We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[AV1611VET]

You have a VERY weird grasp on history and historical politics.

Unfortunately scientists and engineers have left a trail of what one poster could call The Leichen Korps in their wake.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Unfortunately scientists and engineers have left a trail of what one poster could call The Leichen Korps in their wake.

Again... You have a VERY weird grasp on history and historical politics.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't need a history less. What happened says it all.

You need several history lessons, AV -- don't lie to yourself.

What's that say for those who boarded it though?

"Seig Heil."

Would YOU have voluntarily gotten on it?

I have a feeling you would have if you could have.

Indeed I would have -- and so would you. Questioning the supremacy of the Third Reich can be extremely hazardous to your health.

Consider -- as "unbreakable" as the Nazis' Enigma code machine was, the process became far simpler once the Allies figured out that every Nazi communication was ideologically required to end with the same two words: "Heil Hitler."

When scientists are forced to take scientific instructions from non-scientists, the end result is never beneficial... ask the heliocentricists who dared challenge your Bible and the Church that worshiped it.

 

[ottawak]

No scientist tried to stop the liftoff?

Perhaps they were instrumental in overriding* Mr McDonald's pleas to stop the launch?

* No pun intended.

No scientists were involved. It was strictly an engineering endeavor.

 

[ottawak]

Since academia wants to jettison engineers from their ranks, I'll do the same.

What? It's beginnng to sound like you despise anyone at all who has more than a 6th grade education.

 

[AV1611VET]

No scientists were involved. It was strictly an engineering endeavor.

Fair enough.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What? It's beginnng to sound like you despise anyone at all who has more than a 6th grade education.

That sounds about right.

 

[sjastro]

What? It's beginnng to sound like you despise anyone at all who has more than a 6th grade education.

It's an attack on education at any level.

 

[SelfSim]

It's an attack on education at any level.

Yet its coming from someone who supposedly spent at least 3 weeks in college?

 

[Astrid]

It's an attack on education at any level.

As has been notedvelsewhete, anti - evolution
sentiment is a component of a broad - spectrum
anti intellectualism. Its impossible to be well informed,
"anti- evolution" and intellectually honest.

Why anyone takes pride in being a wombat- brain,
I dont know.

 

[sjastro]

As has been notedvelsewhete, anti - evolution
sentiment is a component of a broad - spectrum
anti intellectualism. Its impossible to be well informed,
"anti- evolution" and intellectually honest.

Why anyone takes pride in being a wombat- brain,
I dont know.

Wombat bashing is uncalled for; they are smart, lovable and cute.
They keep paleontologists in work as their ancestors present a mystery.
New species of fossil wombat unearthed in the Australian outback

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again... You have a VERY weird grasp on history and historical politics.

Or possibly none at all.

 

[Astrid]

Wombat bashing is uncalled for; they are smart, lovable and cute.
They keep paleontologists in work as their ancestors present a mystery.
New species of fossil wombat unearthed in the Australian outback

Never thought about Oz being
mostly an erosional environment,
but it makes sense.

The area of the USA where I did some
fossil hunting is in the outwash from
the rocky mountains.
The Paleontologist in charge commented
that the Miocene climate and fauna would
be his choice. Sounds like a better time in Oz, too.

 

[tas8831]

I blame Christians as much as anyone for the misunderstanding of Darwin and the theory of evolution. Atheists have not turned Darwinism into a religion; Christians have by making it antithetical to faith. It's just one more example of Christians shooting themselves in the foot and then trying to blame anyone else.

THIS.

 

[tas8831]

...Darwin has be misinterpreted and misrepresented.

We see many examples of this on this forum.

 

[tas8831]

At the risk of again being accused of quote mining , here's one that I think is worth considering:

"Looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find no record of the commencement of life and therefore I am devoid of any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense... I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith." {Charles Darwin, Discourses Biological and Geographical, pgs. 257, 258}

I don't know if it's true, but I once heard that the only degree Darwin possessed was in theology.

Yeah, quote mining. And not from anything of his that was presented as scientific.

 

[FredVB]

Charles Darwin was sort of in line with Christian thinking early on. Was he Christian? This is too open to debate. But it is certain in history that he gave up on Christian faith later and from then on, after personal tragedy, this suggests to me personally that he was not ever really serious about being Christian, and did not pass any test to him. His writing pertaining to evolution then was without Christianity in his thinking, and would not leave possibility of God's work in this world. Christians who are Christian indeed cannot exclude God's work in this world. Some think God is too distant to be involved, but this is not Christian thinking. God would do what is needed to have the perfect design, Christians should know this. It is a problem then to see how the thinking that would exclude God can be consistent with this Christian view.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Charles Darwin was sort of in line with Christian thinking early on. Was he Christian? This is too open to debate. But it is certain in history that he gave up on Christian faith later and from then on, after personal tragedy, this suggests to me personally that he was not ever really serious about being Christian, and did not pass any test to him. His writing pertaining to evolution then was without Christianity in his thinking, and would not leave possibility of God's work in this world. Christians who are Christian indeed cannot exclude God's work in this world. Some think God is too distant to be involved, but this is not Christian thinking. God would do what is needed to have the perfect design, Christians should know this. It is a problem then to see how the thinking that would exclude God can be consistent with this Christian view.

Why does it matter if Darwin was a Christian or not? His scientific contribution isn't dependent on the answer to that question (and neither are any of the ideas mentioned in the OP.) Was it necessary to dredge up 3-year-old thread to tack on some idle theological speculation?

 

[FredVB]

Yes, it is of importance. Probably not to you personally, but to me and to others it would be. This is Christian Forums where there are Christians communicating and atheists come, as they may, of course, and they go to a few forums on the site to argue their positions to exclude God and most Christians do not stay at those forums where there is such argument, and atheists remain to argue together that their positions are right, without inclusion of God. Bringing this up again is not against any law, and I would do such not caring who it offends, because I can discuss God being neglected where I see it in discussion in any forum on this Christian Forums site. And Darwin himself was making errors. With not giving place to God he made conclusions that were just plain wrong, that selection happening naturally would explain new species, and new genera, and with more time new families, and new orders, and so on, from at least certain of any gene pools. He was quite mistaken. So neo-darwinism came in place of that, with mutations happening enough to provide for an explained evolution. But is that getting closer to truth? You can't know not knowing if God is involved or not. Explanation for what we all have now does not justly exclude God. God's purpose for us as our very Maker is something right for us, that is not invasive. Of course we should want things that are right for us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, it is of importance. Probably not to you personally, but to me and to others it would be. This is Christian Forums where there are Christians communicating and atheists come, as they may, of course, and they go to a few forums on the site to argue their positions to exclude God and most Christians do not stay at those forums where there is such argument, and atheists remain to argue together that their positions are right, without inclusion of God. Bringing this up again is not against any law, and I would do such not caring who it offends, because I can discuss God being neglected where I see it in discussion in any forum on this Christian Forums site. And Darwin himself was making errors. With not giving place to God he made conclusions that were just plain wrong, that selection happening naturally would explain new species, and new genera, and with more time new families, and new orders, and so on, from at least certain of any gene pools. He was quite mistaken. So neo-darwinism came in place of that, with mutations happening enough to provide for an explained evolution. But is that getting closer to truth? You can't know not knowing if God is involved or not. Explanation for what we all have now does not justly exclude God. God's purpose for us as our very Maker is something right for us, that is not invasive. Of course we should want things that are right for us.

That was a very long-winded way to say "Because I wanted to reply on this three year old thread".