The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Babbage was a creationist (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Babbage was a creationist (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CA114.4:

Charles Babbage (1792-1871), a pioneer in the field which became computer science, was a creationist.

Source: Morris, Henry M. 1982. Bible-believing scientists of the past. Impact 103 (Jan.)

CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. Babbage was a theistic evolutionist; indeed, he was one of the first to promote theistic evolution. He believed in a god who created "one general and comprehensive law, from which every visible form, both in the organic and inorganic world flows" (Babbage 1838, 50).

Such a god, he thought, deserves more credit and glory than a god who intervenes in the course of creation. He cited with approval a letter in which Sir John Herschel proposes that the origination of new species "would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process" (Babbage 1838, 227).

Babbage also recognized and accepted that geological evidence indicates an old earth.

In truth, the mass of evidence which combines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself, is so irresistible, and so unshaken by any opposing facts, that none but those who are alike incapable of observing the facts, and of appreciating the reasoning, can for a moment conceive the present state of its surface to have been the result of only six thousand years of existence (Babbage 1838, 67-68).

Talk.Origins' link is dead, and as a result, none of what Talk.Origins has claimed here can be verified.

2. Babbage recognized the priority of evidence over revelation (Babbage 1838, v-vii). In this, he was in direct opposition to today's creationists.

Today's creationists also recognize the priority of evidence of revelation, contrary to Talk.Origins claims. Talk.Origins implies that creationists simply want to promote creationism and are not interested in the truth. This implication is dead wrong.

3. The general arguments against authority apply. The validity of evolution is based on evidence, not on what Babbage or anyone else says, and Babbage did most of his work before Origin of Species was published.

So how does this refute the claim that Babbage was a creationist? Also, it's irrelevant whether Babbage did most (or all) of his work before or after Origin of Species was published as evolution was also around before Origin of Species was published. Also, the validity of evolution is not based on evidence. See our link responding to Talk.Origins' arguments against authority claim for more information.