Christianity & Darwin

Still on my break, but I’ll squeeze out a post.

So, it seems Christianity not entirely dead like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, at least Jim does not think so, and some of my readers don’t think so either. The reasoning goes as follows: Christianity worked great for many centuries, most especially in England from 1660 to 1820. If we can go back to that, if, say, king Trump does like king Charles the Second and reinstates Christianity as the state religion, suddenly holiness spirals are low status again, science is high status again, and white males are high status again. Problem solved.

To this my objection has been that Darwin and his natural laws falsified Jesus’ miracles. But, says Jim, I am not the first to think of this, in fact saint Augustine already thought of this many centuries ago and warned people not to take Jesus’ miracles overly literal, overly Gnostic. Since Augustine was Saintified, his views have been incorporated into Christianity, therefore for me to bring up the plausibility of Jesus’ resurrection and hammer on it is me being holier than saint Augustine, hence me being disruptive.

I can get behind that logic.

The main purpose of religion is to prevent holiness spirals so we can all just get on with life. If Christianity can do that once again like it used to do, who am I to reinvent the wheel? I have no problem getting behind Christianity if it is capable of what Jim thinks it is capable.

Now there are those that accuse me of not having faith, or of faking faith in order to use religion for my own selfish purposes. This accusation is stupid. Well not the accusation that I use religion for my own selfish purposes, that is obviously true, but the accusation that I fake faith . I burst with faith. Always bursted with faith. When I was a prog child, I organized charity drives to raise money for poor children elsewhere in the world because I bursted with faith. Now that I am older, I still burst with that same faith, I just do not want to be burned again by fake prophets. I want to get it right, so I am cautious and approach the matter as detached as I can before I get attached. That is all.

In order to get Christianity right, there remains one important matter, namely to merge Christianity with the Dark Enlightenment. How? Simple. Saintify Charles Darwin.

Saintifying Darwin kills many flies in one swoop. For one, evolution is as obviously true as the coffee I just drank. Take the example of the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve — it branches off the vagus nerve towards the larynx, and just like in humans it does so by traveling under the aortic arch of the heart. In mammals with short necks this is no problem, but with the giraffe this means the laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain with the vocal chords, is about 5 meters long, about 4.8 meters longer than it needs to be. This makes perfect sense from the perspective of incremental evolutionary changes (e.g. a longer and longer neck) leading to unnecessary complexity.

giraffe

Darwin was right, absolutely revolutionary in his thinking while remaining humble throughout his life; it is Righteous to praise him for his feats.

Then, it blows the mind of As-Holy-As-Jesus Christians, who invoke God’s power every other sentence and claim that it is not the 3 laws of combustion that make a matchstick burn, it is God’s will. These Christians are the reason Christianity is on the brink of death, for their dismissal of evolution, of Darwin, of nature, of natural law, makes them low-status in the eyes of everyone with an open and fair mind. Many people have an open and fair mind.

Then, it also blows the minds of progs and atheists, who every time a Christian yells ‘evolution is not true!’ gloat and feel superior to Christians. By taking away their prime scientific weapon, saying they never fully understood it and that it belonged with the church all along, I would be very surprised if not at least 1 prog head would literally explode.

Finally, it answers the riddles of the enlightenment Christianity has been struggling so much to answer. Why shouldn’t we let in hordes of Muslims? Because Darwin said it’s stupid. Why shouldn’t we be cucked? Because Darwin said it’s stupid. Why should we control our women? Because Darwin said it’s stupid not to do so.

So. #SaintifyDarwin. Let’s make it happen.

 

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Christianity & Darwin

    1. While it is entirely true that most people are stupid, lazy and undeserving of respect, it is simultaneously true that most people instinctively understand what is fair and true. For instance, uncensored YouTube comments are generally pretty fair and true.

      Thus, the general public’s criticism of Christianity being opposed to Darwin is, generally speaking, pretty fair and true. Christians are at great danger of repeating principal Skinner’s mistake, who, when wondering if he is out of touch, concludes that no, it’s the children who are wrong.

      1. Or is it the children who think whatever their elite tells them to think?
        Are most people fair and true, or are most people parroting talking points from high status elites?

        1. Evolution exists and the children know it regardless of what the elite tells them. Once seen, cannot be unseen.

          The more Christians expect the children to fall in line with outdated memes, the more they resemble principle Skinner.

  1. This is science worship. Science isn’t right it can always be questioned Darwin included and it should be. What stops people from questioning reality to death and what stops them from asking if there are more than 2 genders is a belief in God.

    1. Not science worship. Deus Vult. We win because God is on our side, just that God holds science in high regard.

      Hence, Darwin as a saint, not a prophet. Less holy than Jesus, but holier than evolution deniers.

      1. Doesn’t work so well, global warming is high status,sanctified and became holier than Jesus. Your charge of high inquisitor won’t last forever in 50 years someone may want to ask if Boaz’s findings make sense in light of modern epigenetics but you’ve sanctified the opposing view. We’ve already walked this path. You seem to be picking on creationists for some reason, creationism is a better theory than all anthropology and neo-darwinism from the past 30 years put together.
        It is also a modern heresy, there’s a religious answer for heresies. Galileo has yet to prove the earth isn’t the center of the universe, Darwin has yet to prove we evolved from monkeys and if we did then we just need to add a comma somewhere.

      2. Science has been dead for decades, global warming is a doomsday cult.

        Your charge of high inquisitor won’t last forever in 50 years someone may want to ask if Boaz’s findings make sense in light of modern epigenetics but you’ve sanctified the opposing view.

        I do not understand you.

        Galileo has yet to prove the earth isn’t the center of the universe, Darwin has yet to prove we evolved from monkeys and if we did then we just need to add a comma somewhere.

        If it were so simple to add a comma somewhere, Christians would not have been fighting Galileo, fighting Darwin, fighting the big bang, fighting polio vaccinations. If it were all about adding a comma, we would have no disagreement. That we have a disagreement indicates Christianity is lacking in answers to our current problems and it is lacking in tools to find answers.

        1. Dunno how formatting works in this.

          “Science has been dead for decades”
          Creationists being wrong and heretical at least question. No one cares about your darwin, big bang or galileo, all are simply tools to kill God nothing to do with truth.

          “I do not understand you.”
          By sanctifying a view you make it that much harder to question. Not science.

          “If it were so simple to add a comma somewhere, Christians would not have been fighting Galileo, fighting Darwin, fighting the big bang, fighting polio vaccinations.”

          These are good fights, Galileo made theological inferences about his findings which had nothing to do with science, flu vacinations seem to bring more problems than they solve for instance, it’s good to question vaccines. Science is questioning not sanctification.

          “If it were all about adding a comma, we would have no disagreement. That we have a disagreement indicates Christianity is lacking in answers to our current problems and it is lacking in tools to find answers.”
          We are larping as inquisitors here, easy to add a comma, Christianity has the answers for current problems it just doesn’t have answers for scientific questions which are irrelevant to our problems.

          1. But polio vaccinations are good, Galileo’s scientific findings were good, and Darwinism is great. These are not irrelevant to our problems.

  2. Darwinism is demonstrably true, resisting him makes you look like idiots, and gives progs an entirely legitimate tool to beat you with.

    But Darwinism is a mighty powerful tool to beat progs with, because Darwinism supports the survival oriented ethics of the old testament. So,integrate Darwinism into Christianity and you have a Christianity that can hammer the stuffing out of progs.

    While anti Darwinist Christianity is helpless before progs, and capitulating to them.

    1. All our positions make us look like idiots in the eyes of progs, why is that relevant? Believing in God alone is enough for you to be considered mentally ill doubt not believing in evolution makes any difference.
      If darwinism says the same as the old testament then it has been said no need for integration or sanctification.
      Christianity is helpless before progs and so is darwinism, Christian Darwinism(redundant) would be as helpless.

      1. You exhibit the doublethink I encounter in many Christians, arguing that either evolution is not real or it is not important.

        Evolution is real, it is important. Needs to be integrated into Christianity.

        1. Evolution is a scientific theory, either wrong or incomplete, you’re science worshiping, evolution leads people to think that we all came from Africa which leads to the sanctification of MLK. I don’t want MLK in the canon.

      2. Science before 1944 is all science. Science after 1944 is a mixture of science and sewage,

        When your reject pre 1944 science, you reject the western civilization that we seek to restore.

        And, at the same time as you reject western civilization, you accommodate progressive principles that destroy the foundations of your supposed faith. Women are allowed to speak in your Church, single mothers are celebrated, fathers demonized. But you are holding firm on rejecting Western Civilization – which is a very cheap, safe, display of faith,because progressivism hates western civilization also, but will not let you desecrate the holy sacraments of abortion and single motherhood. So you will not desecrate abortion and single motherhood, but you will spit enthusiastically on western civilization.

        1. I never rejected any science. I reject theological inferences based on science. If I seem to disagree with science I do it on materialistic grounds not religious, people who use the bible to explain the natural world are autistic heretics.
          Your position is contradictory, you want rise the status of science to justify religion, when (bad)science is already high status, been there done that the result wasn’t good. Much simpler to rise the status of religion and enforce marriage.

          1. The mandate of priests is only as holy as its flock allows it to be.

            Your congregate silently laughs at your anti-scientific beliefs, your children hide the fact that they’re Christian when they’re with the cool kids, your women are disgusted by your sunday school beta boys.

            If to this, your answer is more of the same, you clearly do not understand the problem.

          2. “The mandate of priests is only as holy as its flock allows it to be.”
            You wrote a fantasy post about revitalizing Christianity with Darwin and enforcing it, what the heck is even your point with this?

            Likewise I want to revitalize Christianity I just don’t think there’s any reason for it to be scientific, which you seem very triggered about. If you replace Darwin in the last paragraph of your blog post with Christ you have someone who doesn’t have to answer to the whims of the scientific method, Darwin has, unless you turn science into a religion which stops it from being science which is what happened, but I’m repeating myself for the fourth time and you have yet to put any argument forward.

            Your solution is more of the same, science is already high status, science was high status and lowered the status of Christianity with predictable results.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.