How I came to believe (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Saturday, October 03, 2015, 14:57 (3338 days ago)
This older article follows the same pattern I did as a physician, although I reached agnosticism before I turned around:-http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/06/neurosurgeon-intelligent-design-opinions-darwin09_0205_michael_egnor.html-"The fossil record shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts. Darwin's theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components. The origin of the genetic code belies random causation. All codes with which we have experience arise from intelligent agency. Intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it's difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations. -"I saw that Darwinism was a Potemkin village. But it wasn't clear to me why evolutionary biologists were so passionately devoted to such pallid science. The evidence that the Darwinian understanding of biological origins was inadequate has been in hand for quite a while. -"Why, when the genetic code was unraveled, didn't scientists question Darwin's assumption of randomness? Why didn't Darwinists ask the difficult questions that are posed for their theory by the astonishing complexity of intracellular molecular machinery? Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong? -***-"But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity-the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells-is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines. -"I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin's theory of biological origins is atheism's creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor."-Comment: Michael Egnor is a Catholic neurosurgeon. He is working on the most miraculous biologic machine ever invented.
How I came to believe
DAVID: This older article follows the same pattern I did as a physician, although I reached agnosticism before I turned around:-http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/06/neurosurgeon-intelligent-design-opinions-darwin09_0205...-Many thanks, David, for this article, which brilliantly sums up the case against chance, is a powerful indictment of the scientific establishment, is a tribute to the courage of its author, and should be compulsory reading for atheistic Darwinists. It's a pity he talks about "Darwin's theory of biological origins" as "atheism's creation myth", when he must know that Darwin's theory of evolution does not cover creation, but he is certainly right that "atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor". And one can only applaud his fair-mindedness in considering "religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst." If you hadn't told us he was a Catholic, this comment would have led me to welcome a fellow agnostic to the picket fence!
How I came to believe
by David Turell , Monday, October 05, 2015, 00:16 (3337 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Many thanks, David, for this article, which brilliantly sums up the case against chance, is a powerful indictment of the scientific establishment, is a tribute to the courage of its author, and should be compulsory reading for atheistic Darwinists. It's a pity he talks about "Darwin's theory of biological origins" as "atheism's creation myth", when he must know that Darwin's theory of evolution does not cover creation,...-I must again take you to task. Life is a continuum from first life to now. The two parts of the story are inseparable. First live had to contain the mechanisms that allowed for evolution to more complexity. I agree Darwin did not offer any explanation as to origin of life, but his Swiss-cheese theory of how evolution works offers no backward-looking hint to help us. The Darwinist abiogenesis scientists keep referring to RNA appearing and 'evolving' into life. That whole area of research thought is contaminated by atheistic wishes for simple chance evolution. I think the author was influenced by those tall tales.
How I came to believe
dhw: Many thanks, David, for this article, which brilliantly sums up the case against chance, is a powerful indictment of the scientific establishment, is a tribute to the courage of its author, and should be compulsory reading for atheistic Darwinists. It's a pity he talks about "Darwin's theory of biological origins" as "atheism's creation myth", when he must know that Darwin's theory of evolution does not cover creation,...-DAVID: I must again take you to task. Life is a continuum from first life to now. The two parts of the story are inseparable. First live had to contain the mechanisms that allowed for evolution to more complexity. -Agreed, but who says you must provide a theory for both? There is now a wide consensus that evolution took place, whereas there is no consensus on how the original mechanisms came into being. That would seem to justify Darwin's expressed intention to steer clear of that particular origin. DAVID: I agree Darwin did not offer any explanation as to origin of life, but his Swiss-cheese theory of how evolution works offers no backward-looking hint to help us.-Then why take me to task? And why take Darwin to task for not tackling a problem he felt unable to solve? In any case, bearing in mind your own convictions, yet again here is Darwin's conclusion, taken from my edition of Origin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” Please explain your objections to this. DAVID: The Darwinist abiogenesis scientists keep referring to RNA appearing and 'evolving' into life. That whole area of research thought is contaminated by atheistic wishes for simple chance evolution. I think the author was influenced by those tall tales.-Yes indeed, it is the atheist abiogenenesis scientists you should be taking to task, along with those theists who also misrepresent Darwin's theory for their own purposes. I must again take you to task for condoning what you yourself admit is misrepresentation.
How I came to believe
by David Turell , Monday, October 05, 2015, 13:55 (3336 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Agreed, but who says you must provide a theory for both? There is now a wide consensus that evolution took place, whereas there is no consensus on how the original mechanisms came into being. That would seem to justify Darwin's expressed intention to steer clear of that particular origin.-The point I am stressing is Darwin avoided recognizing first life had to contain the mechanisms for evolution to occur, but one cannot separate that fact from a current discussion. > dhw: yet again here is Darwin's conclusion, taken from my edition of Origin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” Please explain your objections to this.-Why do some of the editions contain the phrase you quote? Did Darwin vacillate in his opinion about God?
How I came to believe
dhw: Many thanks, David, for this article, which brilliantly sums up the case against chance, is a powerful indictment of the scientific establishment, is a tribute to the courage of its author, and should be compulsory reading for atheistic Darwinists. It's a pity he talks about "Darwin's theory of biological origins" as "atheism's creation myth", when he must know that Darwin's theory of evolution does not cover creation,... DAVID: I must again take you to task. Life is a continuum from first life to now. The two parts of the story are inseparable. First live had to contain the mechanisms that allowed for evolution to more complexity. -dhw: Agreed, but who says you must provide a theory for both? There is now a wide consensus that evolution took place, whereas there is no consensus on how the original mechanisms came into being. That would seem to justify Darwin's expressed intention to steer clear of that particular origin. DAVID: The point I am stressing is Darwin avoided recognizing first life had to contain the mechanisms for evolution to occur, but one cannot separate that fact from a current discussion.-A current discussion on what? My objection was to the author's misrepresentation of Darwin's theory. Anyway, I don't think Darwin was stupid enough to assume that evolution could occur without some sort of mechanism, but he was discussing evolution (as opposed to separate creation). As for the origin of the mechanism, it suits both atheists and anti-Darwinist theists to ignore the following:-dhw: ...yet again here is Darwin's conclusion, taken from my edition of Origin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” Please explain your objections to this. DAVID: Why do some of the editions contain the phrase you quote? Did Darwin vacillate in his opinion about God?-I can't read Darwin's mind. We know that he intended to become a clergyman, lost his faith, said categorically he had never been an atheist, and described himself as an agnostic. I think we may assume he actually wrote the words I have quoted and knew what he was writing. They were inserted into later editions (perhaps to mollify those who took the biblical version of creation literally?) along with the many other references to the Creator, and presumably also the enthusiastic quote from the Rev. Charles Kingsley. He was at pains to point out explicitly that he saw “no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one.” Now, will you please tell me your objections to his conclusion. If you have none, will you please join me in agreeing that it is wrong to misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth”.
How I came to believe
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 06, 2015, 18:05 (3335 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: ...yet again here is Darwin's conclusion, taken from my edition of Origin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” Please explain your objections to this. > DAVID: Why do some of the editions contain the phrase you quote? Did Darwin vacillate in his opinion about God? > > dhw: I can't read Darwin's mind. ....Now, will you please tell me your objections to his conclusion. If you have none, will you please join me in agreeing that it is wrong to misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth”.-Simple. Tony views evolution as God's individual creations. I view evolution as a theistic form of creation. The author is in the same mind-set in viewing evolution. Darwin's unproven, non-workable theory only provides for an explanation of the appearance of common descent, which from body forms (phenotypes) looks valid. However, one of the major problems is trying to make a bush of life from genetic studies and it doesn't really work very well. Research is not complete, but there are enormous unexplained skips and jumps, suggesting guidance:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150918180310.htm-Another summary from the ID site:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/tree-of-life/encyclopedia-of-the-tree-of-life/
How I came to believe
dhw: ...yet again here is Darwin's conclusion, taken from my edition of Origin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” Please explain your objections to this. DAVID: Why do some of the editions contain the phrase you quote? Did Darwin vacillate in his opinion about God dhw: I can't read Darwin's mind. ....Now, will you please tell me your objections to his conclusion. If you have none, will you please join me in agreeing that it is wrong to misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth”. -DAVID: Simple. Tony views evolution as God's individual creations. I view evolution as a theistic form of creation. The author is in the same mind-set in viewing evolution. Darwin's unproven, non-workable theory only provides for an explanation of the appearance of common descent, which from body forms (phenotypes) looks valid. However, one of the major problems is trying to make a bush of life from genetic studies and it doesn't really work very well. Research is not complete, but there are enormous unexplained skips and jumps, suggesting guidance: [...]-I am aware of your view and Tony's view of evolution, and of the difficulties of making a bush and of the enormous skips and jumps (some of which also bothered Darwin), and I expressed my admiration for the article you presented to us, apart from one small criticism: “It's a pity he talks about "Darwin's theory of biological origins" as "atheism's creation myth", when he must know that Darwin's theory of evolution does not cover creation.”-May I now take it that you are happy with Darwin's conclusion that the Creator originally breathed life into a few forms or one, and may I ask whether you agree with me that it is wrong for both atheists and anti-Darwin theists to misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth”?
How I came to believe
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 07, 2015, 20:46 (3334 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:I am aware of your view and Tony's view of evolution, and of the difficulties of making a bush and of the enormous skips and jumps (some of which also bothered Darwin), and I expressed my admiration for the article you presented to us, apart from one small criticism: “It's a pity he talks about "Darwin's theory of biological origins" as "atheism's creation myth", when he must know that Darwin's theory of evolution does not cover creation.” > > May I now take it that you are happy with Darwin's conclusion that the Creator originally breathed life into a few forms or one, and may I ask whether you agree with me that it is wrong for both atheists and anti-Darwin theists to misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth”?-I've explained why I don't agree with Darwin other than common descent which may well be guided. Darwin vacillated about a 'creator'.
How I came to believe
dhw: I am aware of your view and Tony's view of evolution, and of the difficulties of making a bush and of the enormous skips and jumps (some of which also bothered Darwin), and I expressed my admiration for the article you presented to us, apart from one small criticism: “It's a pity he talks about "Darwin's theory of biological origins" as "atheism's creation myth", when he must know that Darwin's theory of evolution does not cover creation.” May I now take it that you are happy with Darwin's conclusion that the Creator originally breathed life into a few forms or one, and may I ask whether you agree with me that it is wrong for both atheists and anti-Darwin theists to misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth”?-DAVID: I've explained why I don't agree with Darwin other than common descent which may well be guided. Darwin vacillated about a 'creator'.-But you have not said whether you are happy with what Darwin actually wrote at the conclusion of Origin. I am also quite shocked at your continued refusal to distance yourself from those atheists and anti-Darwin theists who misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth” when you have actually criticized Darwin for NOT dealing with creation and when he himself made it crystal clear that his theory was not atheistic.
How I came to believe
by David Turell , Thursday, October 08, 2015, 14:37 (3333 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: I've explained why I don't agree with Darwin other than common descent which may well be guided. Darwin vacillated about a 'creator'. > > dhw: But you have not said whether you are happy with what Darwin actually wrote at the conclusion of Origin. I am also quite shocked at your continued refusal to distance yourself from those atheists and anti-Darwin theists who misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth” when you have actually criticized Darwin for NOT dealing with creation and when he himself made it crystal clear that his theory was not atheistic.-Of course I am happy with his 'creator' sentence; the issue is whether he really meant it, or was it a sop to the religious. I also have noted that atheists use Darwin because the theory of evolution is totally a chance mechanism which fits their agenda. The word 'creation' also encompasses the process of evolution in which new forms are 'created'.
How I came to believe
DAVID: I've explained why I don't agree with Darwin other than common descent which may well be guided. Darwin vacillated about a 'creator'. dhw: But you have not said whether you are happy with what Darwin actually wrote at the conclusion of Origin. I am also quite shocked at your continued refusal to distance yourself from those atheists and anti-Darwin theists who misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth” when you have actually criticized Darwin for NOT dealing with creation and when he himself made it crystal clear that his theory was not atheistic.-DAVID: Of course I am happy with his 'creator' sentence; the issue is whether he really meant it, or was it a sop to the religious. -That is not the issue at all. His theory has been accepted by millions of theists, which proves his claim that it did not need to offend the religious, and so it is absurd to say that it is atheistic. His theory set out to prove common descent, as opposed to the biblical version of separate creation, and quite explicitly did not seek to disprove the existence of God. DAVID: I also have noted that atheists use Darwin because the theory of evolution is totally a chance mechanism which fits their agenda. The word 'creation' also encompasses the process of evolution in which new forms are 'created'.-You know as well as I do what “creation myth” was referring to, but we needn't play word games since you also refused to distance yourself from the statement: “Aside from the obvious (and intriguing) challenge of understanding the enormous complexity of life's information payload, evolution purports to explain its origins”. You acknowledge that Darwin's theory does not cover the origin of life, you know that he categorically stated that his theory was not anti-religious, but still you won't condemn those who twist the theory to suit their agenda, whether theistic or atheistic. I wonder what you're afraid of.
How I came to believe
by David Turell , Friday, October 09, 2015, 22:22 (3332 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:You acknowledge that Darwin's theory does not cover the origin of life, you know that he categorically stated that his theory was not anti-religious, but still you won't condemn those who twist the theory to suit their agenda, whether theistic or atheistic. I wonder what you're afraid of.-I'm not afraid of anything. All I accept from Darwin is a strong proposal that common descent appears to have happened, method still unexplained. With genetic studies showing that there is no genetic DNA tree or bush of life, but huge skip areas, it appears that someone has monkeyed with the works, to paraphrase Fred Hoyle ( making Carbon from stars). If the universe looks 'monkeyed with' so does the genetics of evolution.-I view Darwin as a person who fully opened up the discussion of evolution as a process to be studied. That is his claim to fame.
How I came to believe
dhw: You acknowledge that Darwin's theory does not cover the origin of life, you know that he categorically stated that his theory was not anti-religious, but still you won't condemn those who twist the theory to suit their agenda, whether theistic or atheistic. I wonder what you're afraid of.-DAVID: I'm not afraid of anything. All I accept from Darwin is a strong proposal that common descent appears to have happened, method still unexplained. With genetic studies showing that there is no genetic DNA tree or bush of life, but huge skip areas, it appears that someone has monkeyed with the works, to paraphrase Fred Hoyle ( making Carbon from stars). If the universe looks 'monkeyed with' so does the genetics of evolution. I view Darwin as a person who fully opened up the discussion of evolution as a process to be studied. That is his claim to fame.-But you still refuse to condemn those who misrepresent his theory as an atheistic attempt to explain the origin of life.
How I came to believe
by David Turell , Saturday, October 10, 2015, 15:07 (3331 days ago) @ dhw
David: I view Darwin as a person who fully opened up the discussion of evolution as a process to be studied. That is his claim to fame.[/i] > > dhw: But you still refuse to condemn those who misrepresent his theory as an atheistic attempt to explain the origin of life.-I admit that Darwin appears to have been an agnostic. His theory of chance evolution has provided ammunition for atheists. There is no misrepresentation. They are using his theory for their purposes. Did Darwin ever say exactly what his firm beliefs were in his letters, which I have not reviewed?
How I came to believe
Perhaps this should be on the Darwin & Wallace thread, but we may as well stay here now!-David: I view Darwin as a person who fully opened up the discussion of evolution as a process to be studied. That is his claim to fame. dhw: But you still refuse to condemn those who misrepresent his theory as an atheistic attempt to explain the origin of life.-DAVID: I admit that Darwin appears to have been an agnostic. His theory of chance evolution has provided ammunition for atheists. There is no misrepresentation. They are using his theory for their purposes.-In one breath you criticize Darwin for not dealing with the problem of the origin of life, and in the next you say that there is no misrepresentation when an author writes that Darwin's theory of evolution purports to explain the origin of life. Yes indeed, both theists and atheists misrepresent Darwin's theory for their purposes, and I remain mystified and slightly shocked that you continue to condone such distortions. DAVID: Did Darwin ever say exactly what his firm beliefs were in his letters, which I have not reviewed?-He did not have firm beliefs. He fluctuated. That is because like the rest of us agnostics he saw both sides. Here is a helpful website:-	Darwin's views of religion: his agnosticism and... www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/religion2.htmlCached-QUOTE: In "Religion," the eighth chapter of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, his son Francis claims that “in his published works he was reticent on the matter of religion — something not quite accurate because, as we shall see, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) does explicitly discuss this subject in relation to human evolution. But, as Francis points out, Darwin willingly explained his belief (or unbelief) in private letters and in the autobiography he wrote for his children. Thus, when asked about his views of religion by J. Fordyce, Darwin responded “my judgment often fluctuates . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” He then uses the term coined by T. H. Huxley, his follower and fierce advocate, when he continued, “I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.” Similarly, when discussing the origins of the universe, he admitted, "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”
How I came to believe
by David Turell , Sunday, October 11, 2015, 15:08 (3330 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: In one breath you criticize Darwin for not dealing with the problem of the origin of life,-I did not criticize Darwin about the origin of life. Look back at what I have said.-> dhw: and in the next you say that there is no misrepresentation when an author writes that Darwin's theory of evolution purports to explain the origin of life.-And I disagree with your interpretation. -> dhw: Yes indeed, both theists and atheists misrepresent Darwin's theory for their purposes, and I remain mystified and slightly shocked that you continue to condone such distortions.- Yes, everyone uses and abuses Darwin.I don't condone what you interpret as distortions. I understand their opinion in a different light. Darwin stands for chance, not purpose, and you can't deny that. > > DAVID: Did Darwin ever say exactly what his firm beliefs were in his letters, which I have not reviewed? > > He did not have firm beliefs. He fluctuated. That is because like the rest of us agnostics he saw both sides. Here is a helpful website: > > 	Darwin's views of religion: his agnosticism and... > www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/religion2.htmlCached > > QUOTE: In "Religion," the eighth chapter of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, his son Francis claims that “in his published works he was reticent on the matter of religion .... he admitted, "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”-Thank you. No wonder you defend him so strongly. He is in fellowship with you regarding religion, but I am sure you do not follow his views of races in Descent of Man.
How I came to believe: More about Darwin
dhw: In one breath you criticize Darwin for not dealing with the problem of the origin of life... DAVID: I did not criticize Darwin about the origin of life. Look back at what I have said.-I complained at the misrepresentation of Darwin's theory as “atheism's creation myth”. You “took me to task” for this: “Life is a continuum from first life to now. The two parts of the story are inseparable. First life had to contain the mechanisms that allowed for evolution to more complexity. I agree Darwin did not offer any explanation as to origin of life, but his Swiss-cheese theory of how evolution works offers no backward-looking hint to help us.” I took this last observation as criticism of Darwin's refusal to speculate on the “inseparable” origin of life, since you were anxious to defend the above misrepresentation.-dhw: ...and in the next you say that there is no misrepresentation when an author writes that Darwin's theory of evolution purports to explain the origin of life.-DAVID: And I disagree with your interpretation.-You agree that Darwin's theory does NOT offer any explanation as to the origin of life, and yet you agree that Darwin's theory purports to explain the origin of life? DAVID: Yes, everyone uses and abuses Darwin.I don't condone what you interpret as distortions. I understand their opinion in a different light. Darwin stands for chance, not purpose, and you can't deny that. -You don't condone what I “interpret” as distortions, but you disagree that “purports to explain the origin of life” means purports to explain the origin of life, so it's not a distortion? I understand their opinions too, but Darwin's reliance on chance in the form of random mutations has nothing to do with the misrepresentation of his theory as being atheistic. As for purpose, the only one you are prepared to offer us is God's intention to produce and feed humans, and of course Darwin does not subscribe to this. That does not make his theory atheistic. Survival is his overriding purpose (to which I would add improvement, substituting my hypothetical autonomous inventive mechanism for his random mutations). -You asked me about Darwin's views on religion, and I referred you to www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/religion2.htmlCached-DAVID: Thank you. No wonder you defend him so strongly. He is in fellowship with you regarding religion, but I am sure you do not follow his views of races in Descent of Man.-I wonder what you will come up with next in your efforts to discredit Darwin. Much of what he says about religion puts him in fellowship with you as well, and no, I do not follow his views of race in relation to some of his assumptions, any more than I follow his theory of random mutations and gradualism. However, his comments on race need to be seen against the background of his vehement opposition to slavery and his profound humanitarianism. It suits anti-Darwinists to call him a racist, but the term needs careful differentiation. It is one thing to assume cultural inferiority (which he does), and quite another to regard people of different race as unworthy of respect (which he does not). I have found a useful website that illustrates the latter point. (I hope you can find it. I can't get this to link.)- Darwin on race and slavery commondescent.net/articles/darwin_on_race.htmCached In order to counter the smear and innuendo spewed forth by many antievolutionists on the subject of Darwin and racism, here are some of Darwin's actual words ... -SAMPLE QUOTE: "As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures." ? Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871), CHAPTER IV
How I came to believe: More about Darwin
by David Turell , Monday, October 12, 2015, 14:36 (3329 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: ...and in the next you say that there is no misrepresentation when an author writes that Darwin's theory of evolution purports to explain the origin of life. > > DAVID: And I disagree with your interpretation. > > dhw: You agree that Darwin's theory does NOT offer any explanation as to the origin of life, and yet you agree that Darwin's theory purports to explain the origin of life?-It is a difference in a nuance of thought: Darwin gives an explanation for evolution by common descent. Therefore he implies that first life is prepared for that process. Of course he gives no explanation of first life. No one can. And he obviously doesn't explain evolution in his theory which is a chancey purposeless process. Thus by inference first life was a chance, purposeless event, and atheists love the idea. And theists resent it.-> dhw: As for purpose, the only one you are prepared to offer us is God's intention to produce and feed humans, and of course Darwin does not subscribe to this. That does not make his theory atheistic. Survival is his overriding purpose (to which I would add improvement, substituting my hypothetical autonomous inventive mechanism for his random mutations).-Of course, we are back to the tautology 'survival of the fittest'. Of course anything living has to try to survive until death appears for the multicellular. Haven't you forgotten the first single cell on Earth is still alive in its split-away progeny 3.6 billion years later! Darwin's survival idea does not explain speciation, or multicellularity. > dhw: Darwin on race and slavery > commondescent.net/articles/darwin_on_race.htmCached > In order to counter the smear and innuendo spewed forth by many antievolutionists on the subject of Darwin and racism, here are some of Darwin's actual words ... > > SAMPLE QUOTE: "As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures." ? Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871), CHAPTER IV-Thank you for the clarification. They also seem to blame him for the terrible Eugenics efforts of the early last century.