Do You Respect Charles Darwin's Work?

[lovegod_will]

Darwin's salvation cannot really be questioned by us, if he believed in God the father and that Jesus died on the cross and rose again to save him from his sins, than i guess he is in heaven. But his theories have caused many people to doubt Christainty and doubt God and the Bible. I Know lots of you will claim that it is literalists who cause people to fall away and not to be converted. But in my experience it is Evoloution and scienctific theory that cause people to doubt faith or reject faith, its the science that causes doubt and allows rejection, if these theories weren't presented as fact then there wouldn't be the dissaloution many of you talk about, its science that decives people to question Biblical truth or Biblical perspective, i think that perhpas it says more about science that it causes these things than anything about literlists deconverting people.

 

[Bushido216]

So, what you're saying is that sound science causes people to doubt God.

Is that science's fault? Or the Christians?

 

[buddy1]

Darwin's explanation that is written--- origins of the species is actually not his work according to a book written by Arnold C. Brackman--- A delicate arrangement.

conspiring to take prioty and credit from Alfred Russel Wallace the actual person that went on the infamous trek and putting the theory of natural selection on paper together
Charles Darwin spent 20 yrs trying to get an explanation pertaining to the idea of "survival of the fittest"........ book is pretty interesting to say the least and it exposes Darwin to be a liar and a thief.

 

[Bushido216]

Sigh. Natural selection was a fairly house-hold idea in Darwin's day. What he did with it is concieve of descent with modification. He did so far before anyone else did, but someone else published a small paragraph on it along with a far larger work, so Darwin had to curtail his monolith of a book and cut it down to the Origin.

Oh, hi Ark Guy.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Darwin's explanation that is written--- origins of the species is actually not his work according to a book written by Arnold C. Brackman--- A delicate arrangement.

conspiring to take prioty and credit from Alfred Russel Wallace the actual person that went on the infamous trek and putting the theory of natural selection on paper together
Charles Darwin spent 20 yrs trying to get an explanation pertaining to the idea of "survival of the fittest"........ book is pretty interesting to say the least and it exposes Darwin to be a liar and a thief.

IIRC, Darwin's notes show that he was working on natural selection long before Wallace published. Science can come up with things independently. Newton and Leibinz both invented calculus without each others' help.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Darwin didn't even create the concept of evolution, which was a theory before he wrote anything. He simply provided a mechanism, natural selection. Darwin is neither the beginning of evolution, nor the end, and it is absurd that certain people take him as both. That being said he was a remarkably dedicated scientist, who did extensive research to support his conclusions.

Oh and Darwin tried to give Wallace credit for the idea. Wallace refused the credit after seeing how much research Darwin had done.

 

[EbonNelumbo]

Okay, so I voted that Charles Darwin, was indeed an incredibly gifted scientist. Many people are gifted beyond our knowledge yet still make huge errors. I believe that Charles Darwin assumed he had made an astronomical discovery and many people who think that way, will put forth suggestion as fact before really knowing the truth, which in this case, was the Truth.
As the Phoenix said, Darwin only created a mechanism. Going off that, I will say that Christ too has a mechanism, it can be found in Genesis.

Day1) Teh heavens and teh earth, and light
Day2) The firmament, or atmosphere
Day3) The seas, dry land, grass, herbs and fruit trees
Day4) The stars, the sun and then moon
Day5) The fish and the birds
Day6) Living creatures:cattle, creeping things (reptiles) beasts and man.


There is scientific evidence for the Flood as well. There are marine fossils on the top of mountains on every continent. Mount Everest has marine fossils at its peak. The one thing never found on these fossils are legs. Whale fossils have been found at over 400 ft above sea level north of Lake Ontario, more than 500 ft above sea level in Vermont, and 600 ft in Montreal. In the foothills of teh Himilayas, 3000 ft above sea level, fossils of elephants, pigs, apes, and oxen were found. Whale fossils were also found in teh Andes mountains in South America.

The above has a bibilical explanation: The Genesis Flood
as well as an evolutionist theory: The continents sank underneath teh oceans and came back up.

There were 3 witnesses to this event of the flood:Noah, his family, and God.
There were no witnesses of the continents sinking.

Thus I believe that while Darwin was an incredible scientist, his theory is highly disprovalble.

 

[ThePhoenix]

You forget a witness in both categories: the earth itself. What does it have to say? The fossils on the top of mountains are mostly marine, and therefore cannot be accurately be carbon dated (and are in most cases too old to have any C-14 anyway). However layer dating shows that they date back millions of years. This is inconsistant with the flood. The formation of many geological formations is also incompatible with the flood. The flood hypothesis is falsified by many things unrelated to evolution.

 

[CPman2004]

He was an scientiest and I respect his works. Althought I disagree with his idea of Macroevolution. However, that isn't his total life's work. He was one of the first scientiest to scientificly prove that carnivorous plants are indeed carnivorous. He did a large study of them and oppsesed over the sundew. He wrote one of the first books on CPs, Insectivorous Plants(due to current studies the insectivorous has been droped and changed to carnivorous). He did many studies and experiments on the sundew. Through those experiments he proved they were capable to lure, capture, and digest their prey. In refrence to the sundew he said that he cared more about sundews then the origin of all the species of life on earth. He likened them to animals in diguise, and were more sensitive to taste and touch then any animal species he had studied. He aslo said that the venus flytrap is, "one of the most wonderful plant in the world." He comfirmed many genus of plants as true carnivorosu plants. Without his work with CPs we wouldn't know that they are truely carnivorous nor have an idea how the traping of prey worked. I hope to read his book about CPs. So he may have gotten the idea of macroevolution wrong, but his work on CPs is foundational.

 

[artybloke]

Personally, I think that Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species was his greatest work. I think he's a giant among scientists; much more of a giant than the pygmies who think they can throw rocks at him when they don't even understand the theory. Or the lieing liars of the so-called "christian science" movement, who can't even tell the difference between truth and lies.

 

[Talmid HaYarok]

As an Ecologist by training I have a ton of respect for Charles Darwin's work. Both in Natural Selection and Botany. His work in Natural Selection being so controversial that it eclipsed his great contributions to Botany as well.

I feel very sorry for hiim as well. He was persecuted by many people who do not have the love of the Messiah in them though they claim his name. No wonder he waited years until he felt compelled to publish by friends who wanted him to receive credit for inventing his theories.

Yet, for all that I am not a neo-darwinist of any sort.

 

[revelation101]

Darwin did not creat the theory of evolution. He only stated survival of the fittest. Evolution was not created until many years later.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Darwin wrote a lot more than Origin of the Species and Descent of Man. His colleagues considered him the foremost scientist of the day. He had at least 5 species named for him, and before he wrote Origin.

Here is a list of his writings: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin2/texts.html The following are books Darwin published before Origin. Please point to "mythic prose" in these books.
-Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.' Edited and superintended by Charles Darwin.
-Part I. Fossil Mammalia, by Richard Owen. With a Geological Introduction, by Charles Darwin. London, 1840.
-Part II. Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse. With a notice of their habits and ranges, by Charles Darwin. London, 1839.

Darwin, Charles, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the First Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle.' London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1842.

Darwin, Charles, Geological observations on Coral Reefs, Volcanic Islands, and on South America: being the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, under the Command of Capt. FitzRoy, during the Years 1832-36. London, Melbourne & Toronto, Ward Lock & Co., 1910. [first published London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1842-6].
[-Coral Reefs - Volcanic Islands - Geological Observations on South America-]

Darwin, Charles, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle' round the world, under the command of Captain Fitz-Roy, R.N. 2nd edition, corrected, with additions. London, 1845. 11th edn London, John Murray, 1913.

Darwin, Charles, A Monograph of the Fossil Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain. London, Palaeontographical Society, 1851.
Darwin, Charles, A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. London, Ray Society, 1851.

Darwin, Charles, A Monograph on the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain. London, Palaeontographical Society, 1854.

Darwin, Charles, A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc. London, Ray Society, 1854.

 

[lucaspa]

Darwin did not creat the theory of evolution. He only stated survival of the fittest. Evolution was not created until many years later.

Darwin established two things:
1. Common ancestry. Which is evolution. That is, Darwin established descent with modification.

2. The mechanism for the designs in plants and animals and the primary means of the "modification" -- natural selection.

BTW, "survival of the fittest" is only the soundbite version of natural selection. Like all soundbites, it is inaccurate.

 

[lucaspa]

But his theories have caused many people to doubt Christainty and doubt God and the Bible. I Know lots of you will claim that it is literalists who cause people to fall away and not to be converted. But in my experience it is Evoloution and scienctific theory that cause people to doubt faith or reject faith, its the science that causes doubt and allows rejection, if these theories weren't presented as fact then there wouldn't be the dissaloution many of you talk about, its science that decives people to question Biblical truth or Biblical perspective, i think that perhpas it says more about science that it causes these things than anything about literlists deconverting people.

I submit that people would not have a problem with evolution by natural selection if literalists did not make the mistake of advocating god-of-the-gaps and atheism! Literalists, in one of the major ironies of all time, accept the basic statement of faith of atheism as true! Literalists say that, because Darwin found a "natural" cause for the origin of species, that God is not involved. This supposes that "natural" = without God. But that is the basic statement of faith of atheism! It's not science!

Again, in a major irony, Darwin realized this. In the Fontispiece of Origin he put 3 quotes. All of them reject god-of-the-gaps used by literalist creationists. If Christian Biblical literalists would have listened to their own theologians, they would not have had problems.

Please read the quotes carefully:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

 

[Wayfarer]

I have great respect for it, and I have read "The Origin of Species" cover to cover.


(I am also an evolutionist =D )

With love,
James

 

[Doc Dilly]

Nope, I don't respect his work. And after some of the things he wrote about the postion of women, little wonder he could only get his 1st cousin to marry him. (I think I hear banjo music....)

 

[Bushido216]

Well, his qualities as a human being aren't being questioned, merely his scientific principles.

 

[Micaiah]

Literalists, in one of the major ironies of all time, accept the basic statement of faith of atheism as true! Literalists say that, because Darwin found a "natural" cause for the origin of species, that God is not involved. This supposes that "natural" = without God. But that is the basic statement of faith of atheism! It's not science!

Ironical indeed. Can you believe, some of the people that call themselves Christians actually believe what the Bible teaches. We all agree that the Bible is God's word, and forms the foundation of our Christian beliefs, but can you actually imagine someone beliveing what it says. These people must be athiests.

 

[Doc Dilly]

Quite right, but his works unfortunately also reveal the man. Ramblings like, 'In all things, man is the superior to woman...' or 'the state of the married man is no better than that of the negro...'
I believe his personal arrogance jaded his work.

Galileo might well be compared to Jeremiah the prophet, a voice crying out despite the powers that be. However, Darwin has more in common with Balaam, the one whose donkey made more sense. And yes, I'll get off this thread. Point made. I don't like him. I don't like his work.