Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Sir Francis Bacon and The Rosicrucian Influences Charles Darwin Theory Of Evolution

with 27 comments

Sir Francis Bacon and The Rosicrucian Influences Charles Darwin Theory Of Evolution

This is an extract from Ian Taylor’s In the Minds of Men. We are continuing our quest to serch out Charles Darwins Natural Selection.

Francis_Bacon Rosicrucian


Sir Francis Bacon wrote his best-known work, Novum Organum, during his chancellorship under James I of England, in 1620. In the Novum he suggested some evolutionary ideas for the origin of species (Bacon 1876, 380)

But that is explosive information given the other associations with Sir Francis Bacon. He was the leader of the Rosicrucians at the time and the philosopoher king who wrote the Utopian New Atlantis which has inspired all . Many are convinced that he was the real William Shakespeare according to Manley Palmer Hall , masonry’s greatest philosopher. ( Secret Teaching of All Ages)

Now my Atheist friends what do you know about the Brothers of the Rose and Cross and their search for the elixir of Life?

Look the theory of Evolution is just another half baked Rosicrucian ideas, I mean those cats can mix religion and science, to make a potent brew.

Sir Francis Bacon is the one who reformed Freemasonry to remove theurgy from the rituals in the lower orders and give it a materialistic feel. But he was a mystic, and the Theory of evolution is not based on a science but on the “Universal Religion.”

If it is true that Sir Francis Bacon wrote about evolution then we are going to the depths of deception, sure he was a genius in many ways but he was certain of his religious beliefs.

Related To :

Shakespeare and Sir Francis Bacon

Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

May 14, 2009 at 1:22 pm

27 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. As a little dose of reality, here is what Darwin actually said. Please take the time to read it slowly and carefully so you don’t miss any of the important bits.

    1. Resources are limited
    2. More offspring are born than survive
    3. Variation within populations is natural
    4. Much of that variation is heritable

    Are you with me so far? Good. Let’s continue:

    5. Since there is variation, some variants within a population will be marginally better able to aquire limited resources to survive and reproduce under the current circumstances.
    6. If a beneficial trait is heritable, then it will increase in frequency in the next generation. Variants less able to survive and reproduce will contribute less to the next generation.

    Thus nature “selects” which characteristics flourish within a population, and which are decreased, much like how humans select which dogs or sheep or pigeons to breed to bring out certain characteristics.
    And just as chihuahas and great danes are descended from a common ancestor, so too can the traits “selected” by nature lead to change over time in a population, and divergence of lineages.

    That’s it. There is nothing mystical, or rosicrucian, or masonic, or racist about it. It is so simple even you should be able to understand it.

    Bipedal Tetrapod

    May 14, 2009 at 2:58 pm

  2. “It is so simple even you should be able to understand it.”

    One would think so, but when it comes to Dawkinswatch I doubt it. Logic…reason…facts – all mean nothing to him.

    Nobody

    May 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm

  3. Boys we are now discussing Sir Francis Bacon influences on Evolution and his mystic influences.

    Did Sir Frncis Bacon really point out Natural selection in Novum Orgum?

    dawkinswatch

    May 14, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    • Theory of evolution is not based on a science but on the “Universal Religion.”

      Can you even define (biological) evolution correctly???? I seriously doubt it.

      Dan

      May 14, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    • Did Sir Frncis Bacon really point out Natural selection in Novum Orgum?

      No, he elaborated the methods used for inductive science which Darwin used when building his theory (which is summarized above – have you read it yet?).

      And, just so you know, a person’s personal beliefs actually has no bearing on the validity of their work. Newton believed in astrology and alchemy, as well as being a very unpleasant person – does that mean we should disregard his theories?

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      May 14, 2009 at 7:34 pm

      • I don’t think DW gives a damn what Darwin actually said.

        Dan

        May 14, 2009 at 7:51 pm

  4. bipedal tetrapod,

    Hi brother, Please deal with the Rosicrucian connection.

    dawkinswatch

    May 14, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    • What connection? You’ve mentioned it, but you have explained nor demonstrated there was any such connection. No citations, no smoking gun, no explanation – just a half-brained wild accusation.

      What is there to deal with?

      Dan

      May 15, 2009 at 7:02 am

  5. What do you know about Rosicrucians? If Sir Francis Bacon is a Rosicrucian and he believes in Natural selection then Atheist is just a front for the Brothers and Cross and other Neo Platonists.

    dawkinswatch

    May 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    • I know very little about Rosicrucians, but no one but a crank would suggest that anyone prior to Malthus had conceived of anything like Natural Selection (NS). And even Malthus hadn’t conceived of NS, but his ideas on population growth are widely accepted as the inspiration for NS.

      Dan

      May 15, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    • Trying to parse your arguments is like trying to nail spit to a jellyfish.
      1. Membership in an organization does not automatically invalidate all one’s statements. In a recen tpost you claim Einstein was a theosopher. Does that invalidate the photoelectric effect?
      2. Francis Bacon, were he alive any time after the mid 19th century, would most likely believe in Natural Selection, because he essentially created the inductive reasoning methods used to develop the theory. But he wasn’t, so it is a moot point.
      3. Claiming that atheism is a “front” for anything is absurd, but claiming it is so expressly because of Bacon’s possible association with a secret society combined with his writings on the nature of science genuinely exceeds the limit on the stoopidometer.

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      May 15, 2009 at 5:56 pm

      • …genuinely exceeds the limit on the stoopidometer.

        That seems to be a theme around here…

        Dan

        May 16, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  6. […] a comment » This sis follow up to thread on the influence of Sir Francis Bacon on Charles Darwin, I have a clip from the documentary the New Atlantis: Secrets Of America’s […]

  7. Bipedal Trepapod,

    You fail to understand the poitics of Europe and the world when Francis Bacon lived. The war was hot between the english versus the Roman Catholics because of the Reformation.

    Now was the Reformation used as a cover by the Brothers of the Rose and Control to break away from papal denial for them to practise their mystery in peace?

    Sir Francis Bacon could not stand up and declare his beliefs.

    dawkinswatch

    May 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    • I understand the politics of the time. What you fail to recognize is that it is entirely irrelevant to your claims that a) Bacon discovered Natural Selection, b) Darwin had secret society motivation because he based his method of argument on the work of Bacon, and c) Atheism as a whole is “superficial” because of Bacon’s beliefs and possible membership in a secret society.

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      May 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  8. I have never claimed that their associations whith the mysteries invalidate their science but rather it shows a lack of understanding by modern day Atheist of how the world works. I.E. Atheist are superficial.

    dawkinswatch

    May 16, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    • They also happen to be scientists, in most of the cases that you’re bringing up. Are you really arrogant enough to suggest that you, an amateur at best and ignoramus at worst, know better how the world works than scientists, who spend their careers studying how the it works???

      Dan

      May 17, 2009 at 9:24 am

  9. Look Dan,

    Science is about discovery, as a social scientist I have to continually study society and changes in them.

    dawkinswatch

    May 20, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    • Okay, demonstrate a well-thought out observation of how (a) atheists are superficial, and (b) what your point is.

      For (b), it would be helpful to illustrate how an obscure secret society has to do with Darwin. If anything.

      Dan

      May 20, 2009 at 2:15 pm

  10. Heck DW, I’d settle for having you just demonstrate any argument more intelligent than “Teh Atheists ar out to get us,” (Mis-spelling in the quote intentional) and “Look, an obscure secret society – that proves the atheists are at the bottom of it!!!”

    Dan

    May 20, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  11. dan first of al,l the Rosicruacians are everywhere, I have asked you this how is it possible for Sir Francis Bacon to come up with the evolution argument, before the hero Richard Dawkins did?

    dawkinswatch

    September 16, 2009 at 11:04 am

  12. The real point that should be made here is that the naturalism found in Darwins theory of evolution is inherently pagan/pantheistic in nature. With his connection with the Rosicrucians it is absurd to use him as a prophet of Atheism. Most advances is mathematics and the sciences came from one mystery school or another (gnostic pagan). Atheism is just a new bastardized version of paganism for socialist drones. Stupid white people. 666.

    666

    December 21, 2009 at 8:07 am

  13. You said:

    “… those cats can mix religion and science, to make a potent brew.”

    The two disciplines are not mutually exclusive. 😉

    Shabd Mystic

    May 1, 2011 at 10:25 pm

  14. I see I wasted my time commenting on this blog as it is obviously out of business. I’ll be sure not waste any more time here.

    Shabd Mystic

    May 22, 2011 at 11:23 pm

  15. Charles Darwin joined the American Philosophical Society, founded originaly by Benjamin Franklyn in 1743, The philosophy of this society is closely related to early concepts of Sir Francis Bacon who was a Rosacrusian.

    Eduardo P.

    August 24, 2011 at 1:14 am

  16. God. Is a bro. *BROFIST!*

    Paul

    October 14, 2011 at 9:06 am

  17. gregory

    February 11, 2013 at 1:36 am


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: