I trust you all knew that Darwin never existed. Though this is little known
it becomes very clear indeed for a careful study of his alleged life. A good
starting point is his supposed Autobiography which was only published in
its supposed complete version in 1959 some 77 years after his supposed
death.
There a several parts of this "Autobiography" which are simply false and
contradicted by manuscript notes found in Cambridge Univ Library which are
reckoned to be by Darwin.
In his Autobiography Darwin describes the visit he made to Wales in 1831.
There two pionts where the Autobiography is proven to be wrong. First he
claimed to have spent many hours in Cwm Idwal with Adam Sedgwick looking for
fossils. But the notes of D and S shew that if they went there they went on
different days. Secondly D claimed to have walked from Capel Curig to
Barmouth in a straight line using a compass. That route would be totally
exhausting and if one looks at D's notes for this route he went in a zig-zag
route.
D returned to Wales in 1842 to look for glaciation and wrote that "it was
the last time I was ever strong enough to climb mountains." However his mss
notes show that he didnt climb one mountain and never walked more than 3-4
miles - a feeble effort for a 33 year old.
As for Darwin's so-called notes they cannot be tied in to the places
alleged. At Llanberis he speaks of a steep cliff to the NE, it is a gentle
slope. In Cwm Idwal he descibes an enourmous boulder and 4 lateral moraines
on the West side of the lake - there are none. At Bwlch Drws Ardudwy he
describes a mountain NE of the the col - there isnt one. I can give many
examples.
Further the so-called works of Darwin are clearly derivative from previous
ideas. His geology on the Beagle voyage has many echoes of Lyell's
Princilpes of Geology and thus applying the rules some use for NT criticism
could not be written by Darwin. In the Origin of Species and other works
there are many unacknowledged references to earlier writers so cannot be by
Darwin.
I put all these arguments to the Darwin Seminar which met last week in
Shrewsbury and we all voted that most of Darwin's works are not authentic
and that he probably did not exist. We also concluded that there was more
probability that Jesus actually lived
Michael Roberts
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Cc: "American Scientific Affiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: historicity of Christ
> Hi Charles
>
> This is a tragic conclusion for your friend to draw and a source of grief
for you (and for me also, I too have had friends who have followed this
road).
>
> I must say though that I am bemused by a claim for the non-historcity of
Jesus. I am understand some rejecting His teachings, or querying aspects of
the gospels, given the limited extra-Biblical information we have. But to
reject entirely His historicity? This seems to be a case of willfully
choosing to ignore facts. Jesus is spoken of in Josephus, Tactitus and the
rabbinical literature, and there is obscene graffiti about people
worshipping a crucified God in Pompeii. This is the will to believe in the
face of evidence that matches YEC, geocentricism, or moon landing denial.
>
> Similarly, statements that Early Christianity is rooted in platonic or
pagan ideas are so bizarre it is hard to know where to begin. The
Jewishness of Jesus is well established and 1st century Judaism was probably
the least likely culture on earth for belief in virgin birth or the
incarnation to arise.
>
> This is not my field, but I would suggest that reading the original
sources (such as Josephus) and any one of a slew of books on first century
Judaism. I don't know how well he is regarded these days, but I have always
found Edershem helpful (although difficult to read). So I would not
recommend him for starters.
>
> However seeing the basic premise of any denial of the historicity of Jesus
is to deny the validity of the basic sources (especially the gospels), it is
hard to know where to begin. Look at the holocaust deniers.
>
> You have my prayers.
>
> Jon
>
> Charles Carrigan wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > This is probably not the most appropriate forum for this question, but I
can't think of a better place. So here goes......
> >
> > A very good friend of mine has recently rejected his Christian faith.
He has done this, so he says (and I have no reason to doubt him), because
after researching the historicity of Christ and the gospels and Paul, he can
no longer believe that the person of Jesus Christ as proclaimed by
traditional Christianity was an historical figure. Instead, he now believes
that Christianity has its roots in pagan and mythical cultures, combined
with neo-Platonism and Judaism of the time. I'm not an apologist, nor am I
a scholar of biblical literature or history or whatever else that might be
appropriate. He has given me a laundry list of literature on the subject,
which I have neither the time nor the energy to pursue. (He has mentioned
writings by Robert M. Price, Charles Templeton, and many others). So I'm
looking for someone who has seriously researched these issues and can
perhaps provide some information for me to pass along.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > C
> >
> >
****************************************************************************
*****************
> > Charles W. Carrigan
> > Univ. of Michigan - Department of Geological Sciences
> > 2534 C.C. Little Bldg.
> > 425 E. University Ave.
> > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063
> > cwcarrig@umich.edu
> > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cwcarrig/
> >
> > "The point of having an open mind, like an open mouth,
> > is to close it on something solid."
> > -G.K. Chesterton
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 12 2001 - 02:26:11 EDT