Was Charles Darwin Theistic Evolutionist?

I could not help but wondered if Charles Darwin, as I read Origin of the Species, held a theistic evolution position. It is Chapter XV: Recapitulation and Conclusion  which made me wondered. Darwin wrote:

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.

He went further

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.(Darwin 1909: 527-9)

It seems that Darwin had a room for the Creator. Is it possible that Darwin was a theistic evolutionist? Give reasons (I am interested in more than your opinion, so I will be glad if you could quote Darwin’s work to back your position)


Darwin, C. (1909). The Harvard Classics 11: Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin (C. W. Eliot, Ed.). New York: P.F. Collier & Son.


Darwin Project contains basic descriptions of more than 15,000 letters known to have been written by or to Charles Darwin, and the complete texts of around half of those. It is treasure mine for those who love to know more about Darwin

Biologos a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that “all things hold together in Christ.”

[I, Prayson, am still pondering if Darwinian Evolution is compatible with Christianity. I am pursued more to ID but I am open to explore different views because I believe all truths are God’s truth. I will follow were the evidences and its correct interpretation point to]


59 thoughts on “Was Charles Darwin Theistic Evolutionist?

  1. Héhé…I saw the answers from Roy and Collin…I think Collin pretty much answered the stuff for me, I was a little busy this week, was dreading coming here somewhat to address those points from Roy…I’ll possibly comment tomorrow, it’s almost midnight where I’m at…maybe I’ll also attack Prayson’s new post…

  2. “knowledge attained through study or practice … [old bones] can not be tested”
    You aren’t really making this argument, are you?

    “[the theory of] evolution has to start from the very first instance of life.”
    Of course it doesn’t. Don’t be silly. We don’t need to know how something was created to understand how it works. You aren’t having any trouble using your computer to reply, but odds are good that you don’t fully understand the process that goes into writing an operating system. It’s sufficient for your purposes to understand how to work it and how to run your web browser. The study of evolution is concerned solely with the operation of the process, not its origin.

    As a physical process, of course evolution can be traced backwards to the origins of life, but only if we have sufficient data. Whether or not that is the case (and there is good reason to think that we have a sufficient understanding of why it is indeed possible for the building blocks of life–self-replicating proteins–to occur spontaneously), the theory of evolution does not speak to this at all.

    “I am indeed stating scientist have in fact been wrong in the past and very well could be wrong again.”
    You do recognize that this is not the same thing, right? Yes, scientists can make mistakes. That alone does not mean that scientists are making a mistake on any given theory. Do you doubt the theory of gravity? Do you doubt cell theory? Do you doubt germ theory? Do you doubt the theory of relativity? Again, scientists have to have *reasons* before they claim something to be true–there must be a mountain of evidence supporting a claim before it can be called a “theory.” Your observation that scientists have been wrong and may again be wrong is completely vacuous.

    “DNA is more proof of an architect than of some random fluke of chance”
    This has nothing to do with my point. Our understanding of the “tree of life” is supported by DNA evidence; we can tell through analyzing DNA that whales share a common ancestry with hippos. We can tell through DNA evidence that humans share common ancestry with apes. We can tell through DNA evidence that sequoias share common ancestry with mice. The fossil record demonstrating change in species over time lines up precisely with DNA observations. Evolution is not mere a “theory from old bones,” and by suggesting this, you are again demonstrating that you do not understand science.

    Here’s a basic introductory video, if you’re interested in learning more about evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcjgWov7mTM

    Best of luck.

  3. Thank you Collin,

    According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

    So again, by definition, a theory from old bones is not scientific. It can not be tested and practiced to determine truth.

    Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (if you believe the Earth is really that old)

    So again, evolution has to start from the very first instance of life. So, we in fact then are a product of evolution from non-living chemicals that somehow formed into single-celled organisms and presto, here we are.

    I am indeed stating scientist have in fact been wrong in the past and very well could be wrong again..Theories come and go all the time

    I have to leave for work now and don’t have time to address DNA. But DNA is more proof of an architect than of some random fluke of chance that our blueprint just built itself.


    • I think I messed up my reply and left it on the whole thread instead of this comment. Sorry. It’s currently awaiting moderation, presumably because I included a web link to a youtube video.

      Sorry for any confusion. Have a great day.

  4. Hey Archange, hope your well.

    Using old bones as proof of the theory of evolution is not scientific proof of evolution. The first video has artist renditions of fossil bones of whale type marine animals. This is not scientific proof the whales we see today evolved from the artist renditions of bones of other whale type creatures, look at all the different types of birds, some look very different from the other but they are all still birds. And then I see a whale type creature and below that is clearly a four legged land animal. Where are the transitional specie fossil bones for that leap? It’s nice to have old bones to see what past animals looked like but it fails as concrete proof of evolution.

    The second video is slanted to prove the hypothesis of evolution. At 1 minute and 15 seconds I hear the first untruth -“until one day there was only us”- But the apes that we are supposedly evolved from still exist. Why?
    At 1 min 21 it’s stated “homo-sapiens, the most complex, adaptable animal on Earth” Really? Another untruth since there are other very complex and adaptable animals, some that scientist are still trying to figure out. At 1 min 32 another untruth “forced our ancestors to adapted or die” yet the apes are still here. The video skips over the creation of life from primordial ooze? Ah-ha, NOVA. Should have guessed after the intro. PBS/Nova is very liberal and Christian hating.

    Years ago, most Western doctors and scientists believed that diseases like malaria, cholera, etc., were caused by foul air in slums or swamp gases, etc…Malaria actually means “bad air” in Italian. That theory was replaced with germ theory that we use today. Flat Earth theory, Earth is the center of the universe theory, sickness caused by bad blood theory so let us bleed the patient, fleas as a status-symbol, until they caused the Black Plague. I could go on and on, but you get the point, many theories, many wrong theories…

    The concept or idea of spontaneous generation, that life forms can derive from non-living materials through natural processes, was widely held to be true by ancient scholars like the Greeks up until it was disproved by Redi, Pasteur and others around 150 years ago. We now have the Law of Biogenesis which states that life only comes from previous living things…a fundamental concept in biology.

    The universe was also thought for centuries to be relatively static or unchanging until it was shown to be expanding by Hubble and others in the early to mid 1900’s. Some had proposed the Steady State theory around the same time which was eventually rejected although some still propose a modified Steady State theory today due to problems with the Big Bang model.

    The proof that the universe is expanding is of importance because as scientist learn more it seems that the “billions year old theory” may be in error. If you are interested check out

    If the “billions year old theory” is in error then the evolutionists have an even bigger problem explaining their theory.

    • Hi Roy,

      You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. The first question you should ask yourself is “Why do scientists claim to know things?” Science does not find “proof.” Rather, it seeks out evidence for and against hypotheses. When the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a given hypothesis, and no other hypothesis explains the facts as well as that one, that suggests that the present hypothesis is the best explanation for the data. There are many evidences for evolution, only one of which is the fossil record. You asked where the transitional fossils are for whale ancestors, but they were listed on that picture. This question is intellectually dishonest. The theory of evolution does not rely solely on fossils; it reverifies using other methods. Are you familiar with DNA?

      “The video skips over the creation of life from primordial ooze?”
      The theory of evolution has nothing to do with primordial ooze. The origin of life is an entirely separate question from evolution, which is the change of populations over time. It’s entirely valid and worthwhile to ask “where did the first life come from,” but that’s a question to ask a chemist, not a biologist, and the answer won’t be found within the theory of evolution.

      “I could go on and on, but you get the point, many theories, many wrong theories…”
      Are you suggesting that an error in the past indicates an error in separate models in the present? If so, I’d like to hear your justification for believing the heliocentric model of the solar system–using your reasoning, if the geocentric model was wrong, the heliocentric model is wrong too.

      The “law” of biogenesis came about in response to the mistaken belief in “spontaneous generation.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation) It does not say anything against evolution or the theory of evolution.

      The page you linked at 6000years.org is what we might call a “gish gallop.” The author takes science-y sounding ideas and combines them with half-truths. I really don’t feel like spending the next few hours detailing why that page is wrong, and I’m sorry about that. I think you’d probably benefit from a proper scientific understanding, but I’m not the best person for that anyway (I’m not a biologist, physicist, chemist, or what have you). I’ll try to include a few observations, though I won’t respond to the references to the Bible (which is post-hoc reasoning–not scientifically valid). I also did not click through to embedded links, so I won’t mention those either.

      “Time is not constant” is true, but it does not vary to the degree suggested here. The author does not understand physics.

      Cosmology: Since the author doesn’t understand basic physics, it is likely that he also does not understand advanced physics (i.e., cosmology).

      Red Shift: Emphatically, this does not prove this.

      Shells: So his father is incapable of being wrong? I guess his father must’ve been a pretty amazing scientist! (Sarcasm.)

      The London Artifact: The history the author lays out for this item is false.

      The geologic column: Of course this isn’t a literal column. Radiometric dating (NOT CARBON DATING) of the rock around fossils can tell us how old that fossil is. This information is cumulative, and we can see it represented symbolically in this column. If the animals were all buried at the same time, the rocks around them would be the same age–this is not what we see.

      “If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year”: Don’t assume this. We can answer it definitively. There is an answer. Why would you make this assumption? Bad reasoning.

      sequoias: The author is seriously trying to argue that these trees can’t be burnt down? Seriously? He’s also making the tree ring assumption mistake again.

      bristlecone pines: The author is making more assumptions without asking a botanist. This is getting silly.

      Polonium halos: If you have to argue through analogy for this, it’s not a scientific explanation. I suspect a google search would be all we need to answer the question of these halos.

      Polystrate trees: These can also occur in small floods. Or near bodies of non-flooded water. Or is areas of glaciation.

      There are countless resources online that one can take advantage of if one wants to develop a proper understanding of science. Youtube and the Khan academy are great resources for videos. If you want text-based sources, Talk Origins is the first that comes to mind. Best of luck, and have a great day.

  5. You can see a nice preview of the treat in the video’s thumbnail…if I can beg for your indulgence, maybe you could also watch this video…in it you will see our ancestor’s fossils too….it’s not entire, but I think these 15 minutes are enough…:

  6. This video is under 3 minutes, Roy…you can watch it to see the intermediate fossils you doubt the existence of…

  7. Roy, I read your comment in the past “The Cross was for God”…we can’t be talking about the same video…

    “The problem is that science doesn’t have evidence of any transitional body types in the fossil record.”…

    Did you check around 39mns (I think) when the scientists shows the reptile-fish fossils discovered?…That’s a transitional fossil…they speak about such proof all during the video…

    “Get this once and for all: According to the fossil record, thousands of types of animals suddenly (in geologic terms) appeared on the scene, and there’s no record of where they came from, and there’s no record of them changing into something else from that point forward.”

    That’s not true, Roy…what there are is many creatures bridging the same gaps that Creationists claim are not bridged…the more you go forward in time, the more human-like the fossils get; the more backward you go the less human-like and the more ape-like the creatures become…

    “If science could prove that one animal evolved into another species, at any time, ever, then the Theory of evolution would be the Fact of evolution.”

    You don’t understand what a scientist means by the word “theory”, Roy…they’ve stopped calling scientific laws “laws” because they might be revised in the future, like Newton’s laws were…it’s not that they are less sure of them, it’s that they’ve decided since the early 20th century to start calling everything “theory”…like the theory of relativity, or quantum theory…if you really watched the video you would have heard the man on the stand explain that to the judge…we could also talk about the germ theory for disease, you know…or the theory of sexual reproduction…

  8. I would first say I enjoyed your latest post without the hehe and haha’s. I now see intelligence and reason and caring and I like it.

    I am not a racist for I do love us, and I do cry at the senseless slaughter.

    You mentioned so much. If it’s we understanding each other, than please let me reply.

    I don’t really know a lot about Mormonism but I do know religion and Christianity are two different things. Man-made-corrupted is never better than God-made.

    All I have to script my life around, all I have to hold as truth, all I have to say “THIS IS IT”, is the Bible. It’s my instruction manual. There are many of us. Many millions. And we will forever hold it sacred. The Bible defines me and everything I believe and you and I will never see eye to eye if you do not feel the same way. But I still care and love you ___. We can co-exist, as we have been. But I will never proclaim a watered down faith.

    You mention we fight against gay rights but are not gays free to live how they choose? YES. They are living together as they choose right now. My brother is gay and he and Mike bought a house together and happily do whatever they want. But marriage is an institution defined in the Bible and it is the Bible that OWNS it and the definition is man and women. Why would gays intrude into something that does not belong to them. I grant them their bliss, why can they grant mine? Why do they hate me and try to force their idea of marriage on me?

    And finally you mention Galileo. The reasoning of the quote you pasted is to enforce the heliocentric theory, meaning the Earth is NOT the center of the universe, as most thought in his day. Please research what you post. There are many that will use deception to suck you in. If you care about Galileo and his history a good read is http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111gal2.html

    Here’s a quote by Galileo, “We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.”

    Peace Brother.

    If you please. Tell me your first name.

    • Ok, haha…I include the “héhé” ‘s and “haha” ‘s when I (think I) say funny things, Roy…my name’s “Archange”, it’s “Archangel” in French, since I’m from Haiti…most scientists of the past were religious, Galileo was no exception…but his quote about using our brains wasn’t just being applied to the heliocentric model of the universe, Roy, he meant that as a general rule too…he wouldn’t consider the Bible as his sole source of information…he used to correspond with this noblewoman, I think, back in the days, she would finance his studies or something…

      As for the part about gays, the US enjoys what we call the “separation of Church and state”…gays aren’t trying to redefine the meaning of “marriage” in the Bible, they’re trying to redefine that meaning for the state…they’re just asking to be allowed to be officially considered married like the rest of us can…they would get government-recognized benefits from that which they cannot obtain if they’re not married…I hear you have to be someone’s family member, for instance, to see them in the hospital and such…gays get turned away all the time…and even without all the benefits, you must know how eager some people are to get married, and it gets worse if our general stereotype (I partake in that, haha, I guess) is true, that homosexual men, for instance, are more sensitive than the rest of us, love the idea of getting married, envision it the way women often do…it’s cruel to deny them that…they’re not going to get married in Churches, there will still be only heterosexual unions for religion, but for the state it should be a different matter…the Bible DOESN’T own the definition of marriage for the STATE…it speaks only for those who follow it, Christians, practicing Jews and such…wow, your brother is gay…though I’m personally straight, my sister is bisexual, I guess that makes me care about the issue a little more than the average person…

      Mormons believe the Israelites migrated to America and are the ancestors of the Native Americans…the man I was talking about told me that God was punishing them for their wicked ways, for turning away from him, their society having become decadent…I’ll just add that every religion (they tell me the same thing you just said) claims to be the correct religion…I think it’s rather unlikely to have been born, accidentally, in the One True Faith…

      • As I was telling that same Mormon I mentioned up there, we could let gays marry, and Christians could call their union “mariage” or something, getting rid of an “r” in “marriage”…or make up a completely different word…CHRISTIANS don’t have to recognize gay marriage, only the state should…that’s all that’s being asked…if two adults consent to do something that has does not affect anyone (or themselves seriously in a physical way, I mean a real physical way measurable by science), then it’s their own sin, the rest of us can condemn their behavior but shouldn’t be allowed to force them not to carry it out to its fullest because of our personal beliefs…

      • Oh yes, I was right…I just checked your link…the noblewoman was a duchess…I think she was a friend of his, supported him or something…but I might be wrong…in any case, he didn’t only mean that his sentence applied to the heliocentric model…

  9. Dear Prayson,

    You mentioned BioLogos.org . Beware.

    My first Red Flag-The BioLogos Foundation, 6549 Mission Gorge Road, Box #251 San Diego, CA 92120


    I wouldn’t trust ANYTHING from California. Sorry for my prejudice but I could write a 3,000 word piece on their liberal self-destruction. I don’t usually lump the people of a State population in the same pot, but CA is an exception, although they did vote to strike down same-sex marriage. PRAY Gods people in CA WAKE UP and take control.

    My second red flag-(this comes from their DONATE page), “Thank you for your interest in supporting BioLogos. Your gift will help us to provide guidance and support to Christians who are seeking to come to peace with science.” Really. Prayson, you need to come to peace with their ideas, and pay for it.

    My third red flag, “Your membership will help The BioLogos Foundation harmonize faith and science for multitudes . . . facilitating dialogue between people from all walks of life and with many points of view who are searching for compatibility between the Christian faith and scientific discoveries.” Another liberal, all-inclusive, anti-biblical point-of-view. The Bible is very clear…there is only one truth and one way and we are commanded to walktheway.

    Three red flags equals, “Beware.” The Bible does not mention evolution. Evolution is a theory to try to explain how we are here without our God Creator.

    Keep the Good Fight.
    Don’t waver.
    Be steadfast.
    Wear the armor.
    Know you are not alone.
    Live and feel the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Love you P.D.

    • Oh my, haha…I had to come back to read this one, I didn’t do it just now…are you racist to?…You know, did Noah curse his son as some like to say?…I once read someone’s blog, he was homophobic too, every cell of his was conservative, and he was also racist…those things seem to walk hand in hand (I know a couple folks like that who aren’t racist, though, héhé, I’m not completely serious here, but I might be right)…haha, I’m black by the way…from Haiti…

      • You know, I’m actually sorry for my sarcasm earlier, Roy…I was joking about a lot of that stuff, trying to make my points a little harshly…you really do seem sincere and like a nice guy…I know someone with similar views to yours (a Mormon who comes to see me, supposed to come tomorrow actually…he said the Native Americans were paying for their sins when they were exterminated and persecuted, he thinks the US would be punished if homosexuals were allowed to marry)…he’s a nice guy but he’s severely misguided…I apologize, Roy…I’m usually harsher with Prayson ’cause I sometimes get the impression that he’s not sincere, get the sense that a lot of this website is a denial-page…some Christians go to Church and genuinely believe they’re being reasonable; I often feel those folks should continue doing what makes them happy as long as they don’t impede on other people’s rights (like when they fight against gay rights). Others feel like they’re perceived as idiots, which bothers them, so go out there and attempt to present an image of logic, reason, while I feel they sometimes don’t believe in it themselves…

        In any case, about the “not in the Bible” remark you’ve made a couple times: take a tip from Galileo who was a Christian just like you:

        “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”…

        In other words, if God wanted us to shut our brains down and restrict ourselves to the Bible’s words, he wouldn’t have given us those brains…maybe there are truths which he doesn’t mention in the Good Book…

  10. Boy, where to start? The first video starts by describing something 26 thousand light years away. If you believe this guy knows for certain what is going on that far away then you must also believe in Santa Clause.

    The second video postulates what will happen when we travel at, or greater than, the speed of light. Really? Who really believes that will ever happen. Heck, the whole world is near financial bankruptcy. Our debt is 16 trillion. One half of every cent the IRS takes in now goes to just pay the interest on the debt. Thanks Obama! Listen, I hear Santa landing on the house kids and he can travel at the speed of light.

    You think I’m ignorant? How is it I can argue with your point of view and give examples of why I believe what I believe and can do it without calling you names? I think I know the answer. You hate God and you hate Gods kind and your hate has consumed you. It will eat away at you until you can find no pleasure in life.

    You accuse me of being incredulous?

    An argument from incredulity essentially works by taking the fact that one can’t believe or imagine that something is true (or false) to be a good reason for thinking it isn’t true (or false).

    Consider this. I can’t really imagine cells forming in primordial soup and the evolution of life from single cells to human beings and the Earth is 4 billion years old. But I should not think my inability to imagine this provides some kind of reason for thinking evolution is not how humans came to be. Similarly, when I see a magician saw a person in two, I can’t see how the trick works. But I would be foolish to think that the person had in fact been sawed in two.

    Incredulity, doubt and skepticism about God and special creation are implicit in every naturalistic explanation that they try to concoct about abiogenesis and many other facets of their evolution “theory”.



    • I don’t know what to tell you, haha, Roy…I’d be waisting my time…you just called well established physics “Santa Claus”…I can’t blame you for rejecting evolution, then, you’re just being consistent…I think even Prayson knows better than that…that’s probably why he’s been silent since watching the excerpts from the videos I posted…you ARE ignorant, haha…boy…and probably conservative to the bone…

      • Oh my God, haha…I just checked that article of yours…”Creation Wiki”?????!!!!!!…Haha, you guys are organizing yourselves…I had no idea…are you sure it isn’t satirical?…I guess we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference even if so, haha…maybe Flat-Earthers have a Wiki too, I should check into that…I just looked at the article a bit, I thought it was Wikipedia at first…”atheistic scientists”????!!!!…I’m actually starting to feel bad, you ARE really, really sincere…watch out Prayson, haha…Roy’s just you in the extreme, you’re headed there too…your website is attracting minds like that…I’m sure you’re a little stunned yourself, haha…turn back while you still can, run run, haha…and don’t turn back lest you turn into a PILE of salt…and stop listening to things with A grain of salt, haha…

      • Haha…I actually found one…I was just joking a couple minutes ago, I didn’t think I’d see that…this page might be a hoax (there are some hoax wikipedias), but be aware that there are actually people who still think the Earth is flat (I’m assuming you aren’t one of them, haha, Roy)…you know, the round Earth theory is kinda suspicious since it’s the same atheistic scientists who believe in the doctrine of evolution who have added that one to their theology…:

  11. What about this one?…Both are pretty short videos…I never hear Christians and such complaining about this science, for some reason…I find it all much more strange than evolution…we at least see evolution on a smaller scale all the time, none of this is like our everyday lives…what about quantum theory and such?…:

  12. Why don’t you guys question relativity?…Is it less weird than evolution to you?…Or is it that it doesn’t interfere with your beliefs system, haha…listen to this weird stuff…a huge object slowing down time…now THAT’s strange…:

  13. With all due respect, a theistic evolutionist is an oxymoron. Darwins’ theory has never, and will never, be proven Even if a species was capable of evolving into another we would need a couple million years of recorded history to prove it.

    You have three choices, as I see it.

    1) you believe it all began from primordial ooze and here we are after 4 billion years.
    My opinion…highly unlikely given the complex nature of DNA.
    2) ancient astronauts came and seeded the planet, then returned several thousands of years ago and manipulated monkey DNA and here we are.
    My opinion…more likely than #1 because of DNA similarities and again, the complexity of DNA.
    3) you believe the Bible Creation Story.
    My opinion…more likely than #1 and #2, and below is why…

    The first question is simple– how did DNA ever manage to come into existence, in the first place? It’s a long and complex molecule, and extremely unlikely to have formed spontaneously on its own, back in the days of the primordial soup.

    Even worse, DNA is useless without a complex set of proteins that synthesize it, duplicate it, and then ‘read’ it. Those proteins, in turn, couldn’t have formed without the DNA genes that now produce them. It’s a ‘chicken and egg’ problem… so, which came first, the proteins or the DNA?

    Trying to find a pathway from the primordial soup, to the formation of DNA strands is not so easy. Scientists have proposed many theories for the early origins of life– from Darwin’s ‘warm little pond’ , to the currently popular ‘RNA world’ . But so far, nobody has described a full set of chemical steps capable of making the jump from chaos to living organisms because of their extreme complicated biological nature.

    Consider this…DNA is an instruction manual for the body. The DNA resides in the nucleus of the cell, it is a library with billions of instructions necessary for life. “If written out, a human genetic code would fill the pages of 200 1,000-page New York City telephone directories.

    Evolution has no intelligence. It is totally dumb. It does not evaluate, plan, organize or have the ability to intentionally change something based on information of any sort. For evolution to create a sophisticated program powerful enough to run a human being is absolutely astounding for intelligent scientists to even consider it. It is absolutely impossible aside from God.

    “To produce DNA, it requires over 75 different types of proteins. Yet DNA is essential for creating proteins.” Proteins are required to make DNA and DNA is required to make proteins. Both extremely complicated systems are necessary at the same time and must be fully functioning in order to create the other.

    DNA is like the information on a CD-ROM. Proteins are like the plastic CD-ROM. RNA is like the CD-ROM drive. In order for DNA to evolve and be useful it requires the DNA (complex information), several proteins (Plastic CD-ROM) and the RNA (the CD-ROM drive) for this program to have a chance to work. However, neither DNA, RNA or Protein would evolve by natural selection because they require the existence of the other systems. Evolution is hopelessly inadequate for producing DNA, not to mention the absolutely astounding complexity of a single cell.

    So you see, in my simple mind, only #3 above has the greatest probability, and with #3 I also get much more. I get instruction, directions, and a purpose. I have a where, when and why. I have a destination. I have a Savior and a powerful Holy Spirit. I get understanding and peace, and I get to just…culminate.

    Love you’s….

    • Thank you Roy.I do have problems with TE. I am following BioLogos.org to understand why brilliant theologians, whom I admire the works, find Darwinian Evolution on the same page with Genesis 1 🙂

    • Wow…I’m always astonished at how much detail ignorants can provide, haha…I wouldn’t be able to defend half of what you’re saying, but I know that 99.99% of biologists, who look at the evidence, would disagree with your conclusions so your defense must be…flawed, héhé, to put it mildly…with my limited knowledge of biology (I’m not a Creationist, héhé, so I don’t think I somehow qualify as a biologist because I have a Bible in my hand), all I can say is that evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life, it deals with how the complexity of life arose…you just discredited your #1 and #2, and therefore #3 is more likely?…It’s like giving 3 options to explain how someone left their apartment without you remarking it: 1) I was distracted even if I was staring at his door and didn’t see him, 2) I don’t remember seeing him but I actually did, 3) he used magic…you the demonstrate that #1 and #2 are improbable and therefore proclaim: “Yay! #3 is more likely”, haha…that just doesn’t work…

      “Darwins’ theory has never, and will never, be proven Even if a species was capable of evolving into another we would need a couple million years of recorded history to prove it.”, haha…why don’t we need to go to the past to prove the Creation story?…Why don’t you need to go to the past to prove your mother gave birth to you?…Why can’t we look at the present evidence to determine what happened in the past, just like on a crime scene?…Why can’t you deduced a bomb just exploded when you find a house in pieces, without having to go back in time and witness it?…I’ve heard that defense before, I have to say, to put it nicely: it isn’t very brilliant, haha…

    • Héhé…I see you provided some defense for #3, my bad…but your defense is: it’s answered, I’ve got “magic”, “magic”, “magic”, haha…I think the major thing you get out of #3 is a nice warm feeling inside that tells you: “I’m special, God created me in his image…Who cares about the evidence?”, haha…

      The problem is, guys, you can’t just resort to the incredulity argument…I mean, who’d have thought that large objects could slow down time?…Am I the only one here who finds that much less plausible than evolution?…I mean, how can gravity have an effect on time?…Even if more strange, that fact doesn’t meet the violent opposition that evolution does, ’cause it doesn’t contradict a 2000-year old book written by desert shepherds and such, héhé…you guys accept it on faith from scientists like the rest of us, but make an exception when it comes to evolution ’cause it doesn’t sit well with your idea of reality…evidence for you guys is just irrelevant…

    • Roy,

      For the sake of argument let’s assume that evolution is false (it’s not, we actually have evidence to support it). You understand that this doesn’t point towards God in any way, right?

      So I’m just wondering whatever evidence is there for creationism that allows you to believe it?

  14. Haha…I see you’re “still pondering if Darwinian Evolution is compatible with Christianity. I am pursued more to ID but I am open to explore different views because I believe all truth is God’s truth. I will follow were the evidences and its correct interpretation point to”…that’s not a real position, Prayson…did you examine the theory of relativity as thoroughly, or did you accept scientific consensus for that one (unless you actually don’t even accept that science either)…are you sure you’ll follow the evidence?…Do you consider yourself equipped to examine, as equipped as a scientist would be?…Why make an exception for evolution, out of all sciences, examining it more than other sciences…

    That said, I doubt Darwin was an atheist…but, again, he didn’t actually have the kind of evidence we now have for evolution himself, DNA and other advances he probably couldn’t DREAM of…showing that he believed in theistic evolution doesn’t somehow show (as I feel you’re trying to) that people who believe in less guided evolution are somehow destroying the “philosophy” of their master or something, haha…it’s like going to a psychologist and telling them: “Hey, you know…Freud thought very differently about psychology than you do”…Freud was wrong about a lot of thiings and psychology had REALLY advanced since him…

    • I know some brilliant Christians theologians e.g N.T Wright, Timothy Keller et cetera, who think NDE goes together with Christianity. Darwin himself was theistic evolutionist. But I do have both philosophical and scientific problem with both (non)theistic evolution.

      Hehe have you read any literature on ID?

    • Haha…I don’t know about putting “brilliant” and “theologian” in the same sentence…just kidding, héhé, I guess some folks are skilled at defending the largely indefensible (I mean that in a good way, héhé…sometimes I’m surprised they think about certain defenses)…pope John Paul II seemed to accept evolution, and it seems many Catholic clergymen do too…Darwin was relatively pretty ignorant, you know, for our time…Freud’s position is irrelevant to modern psychology…again, héhé, it’s like you didn’t read my comment Prayson (unless you’re unaware of Freud’s relative ignorance in his own field)…I’m saying this because you just said: “even Freud” as if his acceptance of theistic evolution is more surprising than a modern scientists’…
      Haha…I haven’t read any literature on ID, no…have you read the alternative theories to relativity?…Or the alternative theories to sexual reproduction?…Did you look into the stork theory?…I hear it’s pretty good, haha…you should see my point, scientific consensus points to evolution…I generally accept what scientists seem to accept, I don’t go around verifying all their claims…you don’t either (I’m hoping you don’t have your lab and a huge telescope in order to verify scientists are right about things like the number of moons Mars possesses, the structure of our Sun and stuff like that)…why should I make an exception for evolution and look into the non-scientific alternatives,, Prayson?…

      • Héhé…you like to make me read long articles/watch long videos, I’m returning you the favor…for starters, it’s not being studied by scientists, it fails many key characteristics of science (such as testability, predictive power), and it’s been proven wrong over and over again…the video below will show you (I was shocked, actually) that it was largely created in an effort to validate religious beliefs, to brainwash children…:

      • Again, Prayson, and I know we had this conversation a long time ago…the real reason I accept evolution and reject ID and other non-scientific alternatives is because scientists do…I follow scientists, as you do yourself as long as their findings don’t contradict your preconceived religious beliefs…I don’t single evolution out like many Creationists do…

      • The folks who made that documentary try to be impartial, but I fear that’s a little difficult when you possess a brain…it’s like this multitask, haha: trying to be impartial in a debate about whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the Sun while possessing one’s brain…haha!!…I think that one was funny…but, really…many of the intelligent design folks refused to talk to the makers of the documentary, though there are a couple in there…watch this, it’s much shorter (and I feel the guy hates creationists a notch more, haha)…it’s supposed to explain evolution in a simple way, but I fear it’s not gonna convince people who have an agenda anyway, which I’m afraid is the case of some on this page (Roy and you, at least)…:

    • Haha…you seem to be avoiding the “watching of the video”…I posted the first video to answer your question, as I explained (and as you like to do…refer me to long articles which don’t even address a point directly, or to long videos…especially back in the days)…but I didn’t stop there, I actually briefly answered your question in the part of my comment on top of the video…I’m not the one avoiding things, haha, Prayson…you do like to turn the faults on your side (and the rest of religion) into faults on mine (and on the rest of nonbelief, like trying to turn it into a belief system)…

      • Thank you Hehe 🙂 I remember it is difficult getting any answers from you 😀

        Your YouTube reasons why ID is not science, namely validation of religious belief is false because more and more atheist began defending it. Example Bradley Monton,Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini.

        Your reasons(testability and predictability) disqualifies not only ID but also DE 🙂

        Hehe, you admitted not to have read one literature of ID 🙂 You blindly believe critiques without even knowing what ID.

        Is this a nonbelief belief Hehe 😀 ?

      • Haha…”my Youtube reasons”…I remember how you would attack Wikipedia and Youtube if they provide stuff counter to your beliefs…I’m providing you with a documentary about the whole thing, would it help if it was aired on the Discovery channel or the History channel (I think it was initially aired on BBC or something)…what medium would you consider acceptable, haha?…Can I re-record it for you and send it on DVD, will that help since it won’t be on Youtube?…Haha…ok, you want to avoid the videos, let’s talk a little bit…are those atheists biologists?…How many of them are there (I hope there are more than what you cited…I hope there’s a raging crowd which could possibly compare to the crowd, the vast majority of scientists (including Christians such as Francis Collins) who think intelligent design is similar to astrology?…Again, telling me that a small group of nonbelievers supported your view isn’t going to change mine, haha…

        I don’t believe (yes, have faith) in things without evidence, héhé…that’s nonbelief…there is a LARGE amount of evidence that suggests that I should trust scientists, such as the scientific method (the fact that scientists would pounce on each other like sharks if there was really a flaw in evolutinary theory)…the fact that they’ve studied much longer than I did…it’s faith in something that WARRANTS faith, not in something that either isn’t backed by evidence or is contradicted by evidence…I have that my friend isn’t hiding a gun in his bag ’cause that’s unlikely…here’s a video where Dawkins speaks about that (yes, it’s on Youtube, but it’s really Dawkins and it’s still possible that what is being said is true/makes sense, in spite of the medium)…he explains the difference between your type of faith and mine…:

        • I am not try to change your mind Hehe. I believe that is immpossible 🙂 I would like you to change mine. I am the fool who want to learn. That is why I am asking you to help me 🙂

          The reasons you gave me are argumentum ad populum and that ID is validates religious belief which I find weird sinces atheists began to defend it too.

          I agree with Evolutionist Rose stating that “The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What’s less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

          I am a fool whose view of biology needs to change. I find ID more plausible than DE and I hope that more and more atheists scietists will join so that falses charges namely ID is religious will have no power.

          Hehe, read at least one book on ID. It is wise to reject what you know, No?

      • You can make predictions and tests in evolutionary biology, Prayson…watch the video about “Intelligent Design on Trial”, they give an example where they predict the characteristics of an animal then discover it and confirm what they were thinking…that’s actually one of the points during the trial…again, you need to watch that video, don’t let the fact that someone uploaded it to Youtube scare you…that wasn’t how it was originally aired, and real scientists are speaking in there (the main one talking is Roman Catholic)…

      • Prayson, haha…you’re asking me to read a whole book, I’m asking you to watch a simple video where they show you a couple cases of predicting stuff in macroevolution…that shorter video I posted (that talks about a simple explanation for evolution) also talks about that…you can expect stuff and find ’em…and, no, scientists AREN’T coming out in favor of evolution, haha…I’m wondering if you really believe that or are just trying to seem more reasonable than you are…you can also always continue to repeat that you’ve heard that from reliable sources, héhé, and there’s not much I can say…while I think us laymen should be using a majority argument (that fancy Latin expression you used…héhé, I understood “populum” or something and guessed it was about a fallacy, I was waiting for that…you were more apt to use that in the old days), it’s unfair to criticize me for doing that and then resorting to that same type of argument yourself (“how can it not be science since some scientists are coming out in support of it” or something you just said)…haha, I’m sorry Prayson, you know very well you’re not that terribly eager to learn…you would have a long time ago about evolution, haha, if that were really the case…

      • I’ll make it easier for you, Prayson…check the video around 51mns when they talk about the missing chromosome (or something)…then check it around 39 for a couple minutes when they talk about the fossil find that confirmed the theory…you don’t even have to watch the whole video…what excuse do you have now, haha?…

      • Haha…ok, let me know what you think when you’re done…let me see if you can continue saying there’s no predictability/testability in evolution after that (I’m getting a little confused about all those acronyms…evolution is evolution)…

      • I didn’t answer the part about reading a book more thoroughly…have you read the books arguing why the Earth is actually flat, Prayson?…I assure you there’s some literature out there, héhé…I don’t go around reading stuff on positions that are already ruled out by scientists, and intelligent design is one of ’em…I would prefer read stuff which could actually teach me something…

      • Come on, Prayson…it’s time to prove that, indeed, “I would like you to change mine. I am the fool who want to learn. That is why I am asking you to help me”…

        “I am a fool whose view of biology needs to change.”

        I already admire that you haven’t yet taken a certain action as in the past that I won’t bring up again, and that you went ahead and watched the video, as anyone who really wants to learn would have done…I think you should watch the WHOLE documentary and be honest with yourself afterwards…there is nothing that I admire more than someone who admits when he/she’s wrong…

  15. It is simply best we use Darwin’s own words and writings, rather than another’s words and writings who is knowingly trying to push an agenda, say, Richard Dawkins for example. While his faith begin to slip, and his theology shifted toward Unitarianism, the latter due to his understanding of evolution, the former because of ailments to his children, he rejected atheism in 1879 in his own writings. Later in his life, he did reject the Bible as a divine revelation and that Jesus was not the Son of God. He may have espoused a theistic evolutionary outlook when he wrote the Origin of Species, but by his deathbed, he was more liberal unitarian with doubts over the attributes of God described in the Bible.

  16. As I understand it, Darwin began his scientific voyage as a devoutly religious individual, regardless of whatever his ultimate views on the supernatural might have been. He developed his model for evolution (he didn’t actually invent the idea) while he was still religious, so it is highly likely that he was, at lest for a time, a believer in theistic evolution.

Comments are closed.