Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's extremely testable.
In Darwin's own words his beliefs fluctuated considerably. The general trend was from Anglican Christianity to agnosticism. But, there is evidence that he was a believer at some points in his life, even though agnosticism grew quickly. Hence, I don't think it's accurate to say that he was never a Christian.
As above, there is evidence including Darwin's own words that he was not always agnostic and that he was a believer at some points in his life.
Yes, the general concept of survival of the fittest and evolution can be applied to other domains. (E.g. genetic algorithms, evolutionary views of business marketplaces, etc.) Darwinism applied to other domains does not always work, in my opinion. E.g. I'm not sure that in businesses do survive or not based around survival of the fittest trends as clearly as living things.
I accept that these are your conclusions. But, I've also looked into these things and revised them now to check, and I don't agree on Darwin never having been a Christian.
What his personal beliefs were I can't tell you, but I've never seen the slightest indication of a profession of faith. He describes being late to school one morning and prayed as he rushed to school. He said he was sure if it was the praying or the hurrying that helped his progress. He calls the doctrine of hell a, (expletive deleted), doctrine that would condemn his dad and bother to everlasting torment because they were both atheists. Today we look at a view like that and think, yea so what, but in that time it came as a shock to the church people in that day and age. This might sound a bit harsh but I simply see it as an expression of a naturalists worldview, a systemic pattern in his thought and work.
All I can tell you about that is he attended an Anglican church and accepted what he was being taught about special creation. This is a guy who knew so much about how favorable traits were passed on to the next generation that he married his cousin. One of the first things to be compromised is the immune system and he lost his daughter Anne to scarlet fever. In the wake of this terrible loss he published On the Origin of Species. Right up until his first book hit the presses he was in correspondence with the philosopher Asa Grey, who he mentions in the opening line of On the Origin of Species. Another philosophy was profoundly influenced and encouraged by Darwin's book, Karl Marx:
“Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organization, deserve equal attention?” (Das Kapital. Marx)A little known fact, did you know the Scopes monkey trial had very little to do with evolution? The biggest issue was social Darwinism. Notice Marx emphasizes history and the 'material' basis for life and social organization. Now Darwin, some will tell you, was being encourage by Marx through correspondence to speak to the issues of religion which Darwin said he had always avoided. At the end of On the Origin of Species he even says he was certain his book should have no effect on the readers religious views.
My sole interest isn't to try to expose the inner recesses of Darwin's private beliefs but the effect of his philosophy of natural history on western academic and scientific thought. Darwinism, while being benign in many ways, is clearly a materialistic worldview that excludes God as cause categorically as a central premise. It's not a good thing or a bad thing, but it's evident, obvious and frankly an unavoidable core tenant.
The concept of survival of the fittest seems like a reaction to an ongoing population explosion that they were experiencing in the mid-nineteenth century. Based on the observations of Malthus there was something they would call the 'geomentric growth of populations', and the ensuing struggle for existence. It is also thought to be a leading influence on the reasoning of Oliver Wendel Holmes and his famous majority opinion on the issue of Eugenics:
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state"A decision by the way, that was never overturned by the Supreme Court.
I don't know and I'm not sure it's all that important.
All I know is he quietly acknowledge certain thing religiously but I've yet to see a profession of faith. What interests me is his influence on science, politics and legal theory. Whatever it was in his heart and mind it has become a catalyst for dialectical materialism and has exercised a deep and lasting influence.
They became damaged and the damage was passed down to their offspring. ERV insertions are a good example of this kind of thing and are useful in tracing evolutionary lines of descent. Because they are random, if two different species have them in the same location the odds are they are related.
You are making a common mistake. We have moon rocks and we have tested them.Stories aren't evidence and neither are a bunch of rocks. Rocks could have come from anywhere.
So far you're not producing any evidence because you can't prove the moon exists. We have never observed it; it's not testable, replicable or verifiable.
There are no moon rocks.
Does it?
Then why do all professionals who actually study life, conclude evolution instead?
There are plenty of examples of speciation that have been observed. Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
And it matters nowt that, e.g. we haven't yet found the common ancestor of humans and chimps. Since we know there is a common ancestor of humans and chimps (let alone the rest) given all the evidence I've given. Which you have been spectacularly unable to address.
I've shown you utter loads of evidence. I've explained why it is testable, verifiable, and objective. And why the observations are reproducible. You've been unable to address even one example. You just dodge. You just stonewall. You have no evidence at all for your own view of how life started, and you just try to arm-wave away and created ridiculous objections to evidence that you simply have no cogent response to.
And here's a question for you: Can you explain how if chimps and humans have a common ancestor and are different species, that there won't have been at least one species branching off another. Either we branched off chimps, chimps branched off us, or we both branched off a common separate species. And we know from fossil evidence that there has been a succession of species since that time. Branching off all over the place.
EDIT: The analogy of denying the moon is very apt. Anyone can simply dig their heels in and deny anything. Your denial of evolution and the evidence for it is no more reasonable than stonewalling denial of evidence that there is a moon.
I think there are plenty of evolutionists who think the same thing. That really proves nothing.Many of your coreligionists believe the whole moon trip was a fake, concocted by the same secular humanist conspiracy that gave us the theory of evolution.
Correcting your mistakes and actually learning something, doesn't seem to be one of your priorities...
For all practical purposes, yes.
But you do understand that when we observe things that have a function we see the design in them. We never look at anything that has a function and say, it has no design or designer. Exept of course with the most complex system of life. That happened by accident. Biology is the most amazing thing ever in it's complexity and it's ability to continue to exist and reproduce. Yet we absolutely refuse to consider it was designed to function the way it does. It's illogical.Buildings aren't biological entities that are subject to the processes of biology.
No. Because of phylogenies that match comparative genetics, anatomy, geographic distribution, the fossil record,...
Nested hierarchies. Aka, a family tree.
How do you think that biological paternity is established in court cases?
Word against word?
Or is there perhaps some kind of objective genetic test that can be done?
It's extremely testable.
so again: this isnt a watch if its able to replicate:
All that proves is common design. Common ancestry is assumed.Agreed.
And has been repeatedly tested. When genomes could be sequenced that was a massive test for evolution. If genetics had not shown common descent, then evolution would have been out the window. But, like all the many other tests of evolution, it passed.
You are making a common mistake. We have moon rocks and we have tested them.
Evolution does not gave a common ancestor. Evolution does not have people who have seen it happen. Evolution does not gave an ability to show you a tested product. NASA can show you a moon rocks and the proven tests to show it is one and in fact could do the test right in front of you. Please show me an actual evolution of the cat and where it branched off of whatever it branched off of and where the other branches evolved into. Show me the test that can prove that and show me the observation of that.
Yes you can. It's called engineering design and the people at Zeiss are quite good at designing lenses and optical equipment.
No, you found one blog post claiming that. However, if you look further and see what people who know what they are doing are saying, e.g. lens designers, you can see that the blog is wrong.
All that proves is common design. Common ancestry is assumed.
so again: this isnt a watch if its able to replicate:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?