Aineo wrote:Well, maybe at the end, but he was a christian when he did most of his research. Maybe it was the attitude of religionists of the time who caused him to become atheist... Darwin plainly states he was not a Christian when he did his research.
You have not read his autobiography have you?
Not an autobiography, no. However, my understanding was that he was religious prior to his voyages. I do not know when the transition occurred, but he was considering a career in the ministry as I remember. I could be wrong. But it is all immaterial to the discussion. There was not necessarily any 'agenda' to overthrow the church. There may be some people, particularly today, who bear a grudge against the church, but as far as some kind of conspiracy, sorry.
r: Actually, their agenda was good science. You may be as paranoid as you want, but basically, science will forge ahead regardless of what fundamentalists think.
a: I am not paranoid and science will progress in knowledge and truth in spite of those who want to control the truth. As to their agenda:...
Well, maybe you're just a conspiracy theorist, then. All these people out to destroy your religion.
There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity.
Why do you qualify your statement with 'biblical'? Why can't they just be 'christians'? Is it because your interpretation of the bible is the only correct one?
As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.
Still not evidence of any 'agenda' other than one supporting good science. I think that you are simply trying to hide the fact that evolution was on outgrowth of christian (for you, formerly christian) scientists.
Sure. There's a credible reference! Sorry, but this is hardly a location that would treat Darwin in an unbiased manner. After all, he was out to destroy them!
I suggest you do some reading and cease assuming you know what was in the minds of those men without reading what they actually wrote.
But you do, based on what 'parent company' says?
r: Ah well, that explains christian evolutionists, doesn't it? I have no problem with this. And no, the scientists you mentioned would not be YEC or IDist if they live today. Your sense of history is addled.
a: Have you read the personal letters and writings of the men I listed? If anyone's knowledge of history is addled it is those who make statements like yours without checking their facts.
Sure, what are they going to write? Believe it or not, there has been scientific progress in the last 200 years. You may find this meaningful, but ascribing motives to 19th century people placed in the 21st century is another silly exercise. YECs do this all the time. It's sort of like saying they didn't believe in quantum mechanics.