MY Darwin Challenge.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In response to AV1611VET's challenge question of "Was Charles Darwin qualified to say we came from Africa?", I shall ask my own question:

Why does it matter so much that Darwin has to be shown to be right or wrong about anything he directly said about evolution?

Dude's dead. He can't change the theory of evolution no more than Wellington could change the course of WW1.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does it matter so much that Darwin has to be shown to be right or wrong about anything he directly said about evolution?

If he was wrong, would he be given the title: "The Father of Evolution"?

Would he be buried in Westminster Abbey? his face on a ten-pound note? or a major capital city named after him?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If he was wrong, would he be given the title: "The Father of Evolution"?

Would he be buried in Westminster Abbey? his face on a ten-pound note? or a major capital city named after him?

You're not really answering the question.

Why does it matter so much that Darwin has to be wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does it matter so much that Darwin has to be wrong?

If Darwin said ANYTHING that contradicts the Bible, Darwin is wrong.

It's that simple.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If Darwin said ANYTHING that contradicts the Bible, Darwin is wrong.

It's that simple.

Okay, thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, thank you.

At the atomic level, I cannot tell you where Darwin got it wrong, and I cannot tell you where Darwin got it right.

I have to assume that, in the academic arena, he is considered more right than wrong, since he's being so venerated.

But please understand that, where he is wrong, I have no choice but to let it matter to me.

Especially when it comes time to vote on school levies.

 

[DaisyDay]

In response to AV1611VET's challenge question of "Was Charles Darwin qualified to say we came from Africa?", I shall ask my own question:

Why does it matter so much that Darwin has to be shown to be right or wrong about anything he directly said about evolution?

Dude's dead. He can't change the theory of evolution no more than Wellington could change the course of WW1.

Did Darwin say that man originally came from Africa? If he did, he would not have been wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

At the atomic level, I cannot tell you where Darwin got it wrong, and I cannot tell you where Darwin got it right.

I have to assume that, in the academic arena, he is considered more right than wrong, since he's being so venerated.

But please understand that, where he is wrong, I have no choice but to let it matter to me.

Especially when it comes time to vote on school levies.

I think that you're overstating the importance of Darwin in science, and no, don't bring up post #2 again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did Darwin say that man originally came from Africa? If he did, he would not have been wrong.

Really not the question I'm asking.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that you're overstating the importance of Darwin in science, and no, don't bring up post #2 again.

Why?

Because post #2 shows the importance of Darwin is overstated?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why?

Because post #2 shows the importance of Darwin is overstated?

Because those things aren't scientific, nor scientific fields.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have to understand the creationist dilema.

They know they are right about evolution, (it's false),
which puts them in the position of knowing more than
any physicist, geologist, biologist etc on earth.

Here we go again.

So any small child that says God created the earth is placing himself in the position of knowing more than any physicist, geologist, biologist etc on earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because those things aren't scientific, nor scientific fields.

But his contribution to science got him buried with the big wigs, his face on money, and his name on a map, didn't they?

Later, when he was evidently shown to be wrong somewhere, do you think they'd relocate his burial plot, take his name off of that money, rename their capital city to someone else, and drop his title as "Father of Evolution"?

Of course not.

Scientists don't want us to think maybe they acted too hastily, do they?

After all, their haste to do things is what gave us a generation of thalidomide children, isn't it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But his contribution to science got him buried with the big wigs, his face on money, and his name on a map, didn't they?

Later, when he was evidently shown to be wrong somewhere, do you think they'd relocate his burial plot, take his name off of that money, rename their capital city to someone else, and drop his title as "Father of ..."?

Of course not.

Scientists don't want us to think maybe they acted too hastily, do they?

After all, their haste to do things is what gave us a generation of thalidomide children, isn't it?

Darwin's not the capital city of Australia, Canberra is. Changing the name of a city is a whole thing. Not sure what the process for removing someone from Westminster Abbey exactly is, but it probably would be done, same with the money. Yes, things about Darwin would be rewritten.

But even if Darwin himself was shown to be wrong, that does not immediately mean that the theory of evolution is wrong.

And wow. It's been a while since I've seen you bring up your pet love/hate in thalidomide.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin's not the capital city of Australia, Canberra is.

What is the capital of Northern Territory, Australia?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is the capital of Northern Territory, Australia?

Yeah, it's Darwin.
Even if he was wrong, would that really necessitate a name change for a city?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, it's Darwin.
Even if he was wrong, would that really necessitate a name change for a city?

As I said, it would not (unfortunately).

Scientists would have to find a new father.

 

[DaisyDay]

Really not the question I'm asking.

Yeah. I did not answer that question because I agree with you that Darwin is an interesting starting point but the science has moved way beyond that point making any detail that was wrong, moot.

They like using him because he isn’t here, his books are accessible to lay people and there are so many canned arguments that don’t require thought or knowledge to use.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As I said, it would not (unfortunately).

Scientists would have to find a new father.

Why 'unfortunately'? Is Darwin such an apostate to you that you wish to engage in intellectual iconoclasm; that every vestige of Darwin MUST be wiped off the earth if he is shown to be wrong? That he must be erased from history because he offended you so?