For a set of interesting stories about contemporary seekers faced with the
fierce contradictions and disastrous historical consequences of the materialist
belief systems that shaped the 20th-21st century mind, see Nickell John Romjue's
book, "The Black Box: Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud."
Hi, stumbled upon the responses to this article while looking for a defintion of
something entirely different.St. Thomas Aquinas said about sin:1. It darkens the intellect2. It disorders the passions3. It
perverts the willDid you know that many of the craters on the moon
were named after jesuit priests of the catholic church?It seems to
me that in their Astronomy they contirbuted to human scientific understanding
while living a devout religious life. My point is that religion and
science do not need to be mutually exclusive. Religion and an
humanist ethic of the "common good" are compatible. Perhaps
secularists and God fearing believers can co-exist and have positive influences
on each other.Peace to you all.
Joe, I disagree with your opinion that Darwin's agenda was to eliminate any
involvement of God in the creation. He said in the last edition of "Origin Of
Species"..."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." You may still doubt Charles
Darwin's motives, but "by the Creator" IS in there. Why would God be less of a
god if he had all that knowledge that he could start the process and it turn out
as excpected. Doesn't God know the beginning from the end? Discovering natural
selection was not anti-God. It was Man following God's admonition to subdue the
Earth...by learning more about it. As far as the accusation made at some pt.
that Hitler used natural selection as his excuse...ANY true priciple can be used
It is important to make the distinction between the process of scientific
discovery and the world views which the individuals involved in science hold.
The purity, in contrast to religion, that scientific thinking provides, is found
in the fact that if any explanation arises that is a better suited, or has the
benefit of stronger evidence; the new explanation replaces the old relatively
quickly. Science itself is independent of those who work in the field and is by
definition amoralistic. The pseudo religious or materialistic world view, that
many experts in the field or those who study science (whether they be BYU
professors or Richard Dawkins), have created or hold, should be considered
separate from their work in science. The fact that Darwin was agnostic is
irrelevant when considering the evidential validity of the evolutionary
explanation. By contrast, Western or Christian religion is inseparably tied to
the individuals who profess its validity, due to the key assumption that
understanding comes from an individual connecting with some source of absolute
truth. Perhaps you should delve into why so many people that accept this bold
religious assumption are so suspicious of scientific, non-world view,
explanations of natural phenomena, like evolution.
LIke all the assumptions that are the foundation of evolution,your
assumption would be wrong.
I think it is important to point out that some of the religiously dogmatic on
this post have in their statements pitted Science against religion.While such ignorance has persisted since Galileo and Copernicus, and will
likely persist as long as there men willing to misinform the faithful and
gullible, this is not at all what Cannon was saying in his post.Darwin's theory has grown into a category of science called Evolution.Evolution is a science not a theory like biology or chemistry.You cannot say, I do not believe in the 'theory' of biology or chemistry.As for commenter "RE:@9:36", we will assume you are not a scientist.
Still no evidence, huh?Just blind belief in science that they have
all answers,that all interpertation of said evidence is what they
say it is,and they will allow no questioning of it.IT
sounds like your science is as much dogma, as any religion.But what
if they are wrong in their blind zeal to make a theory work, make all fossils
fit, all their assumptions, all their supposed relationships?all the
while ignoring all the unchanging fossils in the fossil record, evidence of no
change in creatures, insects, plantlife, that have existed 60-70 million
years, even 150 millions, maybe loger, without change.
There is a god. (S)he doesn't intervene on behalf of lottery winners,
celebrities or professional athletes; and I think god may not micromanage a lot
of other things, either. Put the principle in place and let it run itself. God
doesn't care what I drink, either. Everyone can comment on their understanding
of god, including marx and darwin and you and I, but we all have the same proof.
None. Have a nice day.
God wants the earth to be flat. If science dosen't stop messing with his
teachings to the church they will be in big trouble.
Atheism is a non prophet enterprise.
the difference is that Darwins theories are now backed up by scientific evidance
and your cliams are still locked up in ancient thoughts with no evidance.Pick up any basic gentics book and you will have all the evidance you need.
1. Well, The Origin of Species was published 150 years ago and we're talking
about Darwin's 'contribution'. 2. Anyone can see, if they choose
to, that I'm quoting a book prior to 'Origin' to prove that enthusiastic belief
in evolution pre-dates Darwin. This one pre-dates 'Origin' by just 12 years.3. Give us some specific empirical evidence for your apparent belief in
You can ignore the empirical evidence of evolution all you want it does not make
it go away. Its funny that your two quotes come from over 150 years ago, it kind
of speaks to your state of mind.
There have always been myths concerning the origin of mankind, and always very
popular was been the myth that man came from various forms of animal life. They
look a bit like us so we might have come from them. It seems just
as logical to say that we ultimately developed from trees or that animal life
desended from mankind.Theories of evolution were popular with much
of the public before the Origin of Species was published. Then, as now, many
people loved the idea of evolution, even though they had but a confused view
about the subject. In other words the love of the idea of evolution
has very little to do with empirical proof. Disraeli characterized
this enthusiastic, woolly conception in Tancred (published in 1847):"You know, all is development. The principle is perpetually going on. First,
there was nothing, then there was something; then - I forget the next - I think
there were shells, then fishes; then we came - let me see- did we come next?
Never mind that; we came at last."..."Oh! but it is all proved....
You understand, it is all science.... Everything is proved - by geology you
know."Disraeli: Tancred I; 225-226
You really need to read more and post less the Truth. There is strong genetic
evidence (or proof for you religious types) as to the links of "old fossils" and
modern humans, of course you would know this already if you actually cared about
"the truth." I find it humorous that people are now trying to turn the
word secularism into a bad word like they have tried with so many words in the
past. They do not care about "the truth" just their point of view (no matter how
The way science does evolution is NO way for science to do science,Make up stories of how it could have happened, and how it POSSIBLY could have
happened , may have, might have happened,then claim that is what did
happen,While genetics may show how it POSSIBLY COULD HAVE have
happend,it does NOT show what DID happen.WE do NOT know
if any of the old fossils even have anyhting to do with modern man.all that MUST be assumed in the so called theory,it's all built on
assumptions, suppostion, made-up stories, it is a house of cards if there ever
was one.and anything that doesn't "fit" MUST become a branch that
has died out, how convenient!BAD SCIENCE all around,a
case where the theory drives the interpretation of very circumstantial
evidence,and all evidence of_unchanging life is completely
ignored,from crocadiles and sharks to pteradons that live unchanged
for 150 million years, the coelcanths unchanged in over 60 to 70 million years,
to many ohter creatures unchanged but perhaps in size.genetic
similarity simply meanw we have similar features, any relatiohship MUST be
assumed.Yep, evolution is BAD science, and_more_like_dogma
Hey Joe,What's with this 'Joseph A.' stuff? I thought you were
'Joe.'Religion, science, church-state, very fascinating subjects.
Interesting column and comments.Joe Watts
This article was complete nonsense. Who wants to go back to the times when
everyday heretics were burned alive "to the glory of God," as it was said of the
"auto de fe," fire of faith. That was the world 500 years ago.Steven
L. Peck, an associate professor in the Department of Biology at Brigham Young
University wrote an article that was published in the Deseret News last year. He
called creationism "a pretense to science that tries to set religion and
evolution at odds. Dr. Peck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, and he fully accepts evolution. Peck said,
"Evolution is at the heart of the biological revolution that has transformed
everything from genetics and medicine to drug discovery and managing antibiotic
resistance.""Let me be blunt. I find nothing of value in Intelligent
Design for both scientific and religious reasons."It is a false
dichotomy to place god and evolution at opposite poles. You can pick up any
evolution text book, and it will say nothing about god or the after life. These
are separate subjects that are falsely linked by religious extremists and the
Joe and TimJ,'Finding Darwin's God' is an excellent book and Ken
Miller even recently gave a talk down at SUU. A similar book from a Mormon
perspective is "Evolution and Mormonism" by Stephens and Meldrum (Foreword by
BYU professor Duane Jeffery, recently retired). I received my PHD from BYU and
taught Evolution there and was a teaching assistant to Duane Jeffery for years.
Science does influence religion. The religious geocentric view of
the earth's place in the universe was replaced by a model that fit the data and
observations better. This event didn't end Christianity but Christianity had to
evolve its theology to accommodate it. The same thing happens today. Over the
last several decades genetic and other types of data have caused views of Native
American origins to go through dramatic restructuring in LDS theology. It has
even resulted in word changes in the introduction of the Book of Mormon. These
changes sometimes scare people, but they shouldn't. I don't think science
unavoidably wounds religion I think it improves it. We just have to be prepared
when it doesnt necessarily go the direction we think it should.
Fine Mr. Cannon, then your decision to use the word 'secular' or 'secularism' to
refer to social and scientific progress is "self-indulgent." The
label 'secular' also insists that nothing about religion is useful in the study
or application of anything secular and does not "require the rejection" of
anything but rather simply refers to the absence thereof.Your
attempt to claim a role for religion in science by mere use of the word, is
nothing more than a tired semantic trick.You rest your argument on
this? "A number of commenters have noted that, in many cases, science and
religion are mutually reinforcing."Are you kidding? Religion by its
very nature cannot reinforce science by *its*(science) own definition.Even if science *could* somehow to satisfy per its own methods, that 'the
order of things' cannot be explained by any known, quantifiable forces or
physical laws, religion would STILL have nothing to offer science because it is
not science.Religion by definition and application, requires the
suspension reason and rejection of science. This is the Achilles heal of the
BYU scientists who do their best to 'serve the master' under the guise of
Dark Sciences 4;18:Thank you. Well said and to the point. James
Clark Maxwell was an extremely observant and HONEST man.Modern Science is
true science in a state of apostacy. It is not a vehicle for finding "truth"
even if it is "taught" at BYU.LOL!!!!Joe Cannon, I am disappointed in your
responses here on the posts. I thought you were wise at first. Now you look
quite superficial.Mike Richards: I wish you would write an article for us
to comment on. I would like to hear more from you.
to believe in...even if it doesn't make sense. I find that science makes more
sense. But often if I talk to a religious person about certain issues they will
say things "but the Bible says" or "Joseph Smith says" or some such words.
Religious people often throw sense to the wind so they can keep their comfort
level up with things they've been taught all their lives and that give them good
feelings. Feelings don't always make sense, however, but they sometimes give a
false sense of security. I would rather face harsher truths than live my life
this way. There are many people in the world like this now...we are becoming
the majority. I'm not saying "majority" is always right, but at least we can
evaluate issues with rationality and lots of thought and not fall back on fairy
tales which many times, can be proven false.
The Dark Sciences... while they profess to treat of laws which have never been
investigated, afford the most conspicuous examples of the operation of the
well-known laws of association... in imitating the phraseology of science, and
of combining its facts with those which must naturally suggest themselves to a
mind unnaturally disposed. In the mis-begotten science thus produced we have
speciously sounding laws of which our first impression is that they are truisms,
and the second that they are absurd, and a bewildering mass of experimental
proof, of which all the tendencies lie on the surface and all the data turn out
when examined to be heaped together.. confusedly "James Clark
Maxwell, 1853, cited in The Life of James Clark Maxwell: Campbell and Garnett,
1884 MacMillan PressWhy the "endurance" of Darwin? Two reasons:1. The desperate attempts of atheists to keep his legend alive.2. He is foisted upon students, represented as a 'scientist' and his theories
presented as virtually inviolable, free discussion being objectively denied, and
unbelievers (in Darwin) being stifled and mocked in the expression of their
Joe Cannon,I recommend Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God." Miller
is Catholic, the book is well written, and it discusses how religion is
compatible with evolution. It focuses more on science than on philosophy,
however.As far as BYU professors go, call the BYU Biology department and
ask around. I'm not certain who's teaching the evolution course right now, but
if it is who I think it is, he's a very personable man, and would be a great
resource. He'd probably have further references for more philosophical-based
Mr. Cannon's article confuses the atheistic and the secular state. The
atheistic state declares there is no god. The secular state is designed to be
religiously neutral but which seeks to guarantee freedom of conscience for
individuals. The secular state conforms to the definition of secularism as not
specifically or overtly religious. The secular Western democracies
stand in stark contrast to the sectarian states from which they descended. The
bloody sectarianism of post-Reformation Europe convinced liberal thinkers that
government should seek to create civil order and peace by establishing itself as
not explicitly religious. Especially in the English speaking world, this
project has succeeded, the notable exception being Northern Ireland.Jefferson and the other founders deliberately prohibited religious tests for
office; a principle demonstrating their dedication to a religiously neutral
state. Jefferson argued we are endowed by our creator with certain
rights, but the Jeffersonian creator is not the personal, engaged god of
contemporary conservative Christianity. Jefferson was a deist and the deist God
was the distant, uninvolved "Prime Mover" which established the laws by which
nature operated and then stepped back. The Deist god would get a contemporary
believer banned as a heretic in many churches.
I look at those societies where religion is/was the main focus, our own past and
the moslem world of today.Who can make the claim that our semi
secular world is not more enlightened than either.Slavery has been
done away with only in our society. We don't kill people for having different
opinions as as the moslem world of today does and the catholic world of
yesteryear.We don't overly focus on religious topics, but have more
of a variety. Women only in our semi secular society society are given their due
rights.Why Mr. Cannon do you think the direction we have turned has
been a loss?
To Michael Elliott.The Oxford English Dictionary has numerous
definitions of secular and secularism, I cannot find a definition related to
government in the sense you have described. While our Founders clearly wanted
separation of church and state, their principal concern was to avoid a state
sponsored particular religion. All of the Founders, including Jefferson,
understood that rights were God-given and not invented by men. Inherent in our
founding documents is the natural law notion of rights as God-ordained.The OED defines "secular" a "of or belonging to the present or visible world
as distinguished from the eternal or spiritual world; temporal, worldly; caring
for the present world only; unspiritual."The OED also includes a
draft definition of "secular humanism." I have tried to stay from that term
because it is so emotionally charged, but the definition is interesting. "A form
of humanist practice and theory that rejects religious belief as a basis for
moral judgement and action."
To LadyTrue. Notwithstanding its harshness I appreciate your comment. It
is neither a "canard" nor "self-indulgent pandering" to say that "secularization
requires a rejection of Christianity." By definition, secularization is
centered on the absence of religion. The secular and the religious are mutually
exclusive. This is not the same as saying that religion and science are
mutually exclusive, they are not. A number of commenters have noted that, in
many cases, science and religion are mutually reinforcing.There are
a number of believers who reject science and a number of scientists who reject
religion, but as I hope to point out in future columns, if either is "true" they
must both reinforce each other.As to my credentials: One of the
limitations of newspaper columns is the inability to footnote statements, this
is particularly troubling to me as a lawyer. Space is another limitation. Over three decades I have read and studied many thousands of pages on
all these subjects. You may rest assured that, despite my limitations, each of
the propositions I write about have been written about and supported by numerous
scholars and theologians.
Mr. Cannon states "Secularism is the abandonment of a belief in a power external
to mankind..." This is incorrect. Secularism is the belief that public
institutions should be separate from religious institutions. The schism that
occurred with the Enlightenment was not between theists and atheists, but rather
between those who insist on religious orthodoxy and those who believe in
religious freedom (which includes the right to disbelieve all religions).
Paradoxically, the United States with its explicitly secular form of government
is among the nations with the highest rates of religiosity. By
separating religion from government, secularism actually fosters religious
variety. The secularism that Mr. Cannon so despises is the philosophic and
legal foundation granting him the freedom to believe in an unorthodox Christian
Although religious abuse is terrible, I don't believe that I would still believe
in the mostly ridiculous claims of religion if abuses didn't exist. The reason?
Because I consider myself an enlightend person. I am not overly intelligent,
but I can see "God" has very little to do with claims of religion and more to do
with the claims to power that it gives them. As to the questions about "God" I
liked "logic's" comments. I believe God is science and is the Universe. I
don't understand "God", but I believe in a higher power that I can't totally
One of the main reasons for the shift from religious world view to secular
world view is not only science, but the abuses of religion.
It is not that complicated: if there is a god then science belongs to god; it
there is no god, then science is god. If science exposes secularism then if
reveals god. Man invented religion and it has little to do with god: god is
True Believers, please enlighten me! Which god is the one true god? Thanks in
advance for your help.
You act like that's a bad thing.Darwin has truly enlighted the world with
knowledge. Surely you're not blaming Darwin for offering a difference source of
our existance than that of myth, lore and superstition of our ancient,
uneducated ancestors.Seriously, are we suppose to take Genisis 100%
The US Supreme Court long ago ruled that atheism is a religion.
I don't consider myself a Marxist, but let me point out that most of the reforms
that have prolonged capitalism have their origin in Marx. Moreover, Marxian
economic theory itself is still highly useful, but too often ignored, because
most people (including economists) don't have a clue as to what Marx's economic
model is all about. I don't think these three men can be singled
out as perpetrators of 19th century atheism. The entire scientific revolution
of that age was atheistic.
what you said:"Until you have scientific proof otherwise, it's best
to allow God to exist, even without your understanding or permission."Of course, you see that if you allow one God to exist, you must also allow
*all* Gods and Godesses to exist, even without your understanding or
permission?K then, we're cool.
To LadyTrue @ 10:40,How convenient to justify your position that God
is not the creator simply because you have not studied long enough or hard
enough to prove to your own satisfaction that He is the creator.Does
your position not beg the question also? It seems somewhat odd to me
that someone who infers knowledge of science would limit himself/herself to
his/her own knowledge. Has all knowledge about all things physical already been
obtained? Has all knowledge of all things other than physical already been
obtained? If so, where, pray tell, is that knowledge kept?Until you
have scientific proof otherwise, it's best to allow God to exist, even without
your understanding or permission.
To Timj. There may well be BYU scientists who have written on the confluence of
evolution and religion. I would welcome some references. This column was
sparked, in part, by a lecture given by a BYU scientist who stated that Darwin
was misunderstood and that evolution is compatible with religion. I have no
argument that evolution can be understood with a religious twist. But, unlike
Descartes, Darwin, himself, had no intent of combinig the two.Outside of the BYU relm, I find the writings of John Polkinghorne very
satisfying. Polkinghorne was an internationally recognized theoretical
physicist who came to religion later in life. He left Trinity College,
Cambridge where he was a colleague of Stephen Hawking and became President of
Queens' College, Cambridge. He is now an ordained minister and the only
ordained member of the Royal Society.He has written a number of
books. I think the best are "Belief in God in an Age of Science" and "Science
and Christian Belief, Theological Reflections of a botton-up Thinker."
I appreciate very much the comments on this and my other columns.Nothing I have written should be read to undermine science or even the
Darwinian explanation of evolution. The virtues and products of the scientific
method are many and wonderful. And, of course, there are many scientists who
believe in God, including at BYU.My point is not that Darwin's
explanation is right or wrong. That is why I noted my lack of scientific
credentials. What is unarguable, however, is that Darwin believed, and most
evolutionary scientists believe, that the random action of atoms and elements is
a complete and exclusive explanation of human creation. This materialistic
explanation of human origins is necessary for a secular view that excludes God's
role in creation.That some evolutionary biologists find God's hand
in evolution is wonderful, but doesn't change the fact that Darwin's explanation
was entirely materialistic.
Mike,You raise an interesting premise in the statement, "Knowing
*how* God created all things is not nearly as important as searching for the
reason *why* he does His great work"This of course begs the question
that God is the creator. This is a non-sequitor for a scientist since there is
no evidence of a single creator nor is it a requirement of 'how.'Your perspective therefore is entirely a religious one which renders your
assessment virtually irrelevant for the same reason the article itself is
irrelevant.May I assume your use of science-dependent technology in
your daily life is not subject to your religiously inspired rejection of the
same?Best to keep your religion safely out of your public
This series of articles has given us much information and a starting point for
serious pondering. Searching for the roots of the thoughts that are
giving acceptance for conduct and actions that have been considered
reprehensible throughout most of recorded history has been made much easier by
Mr. Cannon's series of articles.Rejecting his articles simply
because some readers have allowed themselves to become blind to any thought that
they did not originate only shows how necessary these articles are.Too many people, who would reject God and religion, have focused on the "how"
instead of the "why". Knowing *how* God created all things is not nearly as
important as searching for the reason *why* he does His great work. As a world,
we are just beginning to recognize the complexity of all things physical, yet
many would explain that wonderful order in all things untouched by mankind as
just something that happened spontaneously.Mr. Cannon's articles
clearly shows the evolution of that thought process.
This essay deserves no one's attention. May it quickly pass into the archives
of the Deseret News, a soon forgotten sophomoric attempt to do a "feel good" for
the angry, poorly educated, religious community.The jello-ee premise
of this article is summarized in one of its quotes, "secularization is
specifically a rejection of its Christian foundations."Cannon
utterly fails to support this self-indulgent canard I imagine because the
defense of such a statement would require Christianity to claim as exclusive
(for itself) a set of "foundations" that have existed parallel to
Christianity.To suggest that secularization requires a rejection of
Christianity is little more than self-indulgent pandering to a pseudo religious
society uninterested is much more than feel sorry for itself because it creation
story cannot compete with science.Cannon's dearth of credentials on
the subject of religion, science OR literature is obvious.
Mr. Darwin's thesis has been shown to be correct over and over again. Freud and
Marx were both wrong about almost everything, and could be categorized as
intellectual fads who have now passed. Lumping the three together amounts to
guilt by association.
The problem with putting God into science is that, instead of finding answers,
we just say "God did it." That's no way to do science.Richard Dawkins is
just as off as Cannon here. Science doesn't say there is no God, and it doesn't
say there is a God, any more than any other secular field (construction,
computer programming, editing a newspaper) does.Cannon says he's not a
scientist. If he wants to make an intelligent statement about science, he should
at least learn a little about science first. There are plenty of good scientists
at BYU that would be more than happy to talk to him about Darwin, the nature of
science, etc., although for some reason I doubt he'd listen.
It's a mistake to dismiss Darwin as a champion of secularism. Evolution doesn't
address the question of whether God exists. I believe evolution is the best
explanation of how God created the magnificent array of life forms on Earth.
It's interesting that Cannon says that Dawkins is a "reigning high priest" of
secularism. Isn't that language turning secularism into a religion? Is it
saying that it has a well-defined dogma?If science can give us about
as many answers as religion, how is it not legitimate? And, isn't Cannon saying
he is a creationist? Is the creation story in the Bible true? If so, what
part? Does it matter how we interpret it? Is the earth 6000 years old or so?
Mr. Cannon, You try to pigeonhole skeptical, secular thought, and
you talk about the "true" creation story in your smug commentary, but you cannot
get around the fact that this great moral foundation you call religion is all
just MADE UP. You cannot admit that you have bought lock, stock, and barrel
the musings of charlatans. Maybe modern society is starting to
value intellectual honesty, and not value tradition merely for the sake of
tradition.But of the three individuals you exalt as the architects
of all things secular, only Darwin endures. I think psychology has moved on
from Freud and most governments have rejected Marxism.
I dont know if God exists or not. However I am very sure that if he exists, the
various religions of the world, know nothing of his nature and plan. Religion,
this far in the history of the world, is simply a tool that men have used to
enslave other men.There is nothing in this world today to tell me
that God exists, and there is much to tell me that God has nothing to do with
what is here and what happens to it.The movement toward a more
secular world is probably the result of the increased level of intelligence and knowledge that people have achieved.Religion has
been good for man because it provided a means for men to work together and rise
above the animal state. If the end is near for Religion, I hope that human
beings will find a new way to combine their minds and energies.
This has been an exceptional series. It offers a broad overview of key changes
in the Western view of God and His role in our lives and in society more
generally. Thank you for taking the time to research this issue so thoroughly.
I appreciate the many references. It is a wonderful launching pad for personal
research on an issue key to an understanding of modern life and philosopy.
Joe, Actually in the belief world of most modern educated people in the
western world, the overlapping Venn diagram area of an Almighty and science is
where they find their purpose. Natural selection reinforces my belief in a
Creator; the Hubble images reinforces my beleif in a Creator. No conflict
between God and Science here.
You have the unholy trinity of the modern superstitious and unscientific
religion of today and much of the two preceding centuries.These
three have fascinated and lured people away from the belief in the obvious (that
highly ordered creations do not happen accidentally) to the illogical doctrine
that they do.Marx gave us doctrines that provide a godless
alternative to Christianity, that professes to lead mankind into a heaven on
earth and perfect society, yet his proponents have brough only misery and
injustice to thosw who have espoused them and sought to realise them. Tens of
millions have died, killed by those who say they desire the greater good of
makind.Freud has given us universal excuses for sin, shifting the
blame, onto parents and environment, that rightly belongs to every individual.
Excellent commentary, Joe. There is no doubt that Darwin, Marx, and Freud
provided the over-arching framework for secularism, agnosticism, and atheism.
It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the three have become so influential to
When Darwin did mention religion (and it wasn't often) he spoke from an agnostic
tone. There is nothing about natural selection that removes God from our lives.
There are only people like this author who allow themselves to blame science for
the failings of modern society. Eventually God and Science are not mutually
exclusive. Rather they are complementary. One thing the author did get right,
he is not qualified to speak about evolution and natural selection.