[Finwe]

I really think that we are all disagreeing over a matter that is in itself, very trivial if you look at it objectively. I don't think that Darwin ever meant to completely deny the existence of any deity. It is people's interpretation of his ideas that did that. Why blame him for something that his readers thought?

I don't think that it says anywhere that you cannot believe in Darwinism and believe in God at the same time. For all we know, that first spark of life, that first primeval bacterium, could have been created by God. We just don't know.

I'm sure that many of his ideas were brilliant. He just did not have the capability of communicating them to others in a sound manner. Hence, all his papers sound alike. He probably found one style that received accolades, and kept using that. Can you not deny that it is human nature to keep doing the things that we are good at? If you are an excellent writer, you will keep writing, becoming even better (in some cases). In that sense, he just kept doing the thing that he thought he was doing best.

As for people's interpretations, it has occurred throughout history. It has happened with just about every religion. Social Darwinism has been the means of justification for some of the most horrible acts of bigotry and racism that this world has seen. Some people, in fact most people, in the 1800s and earlier justified slavery by saying that Africans were a lesser-evolved race, and that it was morally right to enslave them.

Christianity has been used as justification for some of the most horrific, violent acts in the history of the world. No one can deny that the Crusades were not violent, bloody, and horrific. What religion condones bloodshed? Even Islam, which has gained the reputation of a bloodthirsty religion, preaches peace. Hinduism preaches peace. Jesus Christ himself preached peace. Buddha preached peace.

It is that interpretation that has caused all this, not the ideas themselves. Most of Darwin's theories were scientifically correct, we can't deny that. But people have used that as justification, and it is that which we must fight against. Why blame the author for what the readers do? He did not mean for those things to happen. He did not mean for his works to be used as a justification for an amoral society. It was PEOPLE that did all that.

It is people that we must fight against, not those original ideas themselves. I agree that our society is becoming hideously amoral. Perhaps it may even degrade to the point of society in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. God was scoffed at, and science was considered the best thing in the world. There was no God, no morals any more.

We must reconcile ourselves to other theories, other ways of thinking. If we keep bickering over what is right, what is sound, or what is scientifically or politically correct, to what point will we let our world degrade to? When will we realize that we are destroying our world and our society by bickering? Soon it will be too late to erase the scars caused by this bickering.

Open-mindedness is the only way that we can solve these problems. Must it be so difficult to believe in two theories at the same time? If they are so conflicting, then don't believe in them. But don't force that belief or non-belief on others. Each person is born with the right to make their own choices, and we must allow each person to make their own choices. The use of force has never accomplished anything worth fighting for, worth dying for. Only peace has done that. Peace and love have created ideals that millions of people have given up their lives for, willingly. We must use that peace and that love, not force, not hate.