has no relevance - it is a mental masturbation exercise carried out by creationists.

Evolution is an observed fact. How you want to explain it is up to you. I'm fine if you want to say that a magic sky daddy was doing it.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I apologize for my bad grammar

And I am not drunk, only too hasty in my writing.

You said:

"Evolution is an observed fact."

Ok, so who "observed" the missing link evolutionary jump from lower primates to a higher ordered human? Sorry, fossils don't count, as they is only serve as trace evidence, not direct observation. To do otherwise is akin to the fallacy of blind men trying to describe an elephant by touch alone.

Evolution cannot explain the complex macro order of the Earth's eco-system or universe except by mere speculation and hypotheses, as NO man has lived long enough to observe happening in REAL time.

In short, there is no way evolution can "guess" or anticipate--as Dawkins stated it has no innate intelligence or goal--- how ONE adaption for ONE species will not conflict with a myriad of other competing species in such a way that will not bring collapse to an entire developing fragile transitional eco-system before it can achieve global evolutionarily equilibrium. That would assume that evolution would have to constantly "re-boot" from scratch over and over again until somehow, someway, a stable eco-system would come about to permit millions of separate and distinct orders of species to survive and evolve.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin


Darwin is the one who is dead.

The whole thing has more of the appearance

of God killing Darwin since Darwin is the one who is dead.

SteveMT's picture

Did organized religion kill God?

[meant for those believers in the Almighty]

Many religions make the claim that God has specifically spoken to them and that the onus is on everyone else to believe them or be damned to hell. They each claim that they possess the Divinely-inspired Word of God and that the others are not to be believed. These major religions have corrupted themselves from within by becoming the very hypocrites that they preach about. Historically, they have already shown the world that none of them are better or worse than any other major religion. No one has found "the best way to God" that stands out as significantly better than the others. By creating their own morasses of spiritual mediocrity, these organized religions have demonstrated that none can be from God. Enter Darwin who provided more reasons to support this view. His scientific evidence was similar to Thomas Paine's logical evidence in the Age of Reason that said that people had better rethink all of these beliefs. Darwin and Paine both got people out of their religious comfort zones by challenging the status quo. The question is will the evidence these thinkers have provided ultimately lead us to a better way to God or possibly the only way to God?

God is the collective reflection of a true free market

Darwin is the individual initiation into a scientific belief that the truth of man's beginnings is unhinged from God's reflection.

I.E. - If I plant a food forest expecting specific fruits but I receive what I expect plus a combination of fruits I have never seen before that is God revealing to me a reflection of a truly free man in nature.

Darwin tells us that God is science, but science can only hypothesize what is to be expected in nature.

There are no Men-like Gods, only God-Like men initiating the force of God with scientific analysis.

God did not start this race to evolution, but God will certainly end such unanalyzeable discourse that evolution contends.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

An evolutionary Genisis

Destroys the Sabbath, and it is Gods sabbath which is the SIGN ( same word in the Koine Greek is translated MARK for anothers sign ) between men and God, that men might know that they who keep Gods sabbath are Gods children.
Evolution and scripture do NOT MIX.

The earth and creation of it took place in seven literal days. Why do I believe this? Because God said it and that settles it for me: it's called having faith.

And 1844 is a pivotal year in scripture parlance " and then the sanctuary shall be cleansed ": the year that Jesus moved into the role within the Haggai Haggion ( Most Holy place ) in the Heavenly Sanctuary to JUDGE all humanity begin at the end of a 2300 year prophecy written about in the book of Daniel. We can definitively pinpoint the START date because Atrexerxies a Media/ Persian king in Babylon left us a very nice written receipt in stone when he issued the decree that caused the Jews to rebuild ALL of Jerusalem which started the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 ( a little prophecy which foretold the arrival, and span of time of Jesus's ministry to Israel amongst other things ).
So right now, your name might be the one being discussed: have you brought all your sins to Jesus, have you prayed that He reveal even the ones you've forgotten about ?
Probation, that is the time peroid that mercy and forgiveness in Jesus's name by our faith in Him is still open. If you do not want to blot out your name from the book of life, it would be best to be found only in Jesus and you might want to redouble your efforts as their are only a limited and finite number of humans to be judged and He's been at it 24/6 for over 100 of our years now...how many can be left ?
That and look around you, who can doubt that inequity has exponentially increased, that the love of many ( love of God ) has grown cold, that men are lovers of themselves, back biters, oath breakers, rude, and wicked towards their own parents? We, stand at the juxtaposition of time and eternal, only the Father knows exactly when Jesus returns, but rest assured He is returning, perhaps sooner rather than later. It is far better to live in faith, and putting to death the defects of character we do unto others and ourselves as our suitable sacrifice of obiedence produced as well, by our faith in His ability to safeguard us through all temptations, without spot or blemish.

Happy new year fellow Libertarians, let's make this one the one where we are all first self governed so that we are justified in saying we don't need to be governed by others. For me, I can only do this in Jesus.

God Bless
Stēkō Parrēsia Iesōus

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington


"it is Gods sabbath which is the SIGN ( same word in the Koine Greek is translated MARK for anothers sign ) between men and God, that men might know that they who keep Gods sabbath are Gods children."

Now tell that to all those sports loving fanatics who pollute the Lord's Sabbath!

They are not His, and so they do as they will!

Why do I say this? So that some (by hearing the Truth) might turn from those ungodly things of the world and turn to the Lord for mercy before it's too late.


" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Like Newton -

Like Sir. Isaac Newton before him, Darwin merely discovered a natural process that describes a means and not an end. While Newton saw the forces of gravity at work, our modern scientists still have no clue how or why it works. 6-Dimensional Chiral Gauged Supergravity is not a pill to be swallowed lightly, not without wracking your brane . . .

Darwin, as many like to forget, was a theologian as well as a scientist. What he saw and explained was a process of genetic adaptation, but further research has show that the process of Methylation causes alterations in DNA and not any mutation - which neither fossil records nor empirical observation have ever found to produce anything but unhealthy chaos in complex organisms. This field of genetics is call Epigenetics. It does not simply concern the expression of dominant traits, although this is the process of Natural Selection most are familiar with. Neither change the underlying structure of the DNA itself, which "science" (in the sense used by Feynman to describe the belief of the ignorance of the "experts") cannot explain the origin of.

This type of dialectic works, though. An intelligent Christian cannot even use the word evolution without getting an angry mob after them. Maybe it was science that Darwin actually killed.

Phxarcher87's picture

sir isaac newton

as many like to forget wrote a lot about his belief in God as well.

One of the biggest pitfalls in a "movment" is the temptation to get cultish about it and refuse to realize that it is only part of the picture. -Joel Salatin ; You Can Farm pg 202


That is very true. Newton said of the origin of life, "All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing."

Found Darwin's grave.

Still looking for God's.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Phxarcher87's picture

thats the beauty

he concurred the grave.

One of the biggest pitfalls in a "movment" is the temptation to get cultish about it and refuse to realize that it is only part of the picture. -Joel Salatin ; You Can Farm pg 202


he didn't.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Darwin analyze this.

The Platypus. From Australia . A mammal that has a bill like a duck, a tail like a beaver. Lays eggs like a bird. Has very venomous claws. I think I will wait for God to answer that.

Money talks and dogs bark

SteveMT's picture

The Almighty is the quintessential biochemist.

That is all that Darwin accomplished, IMO.

Asclepius's picture

Source of down votes...?

The real irony is that this thread was likely down voted equally by both extremist atheists and Christians. "Dogma" forbid that "free thinkers" might actually have some friendly dialogue and come up with some new perspectives and understanding...

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

I didn't downvote or upvote this, but...

The premise that Darwin and a view of god can be synergistic isn't too much of a stretch, I'm sure many deists probably see this as a highly defensible viewpoint. However, you can not reconcile Darwin's "Origin Of Species" with the Genesis view of the beginning, because they begin with a radically different premise. Darwin believed that mutation is the cause of diversity through a non-conscious mechanism of natural selection, the Genesis account presupposes a conscious and very purposeful intent in the diversity of life within the world/universe.

This isn't to say that studying nature and utilizing science for the benefit of man is sin, far from it if you read Medieval theologians/doctors and most of the better established Protestant Reformers. The hostility that Christians express towards Darwin has little, if anything to do with the study of nature and material reality (save a handful of extremely backward Fundamentalist types and a few out of whack Gnostic thinkers), and everything to do with inferences that were made with the idea that there is not a purposeful ordering of things that is conducive to our rational minds.

If you actually divorce any presupposition of God either existing or not existing and just focus on the utility side of science, most of this bickering tends to disappear. Again, there are a handful of cults who will argue ridiculous things like using medicine to cure illness is wicked/ungodly and that it's blasphemy to chart the movements of the cosmos, but these people should be considered completely removed from any meaningful debate on the subject.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

giggles....er...you mean it was down voted by humans?

Is it really necessary to always profile THEM?

more for your viewing pleasure

Darwin's Dilemma - Evolution is having trouble standing up to the test of real science and the evidence.

Programming of Life - Information Science and living systems.

Watched both of those in

Watched both of those in full. Thanks for the share. Good stuff.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Title makes me shake my head...

There is an old saying:

The greatest employment for the mind of man is the study of the works of his creator.

This is exactly what Darwin did.

Darwin and GOD

Is it not interesting Darwin through his failing theory of evolution may only be increasing the proof of GOD's existence?

Is there really a need to prove a god's existence?

And how is studying the creations a failing theory?

How one employs their mind is an individual choice.


Title made me laugh. Darwin is dead but God is still on the thrown.

I will watch later.... but

I will watch later.... but whether or not 'evolution' is atheistic in nature depends on how one defines the term 'evolution'. In my experience, it is defined so loosely as to be almost useless. For example, some have defined it as simply 'change over time'. Such a definition makes everyone an evolutionist - what's to debate? Even the strictest 6 day creationist will agree that things change over time. Then there are those who define it so strictly as to exclude even the possibility of design in any sense, even as a guiding or originating force. Thus, it becomes atheistic in its very definition.

The term 'evolution' is so scattered as to be nearly useless.

Why was this downvoted? I'll

Why was this downvoted? I'll watch these this weekend when i get a chance.

Southern Agrarian

Because too many "libertarians" are hypocrites.

Like Presidents John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, they believe in "free speech" as long as it lies within their comfort zone.

I believe you will find the following essay downright fascinating.

New Gnosis: The Evolutionary Leap of Mankind – Serial 11

Georgi Stankov, Copyright 2001 and 2012

Translation from German language:
by Joelle Torneros and Georgi Stankov

11. Serial: Conclusion – Part I.
February 12, 2012

Conclusion – Part I:
World Religions as Gnostic Teachings

The phenomenology (manifestations) of the world religions – all naturalistic reli­gions are excluded from this analysis – reveals one and the same pattern (canon), which consists of a few recurring elements: Selected individuals, called prophets, messiahs or Gods, have received divine revelation in the form of a Gnosis, which they, or their successors, then write down as “holy” books.
The object of this gnosis is always the Numinous, the Divine, the Sacred, which is beyond the sensory perception of mortal men, and the relationship of the divine to the diversity of the manifestations of the material, tangible world – especially to the forms of human existence.

The epistemological core of all world religions represents thus the effort to interpret the relationship of the primary term of human consciousness, defined in the pre­sent Gnosis as space-time, energy or All-That-Is, which, depending on the religion, is described as Tao (Taoism, Confucianism), Atman, Brahman, Vishnu, Krishna (Upanishads, Jainism, Buddhism), Isis (Egyptian religion), Yahweh (Judaism), Christ /God (Christianity), Nous (Neoplatonism) or Allah (Islam), with the manifestations of the 3D space-time. This gnostic task includes the development of a creation story (Genesis), which is of apocalyptic, End Time character in Christianity, Judaism and Islam and of a recurrent, eternal nature in the Asian religions.

read more http://www.stankovuniversallaw.com/2012/02/new-gnosis-the-ev...