Do You Respect Charles Darwin's Work?

[Orthodox Andrew]

 

[lovegod_will]

The man recanted his theories upon his death bed??!!?

 

[notto]

The man recanted his theories upon his death bed??!!?

No he didn't. You have been misinformed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp
"It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people."

 

[DynamicDrummer]

No he didn't. You have been misinformed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp
"It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people."

I'd have to agree. I think the whole thing about him repenting on his death bed is perhaps a rumor. But I have a feeling that I'll probably be seeing him walking the streets of gold. But then again...maybe I won't. All I know is the only degree he ever got was in Theology.

 

[PaladinValer]

The man recanted his theories upon his death bed??!!?

Urban Legend Alert!

 

[mark kennedy]

I admire his writing style and his ability to communicate effectivly. I do not consider him a scientist though or his work scientific in its essense. He wrote wonderfull prose as do all good myth makers. The pagan mystics of Greece and Rome would have loved him.

 

[notto]

I admire his writing style and his ability to communicate effectivly. I do not consider him a scientist though or his work scientific in its essense. He wrote wonderfull prose as do all good myth makers. The pagan mystics of Greece and Rome would have loved him.

I wasn't aware that the pagan mystics peppered their work with collected data, illustrations, and a list of ways to falsify their work. On the other hand, I know plenty of scientists who have.

 

[PaladinValer]

I wasn't aware that the pagan mystics peppered their work with collected data, illustrations, and a list of ways to falsify their work. On the other hand, I know plenty of scientists who have.

Some people don't understand the difference between science and religion, that's why.

 

[lovegod_will]

Apoligies,i was pondering and testing the waters, perhaps it is an urban legend
hence the '!?' in my post!

GB

 

[artybloke]

All I know is the only degree he ever got was in Theology.

And? Many of the great scientists of the 18th & 19th century were (Linneaus, for instance) were actually priests or had degrees in other subjects. Even the man who first thought up the Big Bang theory was a monk.

The question is: does his scientific method stand up to scrutiny and do his results actually accord with reality or do they not. The answer is yes to both questions.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The man recanted his theories upon his death bed??!!?

This is a falsehood created by those who are willing to use any means to try to discredit Darwin's theories. Darwin never recanted his theories.

 

[mark kennedy]

I wasn't aware that the pagan mystics peppered their work with collected data, illustrations, and a list of ways to falsify their work. On the other hand, I know plenty of scientists who have.

Apparently you are unaware of astrology, there was actually a scientist who used it to diagnose illness. His name was Galileo. There was also a Lucasian professor who used alchemy to try to turn lead into gold. His name was Sir Isacc Newton. There is also a naturalist who claimed a mythical morphology of creature transposing from a single common ancestor (unicellular in fact). This transposition of unicellular creatures was imagined to account for the multifaceted complexity of higher taxa, very much apart from empirical observation or demonstration. His name was Charles Darwin.

You weren't aware that a scientist is a secular cleric? How unfortunate.

 

[PaladinValer]

Apparently you are unaware of astrology, there was actually a scientist who used it to diagnose illness. His name was Galileo. There was also a Lucasian professor who used alchemy to try to turn lead into gold. His name was Sir Isacc Newton. There is also a naturalist who claimed a mythical morphology of creature transposing from a single common ancestor (unicellular in fact). This transposition of unicellular creatures was imagined to account for the multifaceted complexity of higher taxa, very much apart from empirical observation or demonstration. His name was Charles Darwin.

You weren't aware that a scientist is a secular cleric? How unfortunate.

You didn't realize that folklore doesn't make a cleric? How unfortunate.

 

[billwald]

He did good work with the information he had at hand.

 

[notto]

Apparently you are unaware of astrology, there was actually a scientist who used it to diagnose illness. His name was Galileo. There was also a Lucasian professor who used alchemy to try to turn lead into gold. His name was Sir Isacc Newton. There is also a naturalist who claimed a mythical morphology of creature transposing from a single common ancestor (unicellular in fact). This transposition of unicellular creatures was imagined to account for the multifaceted complexity of higher taxa, very much apart from empirical observation or demonstration. His name was Charles Darwin.

You weren't aware that a scientist is a secular cleric? How unfortunate.

You seem to be comparing falsified ideas with the unfalsified ideas and theories of Charles Darwin.

Astrology to diagnose illness didn't work.
Lead to gold didn't work
Darwins general work remains unfalsified and most of his predictions have come true and the physical processes used to describe the theory of evolution have been observed.

Any current peer reviewed research on Alchemy or Astrology? Didn't think so.

 

[mark kennedy]

You seem to be comparing falsified ideas with the unfalsified ideas and theories of Charles Darwin.

Astrology to diagnose illness didn't work.
Lead to gold didn't work
Darwins general work remains unfalsified and most of his predictions have come true and the physical processes used to describe the theory of evolution have been observed.

Any current peer reviewed research on Alchemy or Astrology? Didn't think so.

I think you have that backwards, Darwin's gradualism has never been demonstrated, in fact, all higher taxa are static and none of the physical processes have ever been observed or demonstrated. None of the mythic transmutations happen in nature, ever, let alone allways.

So what if astrology can't diagnose a disease or lead does not become gold? Unicellular organisms never become anything other then unicellular organisms but scientists think that they do, same thing.

 

[Bushido216]

A unicellular organism could only evolve into a non-unicellular organism so long as a niche remained open for it. Seeing as the job market has steadily declined over the last three billion years the likelihood of a niche opening up is nil.

Gradualism occurs all the time, especially after Gould's punctuated equilibrium. However, as climates tend to stay statis over long periods of time the likelihood of coming across a mutation that will catapult a population into a beneficial direction gets smaller and smaller as the niches slowly fill.

 

[ElElohe]

Respect the man: I have no reason not to.

Respect his conclusions: No.

 

[L'Anatra]

...in fact, all higher taxa are static and none of the physical processes have ever been observed or demonstrated. None of the mythic transmutations happen in nature, ever, let alone allways...

This is incorrect and you know it... it's silly how many times we've been through this before. Go read or something. You know, rather than spout out falsehoods.

 

[hesalive]

Darwin’s theory is a foray into naturalism. All attempts to explain the supernatural in naturalistic terms are the same. There are only two options in the question of origins: one of happenstance, that bases its interpretation of human perceptions in the bounded limits of mans understanding and two, creation, that accepts the logical premise of intelligent design and the implications that ensue. Darwin did not allow for intelligent design, therefore his conclusions are illogical as they preclude half of the probability.