Darwin and the Darwinians

I have simultaneously started reading Darwin's "On the origin of species" and a book by philosopher Mary Midgley called "The solitary self: Darwin and the selfish gene". See this great review:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24663-the-solitary-self-darwin-and-the-selfish-gene/
Read this review if you have the chutzpah, but rest assured that she does a pretty good job on Dawkins, Dennett, and the other "Darwinians". Midgley has brought home to me me how thoroughly Darwin's own very nuanced arguments and views were quickly and completely subverted by subsequent commentators, none of whom were as insightful or as careful as him in their conclusions. This started with Huxley while Darwin  was still alive.
Darwinists always have another agenda that is not related to biological science. Darwin himself just tried to understand and explain the biological world as we encounter it.
I am only on chapter 1 of Darwin but you are struck by his intellect and depth of observational experience.
I was equally stuck by the rare instances where he was wrong. He believed most domesticated animals had a single wild ancestor (based on lots of evidence and very clever induction), but strangely exempted the domestic dog from this. I suppose he thought that there were just too many types of very different breeds to support a single ancestor. Sadly, we now know definitively from genetic studies that he was wrong. Maybe he should have followed his own logic, applied to other domesticated species, but given the lack of any known mechanism for any of these things at the time, he must be forgiven.
I am looking forward to more insights from Darwin as I proceed slowly.
The short lesson from this post is: Don't confuse Darwin with Darwinism!

Online again after 6 years!

Having nowhere to air your ideas can be frustrating, so after many years of nothing I decided to resuscitate and rename an old blog and using as a sounding board. These are my thoughts, usually mixed with lots of input from what I am reading.
Feel free to comment if anything strikes you as profound , interesting or just plain wrong.

Philosphical problems of some scientists

Most highly educated athiests are actually very poorly educated in the social sciences and humanities, especially philosophy, which provides the basic tools for analyzing reality from a human perspective.

Remarkably (not so remarkably really) some of the greatest philosophers have also been Christians, even recently (e.g. Gadamer).

Modern philosophy has many disciplines which can be directly applied to the debate beween science and faith. In particular, Epistemology (theory of knowledge) and Phenomenology (study of phenomena as they are humanly perceived) are vital to this debate into the nature of "truth".

A person with no faith has a fundamental problem in relation to creation. He cannot see things from a spiritual perspective and so one side of reality shielded from his sight. He can use logic however and that opens the possibility of correcting many errors that many athiests and agnostics make in criticising Christianity.
Athiest author anjd anti-religionist Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientists but displayed remarkable ignorance of these philosophical disciplines in his TV series.

What is "Human" 2

The last post indicated the central problem of "humanness". Are we animal? or are we divine?
The Bible seems to say "Both". The Bible is the story of the difficulties inherent in that contradiction.
Every philospher recognizes the fundamental problem of Christian (and Jewish actually) theology. How can human (that is, created animal) share in the divine nature?

Most non-Christian philosophers get out of it easily by saying, "They can't" and leave it at that.
A Christian philosopher has no choice however (not an orthodox Christian anyway!)
The Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nysssa and Gregory of Nazianzius were the first to tackle this problem in the 4th century, from the viewpoint of theological philosophy. The long term result were the creeds, including the Nicene creed recited in most churches each week.

In short, the answer of Christian theology is that human and divine cannot "naturally" coexist, but because of the work of Christ, God now has a way of "adopting" people into the "divine family".

The interesting thing here is the idea of something totally new. Orthodox Christian theology actually seems to be very radical when its claims are examined carefully. The human-divine being (whose first example was Jesus Christ) is actually just the first off the production line. He is the mould from which a multitude of others will be cast. Biblically, he is the "firstborn of many brethren" (Romans 8:29).
Christianity says: humans are not divine naturally, ("from dust you came, to dust you will return"), but a way has been made for us to take on a divine nature.

What is "Human" 1

What separates us from the beasts? What unites us with them? Did God create us a wholly separate species, to rule over the earth?
Many paople are confused over their true place on earth and their individual role.

The reason is that even though we were made in the "image of God", we are not God. Jesus ironically referred to this when debating some opponents, and quoting the Psalms:

"I said, 'You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.'
But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." Ps 82:6-7

Jesus also quoted this passage in John 10, to defend his status as "son of God", but the Psalm shows that God intends that this sonship be shared among all people. The Psalm makes it clear however that the mortality of beasts is man's "natural" destination.