Michael 2 wrote:

"Dear david f,
My recollection of reading Darwin's biography was that he was a Christian.
Struggled for years with his faith before publishing but was a Christian to the end.
It is a long time since I have read his biography and perhaps the web is a better source?"

It was easier to cut and paste from the web than to key in the following:

From Darwin's autobiography written in 1876 in "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" edited by Francis Darwin published by Basic Books in 1859:

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,-and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,--that the men at their time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,-that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,-that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;-by such reflections as these, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation." p. 278

From that Darwin came to the following:

"The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music." p. 281

Divergence,
I don’t doubt that that guy you met said something like what you said he did, but I’m also guessing that he’s pretty old. But such ideas of the deceptive God fiddling with the evidence have nothing in common with the modern creationist movement. Biblical creationists believe in a God who spoke clearly and trufully, as in the book of Genesis.

In the 1950s (Centenary of Origin of Species) Darwin reigned totally unchallenged. In the 1960s Morris and Whitcombe released a book reviving ideas of catastrophism in geology (as opposed to Lyellian uniformitarianism). This book detailed an alternative explanation for much of the earth’s geology, including the fossil evidence, as having been the result of the flood at the time of Noah. This book was the beginning of the modern creationist movement, and it has grown from there.

Also, I don’t think the evidence lines up so neatly the way you described. To say ‘all of modern science’ is in agreement with the things you listed would be nonsense. Much debate surrounds them all. For example, the big bang cosmology is losing favour in many circles, as evidenced by this statement put out by leading astronomers, http://www.cosmologystatement.org

In line with these new cosmologies, creationists such as Humphries and Hartnett have developed some interesting theories to account for red shifts, distant starlight, and other astronomical evidence.

I have read Plimer's effort at mudslinging and slander. I would encourage all to read it but only if they are also prepared to read his critics. Anyone who compares what he said to the facts of his subject matter will see how full of hot air he is. And this is being kind. Let’s just say he’s well qualified to write a book with that title.

I think many of us forget that Darwin described the process of evolution without the insights into the mechanism that discoveries around DNA were to later bring to the field.

The strength of that validation was extraordinary and complete.

Why then in America is there so much resistance to the idea of an evolutionary history? Might it have something to do with the patriotism expressed so energetically by that society? Could the thought that because their trust in God has enabled them to become the world's superpower then any perceived weakening of God's hand is somehow a threat to their sense of themselves and their security?

To list the things people have been willing to die for it seems it would have to be headed by family, faith, and country. These stand as the pillars of many American lives and are often so intertwined that threats to any one have direct implications for the others.

America’s unofficial anthem;

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Although written only in 1938, by 1955 the words “God bless America” had supplanted the Latin for “Out of many, one” on the currency. The patriotic fervour cranked up by the victory in WW2 and the ensuing ‘Cold War’ seems also to have strengthened the birth to the modern creationist movement.

Even the words of “The Star Spangled Banner”,

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”

oozes the theme of God’s deliverance and protection of their country.

As fundamentalists instinctively recognise to concede any part of the bible puts the whole lot at risk so I think many Americans extend that view to include family and country. This is possibly the reason for their tenacious hold on creationism.

Csteele

According to creationists everything has a reason and a place: the world was created for man, woman was created for man and so on. This centrist type of thinking with MAN as the focal point for god’s creation is completely destroyed by the concept of evolution.

If we evolve, then may be MAN is not the ‘glory of god on earth’ may be something else can evolve that is superior to MAN. May be women weren’t created FOR men’s use.

To people whose entire identity is based on a belief that they were created by a superior deity; evolution is like a slap in the face.

They will present any argument whether or not it is rational to sustain the identity in which they believe. America was founded by religious fundamentalists and the American ideal/identity fragments into chaos if evolution is given transcendence over creationism. Evolution means that people from other countries, other cultures and races are just as valid. America thrives on a superiority complex that they believe is god-given

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1764

The private papers of Charles Darwin were made available online, in their entirety, by the Darwin Online project on Thursday 17 April 2008

Csteele

After rereading my post I guess I sounded like I was preaching at you and I apologise. Also I do know that there are many Americans as uncomfortable with the idea of ID and Creationism as any rational person - I did live there for a while. It is just a worry that ID & Creationism is even getting any serious traction, in spite of the knowledge of our world. I find it really disturbing.

Could the same happen here in Australia? Well the fundy Christians groups here keep trying, but as Australia was founded on quite different principles, I am confident that our independent ethos will save us from becoming a complete clone of the states.

Davidf

Thanks for the link to the Darwin papers, I certainly appreciate it. However, the problem is that the people who really need to educate themselves, won't bother seriously considering his work.