Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am not asking this question with knowledge of the answer. I know very little about either. However I once read Lucretius, an Epicurean, ‘On the Nature of Things’ and it seemed that Epicurean philosophy is very similar in mentality to Darwinian philosophy, so that that Darwin seemed just an ‘evolved’ form of Epicurean.

Paul debated with these men, as well as the stoics who I found just as entertaining.

A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. (NIV ACTS 17:18)

Is a Christian argument against evolution just the same thing (like Paul reasoning with the Epicureans?) so that there really is ‘nothing new under the Sun’, or is Darwinism something really quite different?

I should add I never have believed in Evolution, even when I was not a Christian. I have always thought it unreasonable from a scientific point of view. However, I really have not thought about it much in my life.

I can't say how I had these thoughts, from the linked Epicurean article, as it was many years ago that I read it. I was wondering if somebody knew more about this topic and can answer the question.

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Lucretius was certainly thinking along the same lines as secular science, yes, with some primitive hints of what later became evolution:

Fear holds dominion over mortality Only because, seeing in land and sky So much the cause whereof no wise they know, Men think Divinities are working there. Meantime, when once we know from nothing still Nothing can be create, we shall divine More clearly what we seek: those elements From which alone all things created are, And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.

Suppose all sprang from all things: any kind Might take its origin from any thing, No fixed seed required. Men from the sea Might rise, and from the land the scaly breed, And, fowl full fledged come bursting from the sky; The horned cattle, the herds and all the wild Would haunt with varying offspring tilth and waste; Nor would the same fruits keep their olden trees, But each might grow from any stock or limb By chance and change.

But this is just philosophy. At the time the tools to investigate and demonstrate this as a science were simply absent, which is a shame. His main trust is to investigate what is without recourse to the legends of the time - very progressive. In many ways, a shame that such thought largely stalled for a while.

Evolution is more than such broad hand-wavey gestures; it is a statement of the process and mechanism for such change, rather than randomness.

I suspect, however, that everything we are talking about is Lucretius, and not really Epicureanism.

share|improve this answer
Oooh nice quote grab! Of course we do not esteem those thoughts the same but i think you nailed the answer to the basic question. –  Mike Jul 7 '12 at 9:54
HAH! Lucretius: "fowl full fledged [might] come bursting from the sky" Marc Gravell: "At the time tools to investigate and demonstrate this as a science were simply absent, which is a shame." ...Marc, you just "made my day". –  Jas 3.1 Jul 7 '12 at 18:39
(-1) This post does not answer the question, "Is Evolution just a modern version of Epicurean philosophy?" What you have shown is that Lucretius had a vivid imagination, which Darwin also had, and that they are both materialists, but that was not the question. –  Jas 3.1 Jul 7 '12 at 18:40
@Jas3.1 the question explicitly draws on Lecretius; I also explicitly make the point tht the question is addressing the thoughts of Lecretius rather than Epicureanism. That the question is conflating the two is not my fault. If you look at comments to the other answer, the OP is specifically looking for answers relating to the text cited. –  Marc Gravell Jul 7 '12 at 18:55
@MarcGravell Fair enough. I'll remove my down-vote. –  Jas 3.1 Jul 7 '12 at 19:07

"Evolution" has a number of different meanings depending on who you ask (or which definition is convenient at the time!) But the simplest answer is no - it is not simply a modern version of Epicureanism.

When "Evolution" is used to describe a philosophy, it is generally describing the atheistic, naturalistic philosophy which holds that all creatures descended from a common ancestor, that life arose from non-life, and that all matter arose from a Big Bang (or something similar) billions of years ago, with the entire process - from "beginning" to end - being natural.

Epicureanism, on the other hand, is a system of philosophy which is basically centered around maximizing pleasure in life. You can read more about it here.

The two do share at least one thing in common: they are both materialistic (teaching that the only things which exist are material in nature; i.e. no God).

However, as a side note, you were correct in your suspicion of 'nothing new under the sun'. This passage predates both Epicurus and Darwin:

“As the thief is shamed when he is discovered, so the house of Israel is shamed; They, their kings, their princes and their priests and their prophets, who say to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ and to a stone, ‘You gave me birth.’ For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face; But in the time of their trouble they will say, ‘Arise and save us.’ But where are your gods which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you in the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities are your gods, O Judah. Why do you contend with Me? You have all transgressed against Me,” declares the Lord. -Jeremiah 2:26-29

share|improve this answer
@Jas31 - I am going to hold out for an answer from someone who has read Epicurean view of how things evolved from atoms as spelled out in the link. I recall it talking about hairy fighting men becoming gentle parents once man started to cook food! I am just to lazy right now to read it. Someone else might be interested and summarize a comparison. That they also were pleasure based does not surprise me. I hope i linked the right article. The one I read talked about how metals were found by being melted from mountains struck by lightening fires, and more cool things. –  Mike Jul 7 '12 at 6:24
@Jas31 - i also remember laughing when it was described about when we lived as 'cave man' big mosters would sometimes just eat us 'snatch us up' but the civilized days of the Epticireans were much better. Its all very interesting! After cooking food and becoming 'soft' and tender I remember they argued that families and societies formed for the greater good! I guess my ten year old memories still work a bit. If nobody else knows what i am talking about i will have to try and dig up the highlights. Cheers –  Mike Jul 7 '12 at 7:00
What the flip does evolution have to do with the Big Bang? You just made that up. –  TRiG Jul 7 '12 at 13:11
@TRiG See, case in point: you are shifting definitions and now using "evolution" to describe "change over time", or perhaps "the origin of species". This is exactly why I had to clarify in my question that when people refer to "Evolution" as a philosophy, they are generally referring to the whole naturalistic model, from "beginning" to end. If you think you can lock down the meaning of "evolution" in an indisputable way, I would love to see you try. –  Jas 3.1 Jul 7 '12 at 18:30
I don't think I've ever seen Evolution describing a philosophy, though. Certainly not in a self-identification fashion: My philosophy is evolution. If you mean naturalism, you should probably say naturalism. I agree that language is flexible, and that words can have different meanings in different contexts, but that does not make you Humpty Dumpty. –  TRiG Jul 7 '12 at 20:34

And if darwin took his theory from philosophers and the same who Paul stood up against in acts 17:18. This cannot by any means be a stronghold to Christianity since its a old battle and a defeated one at that o yea and what i want to get at is since darwin took it from philosophers its nothing more than a philosopy .evolution which is epicurianism is just a philosophy it is not scientific as the schools teach and it can by no means stand up against Christ and the power of His ressurection which was proven by many infallible proofes. And the apostles died for their testimony so it had to be true. Who dies for a lie. They were eye witnesses and saw all his miracles and Saw him after his ressurection

share|improve this answer
Though it is okay to make multiple answers, it is almost always better to make edits. Click edit below and to the left of your posts to edit them. –  fredsbend the Grinch Nov 12 at 18:54

"A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" quotes early Christian fathers such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian and many more. Under the heading of evolution there are a lot of quotes of the church fathers pretty much dissolving the opinions of the people who follow the doctrine of Epicurus, Democritus and Lucritus. I will give a quote from the early church father lactantius from a little less than 300 years after Christ (Lactantius quote many other quotes in this book from the other church fathers are earlier give or take 100 years after Christ).

“Epicurus saw in the bodies of animals the skill of a divine plan. However, that he
might carry into effect that which he had imprudently assumed before, he added another 
absurdity to agree with the former. He said that the eyes were not produced for seeing, 
nor the ears for hearing, nor the feet for walking. Instead, these members were produced 
before there were the functions of seeing, hearing, and walking. So all the uses of these 
members developed after they had already come into being.... It is evident that he who has 
lost the main point itself of the truth must always be in error. For if all things are
produced by a fortuitous meeting together of atoms, rather than by providence, why does it 
never happen by chance that those first principles meet together in such a way as to make an 
animal of such a kind that it might rather hear with its nostrils, smell with its eyes,
or see with its ears?"

Now if you understand what Lactantius is saying you would see that he is logically and skillfully dissolving this philosophy of Epicurus. This makes a lot of sense, that is, if the intelligent organs were first made by keotic chance to carry out a function of which the same organ does not carry out now(the eyes were not made for seeing) why are not things today not coming into existance by chance on those same principles or in that same sequence. And he nullified that idea with out any modern scientic apparatus just using pure logic what God gave us. And I have heard modern apoligist use the same argument to evolution totally independant to how these Church fathers disputed against Epicurianism. This leads me to a notion that I think the person who put forth the question was trying to get at, that is namely was darwin actually plagiarising Epicurus, Democritus, and Lucritus. He was a educated man and back in the 1700s, 1800s and 1900s it was considered a high honor to study the classics such as the grecian philosophers and poets in the universities of England. Darwin came from an affluent family. Surely they had the money to foster such a well rounded education. He probably learned how to read the ancient classics in Latin and gGeek too. The whole matter makes alot of sense he plajorised and added his own twist. And everybody attributes it to Darwin as though he worked it out and proved it and became new found knowledge when in all actuality it was old ancient ideas of philosophers of long who Paul disputed with himself in Acts 17:18. Many things in life go on that same sequence people assume credit for foolishness that was already in circulation many many years ago. There is nothing new under the sun and it pays to investigate and see if the idea already existed.

share|improve this answer
Please make more of an effort with your spelling and grammar. It took me a solid fifteen minutes to bash this into something readable as it looked like you might be saying something interesting. as a new user this post might also be of value. –  Reluctant_Linux_User Nov 12 at 17:37

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.