Email Updates - Get notified each week via email of the best new documentaries      Sign Me Up!
Processing your request, Please wait....

Enjoy this Documentary? Express your views below!!

Did Darwin Kill God?

Science|03 Dec, 2012|186 Comments |
Click Stars Below to Vote!
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 2.8/5 (10 votes cast)

There are some who believe that Darwin’s theory of the evolution of religion has weakened, partly driven by the publishing phenomenon of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Conor Cunningham said that nothing could be further from the truth.

Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but also a Christian. He believes that the clash between Darwin and God has been hijacked by extremists – the fundamentalist Christians who reject evolution on the one hand, and fundamentalist atheists on the other. Cunningham attempts to undo what he believes are widespread but erroneous assumption in the debate between religion and evolution.

Travel to the Middle East, which shows that from the beginning, Christianity has warned against a literal reading of the biblical account of creation. In Britain, reveals that while the theory of evolution Darwin was well received by the Anglican and Catholic. Instead, he argues that the conflict between Darwin and God has been made by creationists in the 20th century Americans for reasons that had little to do with science and religion and everything to do with politics and morality.

Finally, he comes face to face with some of the most eminent evolutionary biologists, geneticists and philosophers of our time to examine whether recent advances in the theory of evolution, in fact, kill God.

Did Darwin Kill God?, 2.8 out of 5 based on 10 ratings
Subscribe via RSSPlease subscribe to our RSS feed to have new doc's delivered straight to your reader.
This Video is Tagged With:

, , , , ,



  1. NewnotesJR says:

    The problem with Darwinist Theory is that so much of it is based on speculations and assumptions because virtually none of it can actually be seen to literally be happening. Even in the microbial world where changes occur several thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of times more than our macro world we don’t actually witness the levels of change that would be necessary for Darwinist Theory to be true.

    • CLeach says:

      well at first it was based on logical speculation, looking at the traits of animals and comparing them, but today, with the advent of genetic identification, we are seeing how accurate our initial estimates where ( which we did a pretty good job on classifying with some revisions needed) by looking at the building blocks of the organism we can see just who evolved from whom and what traits where passed on. 2nd point is simply false, we have long noticed how quickly microorganisms evolve, that’s why colds are so infectious, they keep evolving and adapting.

  2. AgApE010 says:

    @TheMathLife It’s not mysterious. The point in Romans 5 is that all man is under condemnation before God. It doesn’t require a literal Adam in order to be true.There is one geneaology with Adam that I’m aware of, and that’s Luke’s. For all intents and purposes, perhaps he did consider Adam a literal individual (debatable). But so what? God’s purpose was not to teach his messengers biology. Thus,Fundies totally miss the point of Scripture when they pick at little details looking for doctrine.

  3. TheMathLife says:

    @AgApE010 What is this mysterious theological point? It seems the whole doctrine of original sin rests on this literal Adam. And what of the geneologies? Did it go from literal human beings to listing a mesopotamian fairy tale all of a sudden? It’s fine if you just want to wave your hands at these concerns and say ‘oh it’s allegorical’, but you won’t fool anyone who isn’t already part of the faith.

  4. AgApE010 says:

    @TheMathLife Paul’s point about Adam is a theological one. It doesn’t necessitate Adam being a literal dust-man from 4000 BC in order for Paul’s point to work.Besides, in Galatians Paul himself used the Sarah/Hagar story as an allegory. Similarly, the DSS show us various interpretation methods in the days of the apostles (midrash, pesher, etc). Thus we need to see the Bible through their eyes and their culture. This is especially true of Genesis.

  5. BoStevoD says:

    @BoStevoD This ironically puts God completely out of touch with Reason. No argument can be made against this Neo-Kantian apparition wearing the name of Logos. If this God beyond experience, beyond empiricism, is to be taken seriously, it would be as a pagan God, not the Christian God of logic, of the one way to truth, but a god among many gods, a sort of New Agey God that means whatever you want it to mean. Drop the Kant. Choose Hegel instead.

  6. BoStevoD says:

    As the summation given by SC Morris exemplifies, the project at hand here is a synthesis of religious meaning and scientific truth safely maintaining the traditional institutions of power without transgressing scientific empiricism. In order to maintain an image of God in this symbolic cosmos one is obliged to witness God’s presence not in the intervention into the particular, but by the universal the particular expresses (songs of birds and men). Cont,,,

  7. TheMathLife says:

    8:00-9:00 Ahhh so apparently the early church didn’t take Genesis literally… except when Paul mentions Adam as literal person (Romans Ch 5:12-14). Or when the Gospel writers include Adam in the family tree of Jesus. Whoops!

  8. TheMathLife says:

    Philo realized that passages in the Bible contradicted each other. Instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that this is a flawed work of man with no divine inspiration, he came up with an absurd methodology for interpreting the bible!

  9. Loy365 says:

    @Muthsera80 that’s a bit deep !! would i not be an Irish patriot, as part of the Republic Of Ireland.. last time i checked we were sovereign but that could change with the major players in the EU pushing for control over our countries budget’s, i suppose at leasts we (the Irish) get to vote in a referendum, citizens in other countries don’t even have that right..

  10. Muthsera80 says:

    @Loy365 Last I checked, Ireland was still a sovereign nation. Although you live on the European continent and you are part of the EU. You can’t by definition be an European Patriot. So long as Ireland is a sovereign nation. Granted. You might be an European Unionist instead of an imperialist. Even an European Nationalist. Neither require a Sovereign nation. Just a desire for one. But you cannot be a patriot by definition so long there is not a sovereign nation called Europe.

  11. weseeinpart says:

    36:01 In my view It doesn’t seem to logically follow that because someone argues that a literal Genesis history is scientifically defensible, they are therefore calling upon people to worship science (and thus no longer worship God).

  12. @SAEuropeanPatriot I’m pretty sure you don’t want me telling you about what I know about paranormal phenomena, it would not conform to the rather more kind tone I have had thus far. Simply put, there are no paranormal phenomena. Documentation through randomized double blind trials is nonexistant.Also, materialism does in no way lead to those things. For example my materialism still states that human happiness is a goal, and thanks to science, I know how to make people happy.

  13. @TheAtheologian I never said we would never know but currently we do not know. Even if it is true I can not see a materialistic society being moral. Materialism encourages extreme capitalism, individualism and selfishness. I personally think it is good to keep religion around in order to keep people under control. I think materialism is a more reasonable theory then lets say Christianity. How do you explain the occult and paranormal. Eg. ghosts and Electronic Voice Phenomenon.

  14. @SAEuropeanPatriot Your first sentence says it all, it is an argument from gaps. You are assuming that because we do not know now we will never know. Every single event that has been scientifically scrutinized has been demonstrated in the regular materialistic scientific attempts.Also, cryptoscience, thanks to google, is the study of the occult? Well, where science falls short is not human interactions, it is heavy neuroscience and deep theoretical physics, and the sort.

  15. @RoelGeurtsen Well there is a tiny overlap here, as the philosophical argument leads to a creator (something I will accept for the sake of argument) whereas to create something only energy is needed, not direction, in much the same way as a random assortment of logs by the sea side is complex and created, but by the energy of tides.To be fair, I know of the argument you need, namely the argument from the existance of morals, but I find this argument does not need the first deistic step.

  16. RoelGeurtsen says:

    @TheAtheologian I thought we were philosophying here, In quite the same way, you cannot establish that this planet is nonunique or that we humans are nothing special inspite of all the special trades you too recognize. i’m not any good in hard science i can only tell you what i think! and even then i’m not sure all of the time!

  17. @TheAtheologian People do not know enough to come up with conclusions such as materialistic atheism. Agnosticism as more reasonable. Materialistic atheism has holes in it. It ignores crypto-science. I used to be an agnostic/atheist but I was pretty sure that there was an afterlife/reincarnation but I did not rule out that after we die we cease to exist. I looked into the occult and paranormal. There are many things mainstream science can’t explain and crypto-science can explain.

  18. @RoelGeurtsen Being nonsentient, or cruel is not a reason for it not to exist. And quite frankly your belief is even less of an argument.And again, our sentience is not a precursor for it’s sentience, that requires an entirely different argument. I think it is demonstrably clear that Laplace was right[I have no need of that hypothesis] and so all we need is the original spark. That spark is not exclusively sentient, it only needs energy, not thoughts.

  19. RoelGeurtsen says:

    @TheAtheologian It cares because, I believe He cares. But any cosmological argument can be answered with an unpersonal God/Energy. It will deny however all naturalistic views of origine. But is it even plausible to consider that the creator of all things in its appearant might lacks what we have.Is it not far more logical to see it as the source of all purpose. I think it would be cruel to make us(or let us evolve) and just not care. The 4th way of Thomas Aquino touches on that. Perfect is Good!

  20. @SAEuropeanPatriot I’m not sure if I should be offended you had to compare the dogmatism (for which I think there is none) of “materialistic atheism”, aka. The base assumption of the scientific method, to major religions for it to be favourable, or pleased that we agree in general.Also, I’d like to see religion reformed so that I don’t have to hear people going to faith healing contra scientifically tested medicine, and so on.

Leave a Comment