Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[2PhiloVoid]

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 don't think 'god' has to be figured into scientific work, and I do so out of respect for the idea of what an actual Supreme Being would be rather than as a ideological motif by which to explain what seems to be unexplainable where questions of origins are of interest.

Plus, there are always other pertinent philosophical questions that also remain ever present alongside the assumption and implementation of ToE, like some of those which Dawkins mentions in the following clip:

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.

I just gave some additional historical consideration above to the possibility that what AV asserts may be true, even if it's not proven. post #536

Besides, it's not as if there's a working historical principle that ONLY those accounts within a certain time range are, by necessity, those that are most accurate or truest. Sometimes, accounts that comes later are fuller and more accurate. The issue with Darwin's possible admission has little to do with the time involved of the report but more with the veracity of the details. Since we don't have much to go on other than Lady Hope's memoirs, then we have to leave the question open as to whether or not Darwin had a 're-conversion.' Like a lot of things that happened in the past, it's not clear one way or the other.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And there's always other nuances to think about as well, such as those briefly mentioned here by Dawkins:

I don't really care for Dawkins and anyone who talks about a society getting 'weaker' or 'stronger' really is not worth my time, to be frank, since it's such a stupid metric.

I don't think 'god' has to be figured into scientific work, and I do so out of respect for the idea of what an actual Supreme Being would be rather than as a ideological motif by which to explain what seems to be unexplainable where questions of origins are of interest.

Plus, there are always other pertinent philosophical questions that also remain ever present alongside the assumption and implementation of ToE, like some of those which Dawkins mentions in the following clip:

Which is kind of contradicted by your statement of "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.""

If you take umbrage with modern science being 'godless', which is the whole point of asking the question of how scientists can factor God into their work, but say that God doesn't have to be 'figured into scientific work', then... what's the point in you complaining then? What are you even complaining about?

I just gave some additional historical consideration above to the possibility that what AV asserts may be true, even if it's not proven. post #536

Besides, it's not as if there's a working historical principle that ONLY those accounts within a certain time range are, by necessity, those that are most accurate or truest. Sometimes, accounts that comes later are fuller and more accurate. The issue with Darwin's possible admission has little to do with the time involved of the report but more with the veracity of the details. Since we don't have much to go by other than Lady Hope's memoirs, then we have to leave the question open as to whether or not Darwin had a 're-conversion.' Like a lot of things that happened in the past, it's not clear one way or the other.

The fate of Captain Fitzroy has no bearing on the issue apart from your own conjecture.

Just because something is published later, as a counter-point, does not automatically lead to the assumption that it's a correct or valid source, especially when the source is only stated by one person, who we cannot verify as having been their at the time, and is also contradicted by three different members of Darwin's own family who say that she, for lack of a better word, lied, and even a contemporary of Lady Hope saying that they 'had little confidence in her judgement or imagination'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't really care for Dawkins and anyone who talks about a society getting 'weaker' or 'stronger' really is not worth my time, to be frank, since it's such a stupid metric.

And who do you think I should be listening to, then? Who provides YOU with your so-called "metric," ay?

Which is kind of contradicted by your statement of "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.""

If you take umbrage with modern science being 'godless', which is the whole point of asking the question of how scientists can factor God into their work, but say that God doesn't have to be 'figured into scientific work', then... what's the point in you complaining then? What are you even complaining about?

You apparently missed the point............................. Maybe hone in on that fact that I said, "....much of...." not all of. There's part of your disconnect in understanding what I'm implying.

The fate of Captain Fitzroy has no bearing on the issue apart from your own conjecture.

NO, it definitely does bear upon it. You do realize that Captain Fitzroy committed suicide in connection to his depression AND his unfortunate self-inflicted guilt trip over having been the one who enabled Darwin to start society down the path of the ToE?

Darwin knew this about Fitzroy, even as he lay dying.

Just because something is published later, as a counter-point, does not automatically lead to the assumption that it's a correct or valid source, especially when the source is only stated by one person, who we cannot verify as having been their at the time, and is also contradicted by three different members of Darwin's own family who say that she, for lack of a better word, lied, and even a contemporary of Lady Hope saying that they 'had little confidence in her judgement or imagination'.

OK. So, you don't think Darwin reconfirmed his faith in God/Christ before he died?

See, my focus isn't on whether or not Darwin recanted 'evolution.' That's not even my focus here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And who do you think I should be listening to, then? Who provides YOU with your so-called "metric," ay?

No-one since, again, it's a stupid metric.

You apparently missed the point............................. Hone it on that fact that I said, "....much of...." not all of. There's part of your disconnect in understanding what I'm implying.

Just answer the question put to you.

NO, it definitely does bear upon it. You do realize that Captain Fitzroy committed suicide in connection to his depression AND his unfortunate self-inflicted guilt trip over having been the one who enabled Darwin to start society down the path of the ToE? Darwin knew this, even as he lay dying.

It really does not, since that's a personal problem for Darwin, not something that has any bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.

OK. So, you don't think Darwin reconfirmed his faith in God/Christ before he died?

I don't think it matters with regards to the theory of evolution, which is all that anyone who brings up the Lady Hope story thinks it has any bearing on.
Darwin reconfirming his faith on his deathbed or not, even if there's no validity to it outside of one person's claim who brought it over 30 years after his death despite his three children saying that it's a lie mind you, has no bearing one way or another on the theory of evolution being a factual and workable facet of science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No-one since, again, it's a stupid metric.

Your evasion of my question is noted. I think it's dishonest.

Just answer the question put to you.

If you don't answer my question, I'm not answering yours. Don't try to punk me. You will lose.

It really does not, since that's a personal problem for Darwin, not something that has any bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.

I'm not talking about the VALIDITY of the theory of evolution. Where in this entire thread have I even alighted upon that specific point?

I don't think it matters with regards to the theory of evolution, which is all that anyone who brings up the Lady Hope story thinks it has any bearing on.

And now, I get to say, I don't care. I was only speaking to AV that I hope Darwin makes it to heaven, and they you jumped into it.

Darwin reconfirming his faith on his deathbed or not, even if there's no validity to it outside of one person's claim who brought it over 30 years after his death despite his three children saying that it's a lie mind you, has no bearing one way or another on the theory of evolution being a factual and workable facet of science.

Right. And I'm not concerned with that. But you are. And if AV is only talking about the credibility of ToE, this doesn't mean I have to address that specific nuance just because it's of interest to everyone else.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're evasion of my question is noted. I think it's dishonest.

Saying "No-one since, again, it's a stupid metric." is not evading the question. It's me giving a statement as an answer.

If you don't answer my question, I'm not answering yours. Don't try to punk me. You will lose.

Now who's evading the question.

I'm not talking about the VALIDITY of the theory of evolution. Where in this entire thread have I even alighted upon that specific point?

I know you're not, but whenever AV, or any other Creationist, brings up the Lady Hope story, they take it as some sign that Darwin was saying that the theory of natural selection and thus evolution is wrong since Darwin said so, which is the whole point of the Lady Hope story as much as conversion.

And now, I get to say, I don't care. I was only speaking to AV that I hope Darwin makes it to heaven, and they you jumped into it.

Since my comments were in response to someone else, not you or AV, and you responded to me, then it's you jumping into it, not I.

Right. And I'm not concerned with that. But you are.

Because that's all it's ever used for: as an attempt to claim that even Darwin knew his theory of natural selection was wrong, and that somehow the story can be used to claim that evolution is wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Saying "No-one since, again, it's a stupid metric." is not evading the question. It's me giving a statement as an answer.



Now who's evading the question.



I know you're not, but whenever AV, or any other Creationist, brings up the Lady Hope story, they take it as some sign that Darwin was saying that the theory of natural selection and thus evolution is wrong since Darwin said so, which is the whole point of the Lady Hope story as much as conversion.



Since my comments were in response to someone else, not you or AV, and you responded to me, then it's you jumping into it, not I.



Because that's all it's ever used for: as an attempt to claim that even Darwin knew his theory of natural selection was wrong, and that somehow the story can be used to claim that evolution is wrong.

And the only thing I said to you was, ".....Folks need to stop holding onto the ToE like it's some sort of sacred cow," which only has to do with how people interpret its applications in life and business, not with its validity.

And then you responded to that comment, apparently assuming that what I meant by it was what you thought I meant by it.

Let's just put this to tangent to rest since we're speaking past each other.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And the only thing I said to you was, ".....Folks need to stop holding onto the ToE like it's some sort of sacred cow," which only has to do with how people interpret its applications in life and business, not with its validity.

And then you responded to that comment, apparently assuming that what I meant by it was what you thought I meant by it.

Let's just put this to tangent to rest since we're speaking past each other.

And for the many people who do treat is as 'some sort of sacred cow' (If only there was an animal for S then that would be good alliteration) in how they use it in applications in life and business are more often than not, people who don't understand a single thing about the theory of evolution.

You made the point of science being 'naturalistic and godless' as somehow a problem, which begs the question of how God should be factored into science anyway, which I never really expect an answer to apart from AV's trite answer of "insert Bible reading here".

I don't agree that the Lady Hope story should be brought up when talking about the theory of evolution because it's just a claim with no meaningful validity nor serious ramifications behind it APART from a claim on Darwin's personal religious beliefs. Even if Darwin DID reconfirm his relationship with God after spending his later life as an agnostic, that does not in any way show the theory of evolution to be an invalid theory of biological science.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it's true, why wait until 30 years after he died?

I give up -- why?

Maybe she was writing her memoirs?

Perhaps she wrote about others as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Imagine that!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Imagine that!

If you knew something that would fundamentally show an opposing idea put forward by a well-known and well-respected member of society, something only you knew that they apparently told you themselves, would you wait 30 years to put it out into the wider world?

Serious question.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I give up -- why?

Maybe she was writing her memoirs?

Perhaps she wrote about others as well?

Somewhat a prolific author, if you enjoyed temperance movement literature... which you actually might, now that I remember your stance on Jesus turning the water to wine I mean grape juice. (Almost wrote grapefruit)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And for the many people who do treat is as 'some sort of sacred cow' (If only there was an animal for S then that would be good alliteration) in how they use it in applications in life and business are more often than not, people who don't understand a single thing about the theory of evolution.

Yes, many people do treat the ToE as a sort of sacred cow, a lens by which to interpret the whole of existence.

You made the point of science being 'naturalistic and godless' as somehow a problem, which begs the question of how God should be factored into science anyway, which I never really expect an answer to apart from AV's trite answer of "insert Bible reading here".

No, I don't think I said anywhere that the whole of science is naturalistic and godless. Did I actually say that?

But here's the thing: I do take a philosophical stance on the uses and abuses of science that falls about half way between that held by those who are more secularly inclined, like yourself, and those on the other side who are committed to placing the Bible as a leading presupposition, like AV does.

I take neither of those sides in my own Methodologically Naturalist orientation toward the whole of Science, and toward the ToE.

I don't agree that the Lady Hope story should be brought up when talking about the theory of evolution because it's just a claim with no meaningful validity nor serious ramifications behind it APART from a claim on Darwin's personal religious beliefs. Even if Darwin DID reconfirm his relationship with God after spending his later life as an agnostic, that does not in any way show the theory of evolution to be an invalid theory of biological science.

I'm not concerned about the issue of validity of biological science. I'm more concerned with how people interpret it for their own uses (or disuses) in life and society, and what they ultimately do with it politically.

And again, I don't think the ToE is invalid. I've already said that. Do I need to repeat this more than I do or already have?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't agree that the Lady Hope story should be brought up when talking about the theory of evolution because it's just a claim with no meaningful validity nor serious ramifications behind it APART from a claim on Darwin's personal religious beliefs. Even if Darwin DID reconfirm his relationship with God after spending his later life as an agnostic, that does not in any way show the theory of evolution to be an invalid theory of biological science.

If Darwin can take the "good:"

1. capital of Northern Territory, Australia
2. buried in Westminster Abbey
3. face on a £10 note
4. considered "the father of evolution"

... then he can take the "bad" as well:

1. Lady Hope story

 

[AV1611VET]

If you knew something that would fundamentally show an opposing idea out forward by a well-known and well-respected member of society, something only you knew that they apparently told you themselves, would you wait 30 years to put it out into the wider world?

Serious question.

My dad died in 1985.

Should I write my memoirs tomorrow, I'll write my dad's "Lady Hope story" 40 years after the fact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, many people do treat the ToE as a sort of sacred cow.

An example being...?

No, I don't think I said anywhere that the whole of science is naturalistic and godless. Did I actually say that?

You did say "much of modern science" which is a quantifier with no serious meaning behind it. How much is 'much'? What percentage? A little? A lot? Half?

But here's the thing: I do take a philosophical stance on the uses and abuses of science that falls about half way between those who are more secularly inclined like yourself and those on the other side who are committed to placing the Bible as a leading presupposition, like AV does.

I take neither of those sides in my own Methodologically Naturalist orientation toward the whole of Science, and toward the ToE.

Good for you. So what?

I'm not concerned about the issue of validity of biological science. I'm more concerned with how people interpret it for their own uses (or disuses) in life and society, and what they ultimately do with it politically.

And again, I don't think the ToE is invalid. I've already said that. Do I need to repeat this more than I do or already have?

I feel that you're talking past me and ignoring what I'm saying, so I'll just copy and paste what I said:
I don't agree that the Lady Hope story should be brought up when talking about the theory of evolution because it's just a claim with no meaningful validity nor serious ramifications behind it APART from a claim on Darwin's personal religious beliefs. Even if Darwin DID reconfirm his relationship with God after spending his later life as an agnostic, that does not in any way show the theory of evolution to be an invalid theory of biological science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My dad died in 1985.

Should I write my memoirs tomorrow, I'll write my dad's "Lady Hope story" 40 years after the fact.

That's what I recently did. And the part I concentrated on was about 40 some years after the fact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If Darwin can take the "good:"

1. capital of Northern Territory, Australia
2. buried in Westminster Abbey
3. face on a £10 note
4. considered "the father of evolution"

... then he can take the "bad" as well:

1. Lady Hope story

And your uses of nonsensical lists is once again noted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My dad died in 1985.

Should I write my memoirs tomorrow, I'll write my dad's "Lady Hope story" 40 years after the fact.

Answer the question put to you as it stands, please:

If you knew something that would fundamentally show an opposing idea put forward by a well-known and well-respected member of society, something only you knew that they apparently told you themselves, would you wait 30 years to put it out into the wider world?

Serious question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

An example being...?

An example would be anyone who thinks that the ToE somehow alleviates them of having to engage, or in believing, the relevance of the Bible.

In that vain, I'd start historically with Darwin himself, move on then to the likes of Nietzsche and Marx, and then onto anyone else at any time who has since thought the ToE somehow alleviates them of valuing the person of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Savior.

Obviously, not everyone who is a scientist or who takes the ToE as being valid has alleviated themselves in this way.

You did say "much of modern science" which is a quantifier with no serious meaning behind it. How much is 'much'? What percentage? A little? A lot? Half?

How much, what percentage, little/lot/half..................................................is a political question which I won't specifically broach.

I think it's enough to say that both strict Scientism and Evolutionism can be used in dishonest, even greedy, ways. And in my saying that, I'm implying that I ultimately have more in common with @AV1611VET than I do with you.

Good for you. So what?

It is good for me. It means I don't have to kow tow to the reigning interpretive zeitgeist.

I feel that you're talking past me and ignoring what I'm saying, so I'll just copy and paste what I said:
I don't agree that the Lady Hope story should be brought up when talking about the theory of evolution because it's just a claim with no meaningful validity nor serious ramifications behind it APART from a claim on Darwin's personal religious beliefs. Even if Darwin DID reconfirm his relationship with God after spending his later life as an agnostic, that does not in any way show the theory of evolution to be an invalid theory of biological science.

Yes, and I'll continue to ignore what you're saying like you're ignoring me. TOUCHÉ