Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's like asking, "Since Nimrod's primary contribution was the building of a large empire, what went wrong?"

It could be -- (and this is just by way of example) -- that God had intended for Darwin to be the one to discover a cure for cancer.

That's not for you to say though.

 

[River Jordan]

That's like asking, "Since Nimrod's primary contribution was the building of a large empire, what went wrong?"

It could be -- (and this is just by way of example) -- that God had intended for Darwin to be the one to discover a cure for cancer.

What exactly do you think Darwin did that constitutes an evil empire?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not for you to say though.

You are correct.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was hoping you'd chime in here!

Yeah, I'm here, bro!

 

[SelfSim]

I generally agree with what you're saying, but then we get into the whole mish-mash of having to figure out what a justified true belief is, or what it can be, in relation to any one epistemological position, and whether or not any particular form of justification can actually take a person all the way to a state of claiming bona-fide knowledge.

Please don't get me started on justified true belief as a kind of absolute meaning of 'know'. Its clearly ridiculous when it ends up with nonsensical statements like we certainly cannot even know that we exist.

And since science doesn't have the last word on epistemology where Christianity is under scrutiny, then we're all sort of stuck with the overtures being played about the Problem of the Criterion where something like biblical belief and faith are the concern.

We can come up with an operational definition of 'know' that works better for a scientific thinker.
That's way more practical than 'justified true belief' nonsense .. (that's for sure).

Just for the record, though, I'm not here implying that Darwin was a fraud just because his theory doesn't accord with the Bible.

No, I don't think he was fraudulent at all.

Its not about Darwin himself as far as I'm concerned .. its about the ToE that matters.

 

[David Lamb]

On a better note, I do believe both Nimrod and Darwin are in Heaven.

What is your basis for saying that? Do we have any way of knowing whether Charles Darwin "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved?" Unless he did, he won't be in heaven.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are correct.

So maybe don't say it. 'Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt.'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is your basis for saying that? Do we have any way of knowing whether Charles Darwin "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved?" Unless he did, he won't be in heaven.

AV accepts the claim of the Lady Hope story, where in Elizabeth, Lady Hope nee Reid Cotton, who claims that she visited Darwin on his deathbed and he expressed regret in publishing On The Origin of Species. Thus he accepts her claim that he made a deathbed conversion. Even though said story was published over 30 years AFTER his death and his children all widely refuted her claims.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please don't get me started on justified true belief as a kind of absolute meaning of 'know'. Its clearly ridiculous when it ends up with nonsensical statements like we certainly cannot even know that we exist.

No one who has studied Epistemology (or Philosophy of Science) at the university level would say what you're now saying. And not every scientist is going to set epistemology to the side as it seems you're doing here based on a faulty and childish allusion to Cartesian method as if Descartes is all that the topic of epistemology has ever been about. ......It's moved on beyond Descartes.

And if you'll notice, I implied earlier that the referential utility of Justified True Belief has been debated among Epistemologists. I didn't say it is the absolute conceptual notion we have to go by, nor did I say that Justified True Belief is in itself a panacea for all that ails us in our lived ignorance. But considering the nature of what "justification" of a viewpoint actually should be is a good place to start.

The study of Epistemology is clearly not ridiculous. It is disruptive, however, of the impetus among both scientists and various religious authorities to assert their own epistemic viewpoints as social and political vantage points, either of which I will not let pass......................................... (this is where I give my best Gandalf impression).

"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent on each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is–insofar as it is thinkable at all–primitive and muddled... ..." ​

― Albert Einstein​

​

OH, but there's more to his quote than that:​

A quote from Autobiographical Notes

The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with scie...

www.goodreads.com

​

We can come up with an operational definition of 'know' that works better for a scientific thinker.
That's way more practical than 'justified true belief' nonsense .. (that's for sure).

Oh, really? Do tell! And who exactly are your scholars of choice who have influenced your opinion on this? I would love to know!! Thus far, I see nothing but opinion on your part. For me, I'll stick with a bit of Einstein as a starting point for my Philosophy of Science over and against whatever "working" definition that merely "working" scientists may hold individually (and usually hold aloof for other, more expansive and relevant philosophical (i.e. sometimes Ethical) considerations.

I, for one, don't sell myself on practical idealism for the sake of a paycheck.

Its not about Darwin himself as far as I'm concerned .. its about the ToE that matters.

The ToE matters, but in the long run, if Jesus is Lord, then it doesn't matter all that much, or at least not as much as today's scientists and politicians say it does.

It does matter, though to those who want to sell us the next big medical advance.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the unnecessary casualties of an unfounded fear of the ToE, those who feel existential angst over it like one Captain Robert Fitzroy and any who have had similar distraught feelings about the ToE ever since.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your basis for saying that? Do we have any way of knowing whether Charles Darwin "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved?" Unless he did, he won't be in heaven.

Lady Hope story

I pray this story is true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Lady Hope story

I pray this story is true.

The fact she waited until 30 years AFTER his death to say suggests someone else trying to commit fraud, and it's certainly not from Darwin...

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact she waited until 30 years AFTER his death to say suggests someone else trying to commit fraud, and it's certainly not from Darwin...

Let's pray you're wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's pray you're wrong.

Again: she waited 30 years to put out her story....

 

[AV1611VET]

Again: she waited 30 years to put out her story....

I don't care if she waited 50.

I pray it is a true story.

Lest Darwin went to Aitch.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't care if she waited 50.

I pray it is a true story.

Lest Darwin went to Aitch.

If it's true, why wait until 30 years after he died? Why not a year? (I was going to say 'as soon as' but that would have been very distasteful by any standard).

And what would it matter? It doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution nor make Darwin's work on natural selection any more prominent and serious. It really only seems to affect you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lady Hope story

I pray this story is true.

Yes, that, and the fact that it's likely Darwin felt bad about the outcome Fitzroy had, even as he lay dying on his deathbed.

Robert FitzRoy

Robert FitzRoy was captain of HMS Beagle when Darwin was aboard. From 1831 to 1836 the two men lived in the closest proximity, their relationship revealed by the letters they exchanged while Darwin left the ship to explore the countries visited during the Beagle’s voyage round the world. FitzRoy...

www.darwinproject.ac.uk

So, I hope and pray to be able to meet Darwin some 'day.'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If it's true, why wait until 30 years after he died? Why not a year? (I was going to say 'as soon as' but that would have been very distasteful by any standard).

And what would it matter? It doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution nor make Darwin's work on natural selection any more prominent and serious. It really only seems to affect you.

Actually, it affects many people. Folks need to stop holding onto the ToE like it's some sort of sacred cow.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually, it affects many people. Folks need to stop holding onto the ToE like it's some sort of sacred cow.

Who holds the ToE like 'it's some sort of sacred cow'? Evolution does not hinge solely on Darwin, especially not now and especially not historically. All the Lady Hope story is claim that Darwin decided to have a change of faith on his deathbed. It's validity, factual or otherwise, does not have any bearing on the science of evolution which is sound as a pound.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who holds the ToE like 'it's some sort of sacred cow'? Evolution does not hinge solely on Darwin, especially not now and especially not historically.

I know that. But since much of today's modern medical advances essentially assume it with a humanistic and godless glee, then simply giving a nod to the ToE as a working scientific paradigm takes on the flair of a transhumanist ideation rather than one of only "pure understanding."

All the Lady Hope story is claim that Darwin decided to have a change of faith on his deathbed. It's validity, factual or otherwise, does not have any bearing on the science of evolution which is sound as a pound.

I agree. It's a separate historical issue. But even so.....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know that. But since much of today's modern medical advances essentially assume it with a humanistic and godless glee, then simply giving a nod to the ToE as a working scientific paradigm takes on the ideal of a transhumanist flair rather than one of only "pure understanding."

Which swings back to the old chestnut that everyone asks AV when he bandies the same statement again and again: how should scientists factor God into their work? What would it do in a meaningful and serious way except for no longer offending a certain sect of American Christians?

I agree. It's a separate historical issue. But even so.....

No 'even so...' The Lady Hope story is a claim bandied around by American Creationists with no reason to accept it other than they think it will somehow show evolution to be wrong and Creationism right. Not least ignoring the fact that one does not lead to the other, even Answers in Genesis considers it to be bunk, which should say something.