Darwinism??

[Cecilia]

I'm not sure if that fits in here or not but my ex-boyfriend claimed he is now a believer in Darwinism. I'm not quite sure what that is, can anyone elaborate? Thanks!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Darwinism is (more or less) the belief that species differentiated over time from one common ancestor due to the pressures of natural selection.

I'm sure someone will give a better and more complete answer, but this should suffice for now.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 07:52 PM Cecilia said this in Post #1

I'm not sure if that fits in here or not but my ex-boyfriend claimed he is now a believer in Darwinism. I'm not quite sure what that is, can anyone elaborate? Thanks!

Get some material (books and such) on Darwins life and read them.
Get stuff both pro and con.

 

[Arikay]

I believe darwinism is the base idea that is now contained in the theory of evolution. Some info about evolution and darwin can be found here:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
(you can click through to more information about darwin or a number of things discussed on the page)

 

[Cantuar]

Is he also a believer in God?

 

[euphoric]

5th April 2003 at 08:30 AM Cantuar said this in Post #5

Is he also a believer in God?

No, but he's considering becoming a believer in gravity, perhaps in a moment of clarity he will also become a believer in meteorology, physics, chemistry and geology.  But let us not get our hopes up just yet, let us simply revel in his decision to accept the last hundred and fifty years of advancement in the biological sciences. 

-brett

 

[JohnR7]

4th April 2003 at 07:52 PM Cecilia said this in Post #1 I'm not sure if that fits in here or not but my ex-boyfriend claimed he is now a believer in Darwinism. I'm not quite sure what that is, can anyone elaborate? Thanks!

What he must mean is that he believes in neo darwinism. Sense darwinism has been proven to be wrong. Darwin had theory on race, which has been proven to be false. Also he had theorys on things like survival of the fittest, natural selection and evolution.

All these theorys were around before dawin, but he wrote about them and caused them to become more well known and more infamous. Often there is a split or a division between those who believe darwins theorys and those who follow the Bible.

Darwin started off as a student of natural theology, but then he defected and joined the other side. Without even knowing it, he became a father of sorts and lead 2/3 of science astray.

At the time he wondered if he would even be remembered after he died, but his books had international readership and he believed that was a indication that maybe his work may last a while after his death. Toward his death, when he saw how things were beginning to develop, it was reported that he had some regrets for presenting his theorys the way he did. He may have presented them in a different way if he had known that things were going to go the way that they did.

 

[JohnR7]

5th April 2003 at 04:45 AM euphoric said this in Post #6

No, but he's considering becoming a believer in gravity,
-brett

Could you show me gravity, so I could be a believer also?

 

[Aceldama]

5th April 2003 at 01:52 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #8



Could you show me gravity, so I could be a believer also?

They can show you MICRO-gravity, but MACRO-gravity is a big fat lie.

 

[Nathan Poe]

5th April 2003 at 08:50 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #7



What he must mean is that he believes in neo darwinism. Sense darwinism has been proven to be wrong. Darwin had theory on race, which has been proven to be false. Also he had theorys on things like survival of the fittest, natural selection and evolution.

Darwin has a few theories which were mistaken. Darwin had many more which have not been proven wrong.

Johnny, when you speak like this, people are going to assume you've studied this stuff, when you yourself have admitted you haven't

All these theorys were around before dawin, but he wrote about them and caused them to become more well known and more infamous. Often there is a split or a division between those who believe darwins theorys and those who follow the Bible.

Darwin caused them to become more well known and famous by illustrating a mechanism by which it could have happened: Natural Selection. Often there is a split between those who follow Darwin's theories and those who follow a rigid, word-for-word, literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis.

There are no conflicts between Darwinian theory and the rest of the Bible. Why are you trying to confuse the poor girl?

Darwin started off as a student of natural theology, but then he defected and joined the other side. Without even knowing it, he became a father of sorts and lead 2/3 of science astray.

What do you mean, "the other side?" Are you trying to start a holy war or something?

You mean he led about 99% of science out of religious bias.

At the time he wondered if he would even be remembered after he died, but his books had international readership and he believed that was a indication that maybe his work may last a while after his death. Toward his death, when he saw how things were beginning to develop, it was reported that he had some regrets for presenting his theorys the way he did. He may have presented them in a different way if he had known that things were going to go the way that they did.

At last, a glimmer of fact. Darwin was concerned about the effect his theories would have on the deeply religious population. He was quoted as saying, "It was like confessing to a murder." Darwin knew his ideas would cause controversy, and that saddened him, but that's no reason to supress what he believed to be the observed truth.

Would you put a lid on the truth if it disagreed with what you believed in?

 

[PhantomLlama]

5th April 2003 at 01:50 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #7



Often there is a split or a division between those who believe darwins theorys and those who follow the Bible.

This is misleading. Such a split is rare. The vast majority of those who follow the bible also accept evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

4th April 2003 at 07:52 PM Cecilia said this in Post #1

I'm not sure if that fits in here or not but my ex-boyfriend claimed he is now a believer in Darwinism. I'm not quite sure what that is, can anyone elaborate? Thanks!

I'm not quite sure what your boyfriend is claiming.  If your boyfriend is talking about the scientific theory, the term he should have used is "accept" and not "believe".  Darwinism itself comes in two parts:

1. All species are descended from common ancestors via "descent with modification".

2. The process that gives the designs in plants and animals is natural selection.

Most Christians are also Darwinists.

 

[lucaspa]

5th April 2003 at 08:50 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #7

What he must mean is that he believes in neo darwinism. Sense darwinism has been proven to be wrong. 

John, you keep repeating this false witness. Neo-darwinism isn't a falsification of Darwinism, but rather a confirmation of it by showing that Mendelian inheritance supports natural selection.

Darwin had theory on race, which has been proven to be false.

And what theory was this?  Please be specific.  I can't find that Darwin had any theory on "race".  Rather, he used "race" the same way we today use "population" and his theory that populations become new species has been amply confirmed.

 Also he had theorys on things like survival of the fittest, natural selection and evolution.

"Survival of the fittest" was Spencer's soundbite version of natural selection.  Evolution and natural selection have been confirmed way past the point where it is perverse not to accept them as (provisionally) true.

All these theorys were around before dawin, but he wrote about them and caused them to become more well known and more infamous.

Tranformation of one species to another was around before Darwin, but not natural selection.  It was the mechanism of natural selection that convinced everyone that transformation of species had occurred.

Often there is a split or a division between those who believe darwins theorys and those who follow the Bible.

Very seldom is there that split.

Darwin started off as a student of natural theology, but then he defected and joined the other side. Without even knowing it, he became a father of sorts and lead 2/3 of science astray.

Sorry, John, but Origin is firmly within natural theology.

Toward his death, when he saw how things were beginning to develop, it was reported that he had some regrets for presenting his theorys the way he did.

John, you have been told several times that this is false witness. Even AiG acknowledges that the tale is a fabrication.

Now, you are supposedly a student of theology.  Is there a difference in guilt between those who commit false witness and those who knowingly repeat false witness?