Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[River Jordan]

Well, you did say, "The main thing I'm focused on is persuading some Christians to stop pitting scripture and Christianity against science. It's driving some people away from the faith."

Right, which has nothing to do with persuading them to change their beliefs or interpretations. It's instead about trying to get them to stop bashing and misrepresenting science/scientists, and stop making it seem as if it's a choice between Christianity and science.

The problem here is that some Christians do think that Scripture and Science are diametrically opposed. You and I know that's not the case, but they firmly see it otherwise due to other prior beliefs that their present view of the Christian Faith is predicated upon.

Sure but that doesn't mean they therefore have to accuse scientists of wrongdoing.

You and I would have to deal with the predicates rather than the seemingly annoying issue at hand. Doing so isn't always possible when those predicates are a matter of personal trust in the sources from which they've derived their underlying framework on "how" the Bible is to be understood and supported.

Certainly. I think one of the main barriers are the YEC organizations that put out all sorts of anti-science nonsense (and quite frankly lies). Some Christians trust those orgs and go around repeating their arguments with no idea about their accuracy.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes.

Then why don't you and those who also believe that go out and do your own brand of science? Then when it produces better results than standard science, corporations and such will flock to your door!

Anyone can go online and say they have a better way of doing things, but unless they go out and actually do it it's just empty rhetoric, isn't it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right, which has nothing to do with persuading them to change their beliefs or interpretations. It's instead about trying to get them to stop bashing and misrepresenting science/scientists, and stop making it seem as if it's a choice between Christianity and science.

No, it actually does have something to do with the impetus involved with "persuasion." You're trying to separate belief and interpretations of the Bible from the lived outcomes (or praxis), and these psychological and social concepts are not the sort of concepts that can fully and clearly disentangled from each other: the presence of belief and interpretation very often, if not for most people, directly affects their perceptions and resulting choices, particularly if they think they are to be "bold in the Spirit" for one biblical reason or another.

Do you see what I'm driving at?

Sure but that doesn't mean they therefore have to accuse scientists of wrongdoing.

It doesn't mean they're fully justified in doing so, no. But on the other hand, being that what I've said above is true most of the time for most people, you'll simply be busting your knuckles on a brick wall in the attempt to get them to change their praxis.

Certainly. I think one of the main barriers are the YEC organizations that put out all sorts of anti-science nonsense (and quite frankly lies). Some Christians trust those orgs and go around repeating their arguments with no idea about their accuracy.

Sure. I agree on some level. But unfortunately, the interface between human psychology and something called "truth" doesn't come easily or necessarily directly, and since this is so, folks will often remain where they are in their views until they reach a crisis than forces them to reconsider.

You and I attempting to educate them isn't that "crisis."

 

[AV1611VET]

Did... nope, scratch that. That sentence was not going to work at all. But regardless, your situation of you and your sister not talking because of a lack of family communication is not the same as someone saying something about someone who had been dead for over 30 years by the time they told their story.

Well ... like I said ...

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Academia has Darwin in aitch.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well ... like I said ...

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Academia has Darwin in aitch.

No, that's you, not 'academia'.

 

[Reneep]

I guess I really have lost track of your point.

My intent is not to get anyone to change their beliefs or interpretations. The main thing I'm focused on is persuading some Christians to stop pitting scripture and Christianity against science. It's driving some people away from the faith.

What faith if they go to men for understanding... they can not increase faith or understanding by seeking man's ideas.

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly. I think one of the main barriers are the YEC organizations that put out all sorts of anti-science nonsense (and quite frankly lies). Some Christians trust those orgs and go around repeating their arguments with no idea about their accuracy.

Be careful now.

You wouldn't want YECs to lose their faith, would you?

 

[SelfSim]

You and I attempting to educate them isn't that "crisis."

Its easily observable from these forums (and elsewhere) that fundamental literalist Christians are in crisis over the ToE and the Physics behind science's inferred conclusions of an old Earth/Universe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually going to the 'source' the OP gives, the video is based around a weird claim that Darwin's family financed Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary anthropologist and explorer, to do the work for them and then have Charles Darwin claim it as his own.

The weirdest (and most blatantly false claim) was that Darwin used Wallace's work after Wallace died to create his famous book. Not only did Wallace die long after "Origin" was published, but Darwin died 30 years before Wallace.

Which wouldn't work since Wallace and Darwin collaborated, and it was actually Wallace's own writings that spurred Darwin to write On The Origin of Species as an abstract that became the actual book. They also actually helped with each other's research since Wallace was much further travelled than Darwin (having been to places like the Amazon, Borneo and other such places), thereby helping Darwin with the newly found idea of natural selection.

The also main difference between the two is that Darwin focused on the competition within species as the driving force for natural selection and evolution, while Wallace focused on the environment being the driving force for natural selection.

Yep, and any basic understanding of 19th century science history would provide that information.

So, again: a big fat NO to Darwin being a fraud.

But of course it's the internet so anyone can put anything out there and claim it as fact.

Just thought I'd see what the thread was really about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just thought I'd see what the thread was really about.

I did wonder why, until I saw this. It makes sense considering how off the rails this thread has become.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why don't you and those who also believe that go out and do your own brand of science?

God didn't call me into the laboratory.

Then when it produces better results than standard science, corporations and such will flock to your door!

For what?

A better bottle of Roundup™?

Anyone can go online and say they have a better way of doing things, but unless they go out and actually do it it's just empty rhetoric, isn't it?

Tell that to Frances Kelsey, who refused to cater to consensus of opinion and, in so doing, prevented many in the U.S. from being born horribly disfigured -- (or not born at all).

 

[River Jordan]

No, it actually does have something to do with the impetus involved with "persuasion." You're trying to separate belief and interpretations of the Bible from the lived outcomes (or praxis), and these psychological and social concepts are not the sort of concepts that can fully and clearly disentangled from each other: the presence of belief and interpretation very often, if not for most people, directly affects their perceptions and resulting choices, particularly if they think they are to be "bold in the Spirit" for one biblical reason or another.

Do you see what I'm driving at?

I do, I just don't think having an interpretation of scripture necessitates calling scientists liars, frauds, demonic, and all that.

It doesn't mean they're fully justified in doing so, no.

I don't see any justification for it at all.

But on the other hand, being that what I've said above is true most of the time for most people, you'll simply be busting your knuckles on a brick wall in the attempt to get them to change their praxis.

The problem is, their praxis is not that scientists are liars, frauds, and agents of Satan. Almost none of them have any idea what scientists actually do, how they do their work, or what their conclusions are based on. So it's impossible for those people's praxis to be that scientists are liars etc.

Sure. I agree on some level. But unfortunately, the interface between human psychology and something called "truth" doesn't come easily or necessarily directly, and since this is so, folks will often remain where they are in their views until they reach a crisis than forces them to reconsider.

You and I attempting to educate them isn't that "crisis."

LOL, now you're in the realm of pointing out how it's almost impossible to get these people to change their minds, which brings into question the existence of this entire forum.

 

[River Jordan]

What faith if they go to men for understanding... they can not increase faith or understanding by seeking man's ideas.

We all "go to men for understanding" all the time. Doctors, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, lawyers, judges, and so on.

 

[River Jordan]

Be careful now.

You wouldn't want YECs to lose their faith, would you?

Of course not. But I don't understand how them not trashing scientists would cause them to abandon Christianity.

 

[River Jordan]

God didn't call me into the laboratory.



For what?

A better bottle of Roundup™?



Tell that to Frances Kelsey, who refused to cater to consensus of opinion and, in so doing, prevented many in the U.S. from being born horribly disfigured -- (or not born at all).

So it's all just empty rhetoric. Ok.

I'm still wondering if you have an example of geneticists concluding relatedness based on nothing more than "the sequences look similar", as well as where you got the impression that they work that way.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I did wonder why, until I saw this. It makes sense considering how off the rails this thread has become.

It is now some incomprehensible religious fight when it started out as a pretty outrageous set of creationist lies about a dead scientist. SMH.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is, their praxis is not that scientists are liars, frauds, and agents of Satan. Almost none of them have any idea what scientists actually do, how they do their work, or what their conclusions are based on.

I have a list of what I think scientists have to work hard on:

1. moving the decimal point as needed
2. programming and reprogramming their software
3. labeling and relabeling
4. trying to keep their stories straight
5. lighting fires, then putting them out
6. others

AI Overview has a list of areas of academic misconduct:

1. Plagiarism: Taking credit for someone else's ideas, words, or work without giving them credit

2. Collusion: Working with someone else to complete an assignment that should be done individually

3. Falsification: Intentionally presenting false information or data to gain an advantage

4. Cheating: Copying someone else's work, using unauthorized materials, or receiving help from someone else during an exam

5. Fabrication: Making up data, sources, or results, or falsifying evidence

6. Contract cheating: Paying someone else to do your work and submitting it as your own

7. Unauthorized use of AI: Using artificial intelligence or other tools without permiss

 

[Hans Blaster]

And they will and are doing the same things they accused us of .. well I got to the point where there is people trying to justify the ignorance of an old racist dude with the integrity of a mushroom roots deep in horsy poop. Maybe they need to worship taylor swift instead .

Mushrooms (and fungi in general) don't have roots. Perhaps you need to learn a bit more biology instead of casting aspersions on a dead biologist.

 

[River Jordan]

I have a list of what I think scientists have to work hard on:

1. moving the decimal point as needed
2. programming and reprogramming their software
3. labeling and relabeling
4. trying to keep their stories straight
5. lighting fires, then putting them out
6. others

What is that based on?

 

[AV1611VET]

So it's all just empty rhetoric. Ok.

I'm still wondering if you have an example of geneticists concluding relatedness based on nothing more than "the sequences look similar", as well as where you got the impression that they work that way.

You're right.

I have no idea of what geneticists do behind closed doors.

Make Thalidomide?