Darwin's Debt To Christianity

While many words have been written about the differences between evolution and religion far few have been written about the similarities and parallels between the two – that is mainly the parallels between Christianity and Evolution. The point is that there are many parallels and understanding this will uncover the dynamics of the conflict that has been raging for the past 150 years.

When we look at evolution we find that it parallels Christian thought. This is most easily seen by treating Christianity as evolution. We begin by posing the question, “If evolution is true then who in history would be a prototype for human evolution?”

Surprisingly, Jesus is the most logical choice. No one else in history has had as much influence. If we treat Jesus as an evolutionary prototype we will find that he exactly fits the evolutionary model for a prototype. Jesus was different at birth, and as such was the first member of a new species who proved his survivability by being resurrected. Members of the old species are faced with the choice of transforming and becoming like Jesus or becoming “extinct”. From an evolutionary view point Jesus is the prototype for mankind's next evolutionary leap. While Jesus did not procreate - his "spiritual genes" are in billions of people making him the most prolific of all humans.

There is a one to one correlation of themes between Christianity and Evolution. It would seem that Darwin took from Christian thought and simply gave things a different name. For example redemption became survival and transformation became mutation. The main differences are the Christianity is concerned with the redemption of the unfit and evolution then focused on the survival of the fittest (that is until it became PC incorrect). The other difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in evolution things happen by chance.

What needs to be brought out is that Darwin’s evolution was not as novel and original as many people believe. He plagiarized 19th century Christianity and this I believe is the true source of the conflict. At the core both Christianity and Evolution are very similar but with differences that lead to strikingly different philosophical values. Evolution seeks to displace and take over the Christian platform and install a new set of moral values.

If evolution is built on a plagiarized Christian foundation then the strength of evolution as a world view must in turn validate Christianity also. The point is we may not have a correct understanding of the Christian message but its ideas and thought forms are so powerful that no one can ignore them and many wish to use them for their own ends.

A definite parallel is that many people believe organisms to be perfect or, at least, optimized.

Within Genesis, this has nothing surprising, especially if some creatures are copied carefully. But within Darwinism, I find it to be too easily accepted.

Example (not necessarily taken from scientific groups, but rather from TV programmes): If an animal has a variable body temperature, this is optimum because it helps minimizing heat losses during night or winter. But if another animal has a constant body temperature, it's optimum because it allows to maintain activity despite cold conditions.

Well, I would prefer to say that both animals are just viable, not necessarily optimum, and that evolution and selection aren't that drastically efficient. Look at the human's vermiform appendix: It has no use and killed many individuals at pre-surgery times. But it still exists.

So as Darwin proposed the selection process that would lead to a result close to the perfection of Creation people had learned before, this process gained an approval that leads to overestimate its efficiency.

“If evolution is true then who in history would be a prototype for human evolution?”

Why would you need a prototype if the human species is created by a supreme being?

You misinterpret the purpose of Jesus as a human. He was a mediator for all humanity, and a role model for humane treatment of others.

Darwin's evolution is a feeble attempt to explain life on earth without a creator.
That's the argument.

I beg to differ......
I would argue that many more people have had more of an influence than Jesus. Isn't it a bit conceited to claim that Jesus is the most influential?
You are going to ignore Roman Emperors, Rulers who began massive wars?
Hitler started a war that killed millions, disenfranchised a large group...which directly lead to the state of Israel....which has been even more contentious...
Hitler is much influential than Jesus....

What about Confucius, Gautama Siddhartha, Lao-Tzu?

You know that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read.....you actually got the two backwards. Darwin did NOT propose that at all

That's bogus. Evolution describes is what happened with life AFTER it started. Include or remove a creator at your own risk.

It's getting apalling seeing the depths people will sink to put words in the mouth of science.

Once again, on the subject of a god/creator - science remains neutral.

Hold on no1nose you are being just a little too cryptic.

1. By “spiritual genes” do you mean everyone who has believed in Jesus has Jesus living in them (spiritually)? If so then I would agree with you as in this sense Jesus would have billions of direct progeny

2. Are you saying that the concepts and ideas of Evolution are just a perverted form of Christianity? If so I may agree – but the issue here is proving whether or not this “perverted Christianity” is actually happening in the real world. That, I think is the real issue.

Evolutionary theory attempts to describe the natural world but fails in many important ways to do so.

From Quantum Theory we know that the natural world is discontinuous. This fact is also reflected in the fossil records where there are many unexplained gaps. According to Evolution, life evolves in small changes in a smooth and continuous manner. However there is ample evidence that this basic assumption does not fit the real world nor can it explain the evolution of many complex biological structures such as the eye. Evolutionists have avoided facing this issue by saying future findings will fill in the gaps. It is far more likely that futures findings will only create even more gaps.

We know that the natural world is governed by nonlinear equations such as: e = mc2. Being nonlinear means that rate of change of any system can at time vary widely. This too is reflected in the fossil record where there are times when many new species appear to have come into being all at once. Evolutionary theory is linear and sequential in nature, that is: a + b = c. It reflects the way we think and not the way world actually is. We are unable to think rationally in a discontinuous or nonlinear manner and this is why Relativity and Quantum Theory are so hard for people to get their heads around. Evolution, on the other hand, is easily to imagine but it provides a poor fit for understanding the real world.

Evolution depends on long time frames to provide enough opportunity for changes to happen and as such it treats time as fixed constant. Time, as we all know is not constant but relative - where 20 years for one observer can be 5 minutes for another observer or 300 years for third. When speaking of billions of years many evolutionists assume some universal time frame that doesn’t exist. An observer on a beam of light that travels from the edge of the universe finds that our planet has instantly come into being in its present state. For that observer there are no billions of years since the Big Bang – there is the Big Bang and then instantly our world just as it is now.

Wow...I thought to criticize a scientific theory....you actually had to understand what you are criticizing....

You are actually completely wrong....with most of your assumptions
Evolution is NOT gradualism
There do not exist massive gaps in the fossil record that are unexplained
Evolution does not create "near-perfect' organisms

This is where you really shine as an idiot....
You are absolutely correct in claiming that time is relative....but what you fail to realize is that time is relative to the observer. "Relative to the observer" does not mean that person A will perceive a different timescale than person B. It means that a person at location A will perceive a different timescale than a person at location B. Since all observations are being made within the relatively stable gravitational field of the universe....there is a constant reference for time with respect to evolution. We are not talking organisms evolving on Pluto and Earth....we are talking about organisms evolving on Earth.

Are you saying that evolution is for the mathematically challenged? There isn’t any math in evolution because it isn’t connected to the real world.

If living creatures function satisfactorily now, what is the pupose of evolution?

Good question....
Evolution was the process that got the living creatures to function satisfactorily...

Now, this is also why we do not see organisms evolving as frequently all around us. They function satisfactorily. Now, lets say that the environment drastically changes(which it is in the process of doing). You will begin to see new adaptations so that animals can exist in tranquility again.

Hope that explains it!

No I wouldn’t say that – its more that the correlation between the real world and Evolutionary theory is too weak to express in mathematical functions.

Wow, I never realised how promiscuous Jesus was. Good thing for humanity that he was so effective at spreading his genes. They always leave the best parts out of the bible.

A bit off topic Wulf but I will answer anyway. Actually this is in the Bible.
The idea of being "born again" means just that. This is not a sexual conception, but a conception similar to that of Jesus himself who was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. In this second conception the identity of Jesus incorporates the element of immortality into one’s being - similar to having inherited physical qualities from our first parents. Jesus has over history, been incorporated into billions of people which surely makes him the number one candidate as mankind’s evolutionary prototype.

Curious as to what bible that is in.

Evolution is a theory about heredity and selection, that means good ol' fasion fornication. I fail to see how that is off topic in a tread discussion a theory based on breeding.