Why do so many people seem to be against Charles Darwin?
I am sure that he wasn't perfect ~ who is ? ~ but he seems to have been an intelligent, pleasant, caring and interesting individual, who made some fascinating scientific discoveries and set forth some new and interesting theories.
His language may sometimes sound a bit odd, today ~ even non-PC at times, though that may be to do with changes in meanings, as well as in what is socially acceptable etc.
But why all the vitriol?
Why comparisons with Hitler?
Why an instrument of the devil?
To be honest, I had never come across anything like this, until I joined Hub Pages.
I had never encountered anyone who had not been impressed by him. This attitude is quite new and completely incomprehensible to me.
The poor man is dead and cannot stand up for himself. He must be turning in his grave at the unfair comments that are being leveled at him on this site ~ and, I am guessing, elsewhere, even if I hadn't previously been aware of such behaviour.
I am completely bewildered by this aggressively negative attitude, which, to me, seems totally unnecessary.
We have had Darwin on our money, here in the UK ~ notes and coins ~ so I am wondering if this is purely an American phenomenon, or are there British people ~ and others ~ who also agree with the Darwin hate campaign?
it's politics. Propaganda from the anti-evolutionists - they think if they can tar Darwin, they can bring evolution down. I wrote a hub about the politics of anti-evolutionists
I think another main factor is people make up their minds on a view out of context quotes & twisted information. I had a neutral view of Darwin previously, because I didn't know much about him. A few months ago, I read several books on him - one of the most fascinating was Annie's Box based on his correspondence & family info. I think Darwin was an outstanding man of his time
I saw a study from the US recently where over 50% of respondents said they believed the earth was only 6,000 years old ie: they are creationists. Darwin and evolution simply doesn't fit in with that belief so they do as much as they can to discredit it. It's like a war between science and the bible. Very ignorant IMO. Creationists have come up with their own "science" to support their belief in a young earth - all complete nonsense of course, but unfortunately many believe it.
Being from the UK as well, these forums opened my eyes to a lot of the strangeness existing in the US. The creationists may as well be from another planet, because they are way out there. What's scary is how mainstream it is over there. A lot of it comes down to low educational levels. Another study showed that the less education one had the more likely they were to believe in creationism. I'd say that fits well with my observations!
yes, I noticed these views bigtime on HP - guess because most people from there
Over 50%! That's a scary figure. I gather the whole 6000 year thing is based on adding up the various generations listed out in Genesis, then throwing in the 2000 or so years since the birth of Christ for good measure.
In Genesis it says that Cain slew Abel, and he was cast out by God:
"Then the Lord replied to him, "Therefore, whosoever slayeth Cain in vengeance will suffer vengeance seven times over. " And the Lord set a Mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. Then Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden."
Later on the Bible goes on to say that Cain took a wife in the land of Nod.
So who were these people who were already living in the Land of Nod when Adam and Eve were around?
Definitely an american phenomenon for the most part I think. There's all manner of weirdos on here claiming the non-existence of evolution to an extent that just doesn't happen in the UK or Europe.
It's also a direct correlation with religious belief of course. Being from the UK, I don't even have any friends or family who are religious - this wouldn't be that case if I lived in the US.
Strange really, most coutries go the complete opposite way once they become richer and better educated...
Agreed, but I have another perspective as well. Originally I come from a small village in Spain and of course they are all catholic, but you will not find the Spanish (or Italian, Portuguese, French etc) proposing a young earth. The bible just isn't taken as a literal document in Europe (and nor should it be) and for that, I am truly grateful!
My Mum is RC and I have studied history, so I have my concerns about this religion, but it is quite refreshing to know that the 'Big Bang Theory' was put forward by a Catholic priest and that the Pope believes that evolution is true
Don't get me wrong I'm not Catholic, but it is interesting to me that over 250 million christians in europe will very happily accept science alongside their religion and the opposite is true in the US.
I guess the Catholics learnt their lesson after Copernicus/Galileo.
Of course another thing you will hear from the US religionists is that Catholicism is not a true christian religion and therefore they don't count. One thing is true, they certainly don't let facts get in the way of their beliefs
Oh yes, lots of people think that Catholics are not Christians ~ that is a widely-held assumption in the UK too. I was once called the daughter of an idolatress by my Sunday school teacher
I am bewildered by the different attitudes in America to Europe. I think, though, that it could be explained by the theory that emigrants take their culture with them ~ and it does not then change much ~ while the society they left carries on evolving.
There are highly educated people with PhDs, who reject evolution and condemn Darwin.
Not very many of them. In any case - getting a PhD does not preclude mental instability or fear of the unknown. Nor does it preclude the fact that some "creation scientists" are being paid to attack Darwin and discredit everything we know about almost all science.
What disturbs me the most about these attacks on Darwin is we are retroactively condemning a quest for knowledge. The church has always attempted to do this because they can only survive with ignorant sheeple as a membership base.
But you only need a few PhDs, who believe in a newly created world, with Adam and Eve as our ancestors. They provide the expert 'proof', which can then be cited by others.
I'm sure there are but they'd be few and far between. Also for any that do, make sure you check out their doctorate qualifications - most get their doctorates from dodgy creationist organisations!
Here's the study that I was referring to if you are interested: http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/conten … 9.full.pdf
Regarding it being out of proportion (your response to Baileybear) it is, but not all of us are willing to grow and change our beliefs over time, in fact some people simply cannot handle their beliefs being challenged.
Questioning deeply held beliefs initially creates strong internal anxiety and can turn a persons whole world upside down (I know I've experienced it lots of times). Many just do not have the psychological strength or will to go through that kind of internal upheaval. It's a lot simpler and easier to hang onto old beliefs and attack the ones that threaten them.
Yes, Susana, that is very true.
I'll have a look at that article.
That article is interesting, in that it looks at both school prayer and creationism and how support for them is affected by background, etc.
I went to a very good senior school ~ one of the best in the country ~ and we had school prayer every day, just as we had at primary school.
We also had regular Scripture lessons ~ and one of our teachers was the local Anglican priest.
These were, by the way, state schools, not a faith schools.
We were taught evolution in our Biology class. I mentioned, elsewhere, that this priest was invited into the lesson, to talk about his thoughts on the subject. He believed that God created life, which then evolved ~ ie. Adam and Eve were metaphors for life.
We were taught about creation in 'Scripture' lessons ~ but we were not told that it was true.
I don't have a problem with morning prayers ~ they just get the children to be considerate and grateful ~ provided it isn't taken too far.
But I don't think that school should be where religion is enforced. Schools should not be stating that scientific discoveries are false, or the work of the devil, etc.
If parents want their children to experience Christianity, then they can take them to church on Sundays.
they will come in religious and won't open their minds
And yet, Baileybear, some Creationists seem to think that it is the so-called 'Darwinists' who won't open their minds to Creationism
I was indoctrinated with creationism. I've seen both sides. It's just a mythical story like all the other mythical stories in religion. Did you know there are dragons in the bible? I've been writing a hub about it
The hubs that I am working on include dragons, too
he he - mine just needs editing before I can publish.
I asked an anti-Darwin creationist if his fundamental christian upbringing makes him biased & he blocked my comment
I noticed that ~ I wondered where it had disappeared to
I found that title quite offensive ~ and, on top of all the other negative comments I have seen on here, it was probably what made me start this thread.
when I saw this thread, I checked out who you had been visiting
I see in that hub you're now discussing eyes. I won't bother commenting there, because probably won't go up. I need eye correction to see clearly. Pretty much all my family do. I can't understand the argument against evolution and for eye surgery
It has now been implied that I don't really know much about evolution and that I just defer to my favourite experts
Surely we all have to look to experts. None of us knows everything ~ we all learn from those who have studied more and longer.
I do prefer to look to those who seem to be genuine scientists, though
I think you'd be very hard pushed to find the kind of sentiment I see on here, with regards to darwin, in the UK. There's not the big religious/ politcal push to discredit evolution here that there is in the US.
Why do you think this 'big religious/ political push' exists?
I think it's because evolution essentially means to many believers that god does not create us in his own image - and therefore His bearing on the human race is significantly diminished or removed entirely.
I find this to be rather a strange point of view too - the bible is taken literally by nobody - not a single person in the western world. Know any christians who don't eat pork or shellfish, for instance?
There is a massive problem of taking scientific issues and matching them to the bible also. It doesn't work - evolution is the big one - but I'm not sure why. If you were to take your views on science from the bible then you'd also have to revise the current thinking on zoology, geography, geology, physics, chemistry, taxonomy, biology, medicine, agriculture, archeology, history, paleontology etc (off the top of my head).
Why pick on evolution specifically? Good question!
We have a fascination with where we came from. Evolution goes a long way to explaining that and - it is "right" when we listen to the idea. Even without fully understanding the minutae and mechanics - it just makes sense. And of course - directly disproves the notion we were created as-is and in the image of a god. Of course - these anti-Darwinists don't actually read their book. If they did - they would now that this god they worship has no physical form.
These guys are protecting a long standing gravy train. Think of all the priests and other parasites who would need a day job.
But why so very anti-Darwin in some places but not in others, I wonder??
There is a mega church relatively near to where I live, but I don't know how successful it is and I've never been inside.
some even say the mythical creatures in the bible were dinosaurs that lived at the same time as humans
here's a link why there were no dinosaurs in the bible
http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/the-t … t-behemoth
It is quite well written actually dj. Certainly better than "majik."
Hello happy, happy Mark.
Where do I put this. Into the 10% or 90% category?
Referring to the link, of course.
Why don't you do what you always do and just say it is a "belief" and no more or less valid than your belief that evolution is a lie and dinosaurs were here a few thousand years ago?
That will probably best validate your irrational beliefs and calm your fear of the unknown, I would think.
I wouldn't want any conflicts, much less , WARS, over the issue.
But, thanks all the same.
Pretty sure you would not be able to understand why your constant barrage of nonsensical statements and irrational beliefs cause so many conflicts dj.
Probably all my fault for not listening to the Truth huh?
You'll be happy to know, I am winding things back a notch or two.
This is not only getting tedious, but boring too. There's not much fun left in it.
There's more to life that forums.
Good for you dj. I have always said the best place to keep your irrational beliefs was in your head - where they belong. I see you are actually not telling the truth though as you are trying to sell the muslimist your BS on another thread. Oh well - no one said Christians stuck to their rules - did they?
Thanks for displaying your self righteousness.
It suits you to a TEE!
BTW, if you keep talking like that, I might just change my mind and FLOOD the forum with a lot more "religion", since that's the appropriate thing to talk about. I can keep you typing till the proverbial cows come home, and then some.
it makes a lot of sense - it's hilarious about the tail being a penis too.
Do you believe the dinosaurs & humans lived at the same time?
We all believe what we want.
I have no problem with that.
My line "I have no problem with that" was referring to the line before it.
You added your last line before I finished typing, so I never saw it. I'll keep you hanging on that one. I don't really care to comment one way or the other.
Jesus is Lord, is far more important than "did man & dinosaur live together?".
I don't sweat the small stuff.
Fact: Jesus is Lord!
The rest...small stuff...
Your opinions,...small stuff....
But, strangely, I LIKE you. (I must be going nuts! )
It is nonsense, that is what it is dj. Nonsense that has caused 2,000 years of war, persecutions and pogroms.
I don't even know your name, but I suppose I like you within the confines of an Internet forum - yes. You are rather difficult to converse with of course, because you speak gibberish and nonsense at me on a regular basis - but I live in hope that I will get you to see why your religion causes so many conflicts. Who knows? Anything is possible apparently.
I have to go and meet with some "sheeple" now.
Enjoy your groveling and preying. Hope it makes you feel better.
"Praying", not preying. These are already in, no preying needed.
Grovelling? I honestly can't remember EVER having done that!
Interesting thought. I'll ponder that one.I'll mention you in my prayers, though. Something like, "Lord, Bless Mark. He really want's to know you, just doesn't know how to ask!" Or something like that.
C u L8er!
Sorry, but this is the Education section and not the Religion section where the definition of a fact actually remains intact and is used as an objective reality as well as a provable concept rather than ones belief in fantasy.
I read, once, that human and dinosaur fossil footprints had been found together ~ but it was not in an 'authoritative' book.
Its got more to do with what Darwin's Theoretical Dissertation,"does" ... than by what it "says" ... which is a piece of Rational reconconcilings, but it Confuses Humans ... about The Reality of the Origin of Species and Natural Selection ... Hence something, essentially propounded, In, Denying The Act of Creation.
It would be the same as I hating the Concept of an Equitable Distribution of National Wealth ... by way of an hypothetical Economic Equality ... Enforced by the State ... Practiced by Communism, Socialism, Leninism, etc., all these being Products of Marxism ...
Nor, is my loathing, because the Theorists ... Marx was a Jew ... but for him, saying what he Propounded, that got ... Applied, by political half-wits... and did, what they did, in Marx' sanctioning.
I Reject both the Theories ... of Self-Evolution, and Economic Equality ... and loathe them for what these have done ... than, what Das Capital, or the Origins say; hope you are with me ...
For Communism alone has led to the murder of over sixty Million humans so far; a million more than were killed in World War II ... the same is being done by Capitalism ... Its Communism, with Certain Freedoms, and the Sanctioning of Individual's Ownership of a Nation's Wealth, by Adam Smith !
Let me get this straight.
You loath proven scientific facts because they show your Invisible Super Being does not exist?
Dear me. Perhaps if You Use Capital Letters Instead You Might Get your Nonsense Across.
ReligioN CauseS ConflictS. Science Shows Us we Evolved,. How SaD FoR You. Your Beliefs Are NOnsensE.
This would Be why your Religion Causes so many Konflicts. Believing nonsense and attacking atheists for not Believing Nonsense will always cause conflict. Always.
That's pretty funny! I like irony, you accusing other people of causing conflict. LOL!
I suggest you buy yourself a decent dictionary, onusonsomeoneelse. Asking religionists like yourself to stop spreading nonsense and abusing your children is not "causing conflict," nor is it "ironic."
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
Accusing me of abusing my children.....
This is why athiests cause so much conflict.
You do abuse them. Teaching them nonsense as fact is child abuse and aught to be illegal.
purposefully misspelling words to mock or imply superior intelligence over the intellect of religious people.
This is why you cause so much conflict.
No. I only do that when people speak nonsense at me and accuse me of being evil for not believing The Nonsense.
Attacking me as you usually do elicits a response. You attack others and then call their response the cause of the conflicts. You are being dishonest. This is why your religion has caused so many wars.
Tell me the earth is 6,000 years old again.
I do not believe I have ever said that the earth is 6,000 years old. Putting words in my mouth....
This is why you cause so much conflict.
Oh - my mistake. I apologize for suggesting you were a young earth creationist - I guess I assumed that because you reject all scientific knowledge as a lie. My bad.
This is why your religion has caused so much conflict.
All scientific knowledge? Dear me. I was'nt aware that evolution theory encompassed all scientific knowledge.
I'd say I agree with a large portion of the assertations made by these varying fields. but if you like we can go oever them all one by one just to make sure.
I am Onus peaceful Mormon.
Ah - you think evolution lives in a vacuum? By denying evolution you are denying the vast bulk of our scientific knowledge and understanding.
Do you agree with geology and all the "life sciences" for example?
You actually do not agree with the assertions made most of these fields of study - why would you need to tell lies and pretend that you do.? It only causes conflicts.
This would be why your religion causes so many wars.
My kids grew up believing in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and Santa Claus. I had no idea I was abusing them.
That is not the same as keeping them out of the education system in order to teach them that the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution does not happen.
Nothing wrong with a little fantasy in your life. If they still believed in the Tooth fairy and went around trying to get the law changed to what the Tooth Fairy wants and denying scientific facts, then you would have abused them.
I was brought up in a very strict Catholic household, very much like the situation that you describe. My sister and I were removed from class, at my mother's demand and our embarrassment, when the subject turned to evolution, sex, etc. We were taught that even a sin as small as a lie could mean burning in hell for all eternity, and that we were not to question the bible, priests or the church as a whole, but just follow in blind faith. Well, all that "upbringing" certainly backfired on my parents.
Instead of making us mindless robots, it taught us to question things. I am now what I call a "recovering" Catholic. I do believe there is a higher power, and I call her God. I think the debate between creationism and evolution is just silly. The bible is nothing more than a storybook from which we are to draw inspiration for how to lead our lives. I don't believe the authors ever intended for it to be taken literally. I mean, come on! I also believe that the people who take the bible so literally are as dangerous as the muslims who hang on the quran's every word like an eHow "How To."
Yes - I agree - they are equally dangerous. Some people break out of the indoctrination, but some people do not. The very fact that you had to work to do so is the issue. This is child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. I was abused in a similar fashion, but was willful enough to resist it. Which - of course - meant I was constantly in trouble. I consider myself to have been abused.
Yes - you are right - the argument is silly, but - these people are still abusing children. This is most definitely not silly. And I am sure you know the Church haa a long history of abusing children both physically and mentally.
I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the part about it being child abuse on the part of the parents. I really don't see this as being any more abusive than a parent raising their child as a vegetarian, athlete or pianist. It's simply a parent raising a child in the manner they choose. The child either carries on with it in their adult life or they don't.
Let's not discuss the church's role, or you'll really get me started on abuse. I think the Catholic church, at least, should be completely disbanded on behalf of all present and future children.
Raising a child as a vegetarian, athlete or pianist would require the parent to understand the logic and rationale of doing so, reasons that can be explained with evidence and understanding. The child also can then understand the reasoning.
However, raising a child in a religion does not require any evidence or logical and rationale explanation, but instead requires the child to accept without any thought that which is being taught, to not question the beliefs in which the parents themselves were taught by their parents, and so on...
Hence, the child is being taught to believe and accept something that they cannot question, criticize or rationalize. They are being indoctrinated and that is the very crux of abuse.
I did hope that this thread would stay polite and friendly.
Darwin's theory does not deny the act of creation by God.
Many Christians accept evolution ~ they can do this because there does not have to be a conflict with their beliefs.
God could have created life, which then evolved.
Thus Darwin's theory can be acceptable to both believers and non-believers.
However, a rejection of Darwin's ideas does not have to result in the nastiness I see expressed about / towards him on this site. That is quite bewildering.
My learned friend
I do not insinuate ... I state, in straight, relate-able, un-ambiguous terms ... besides ... why should I accuse Darwin ... because, modern Biology, Genetics, and the other disciplines, dealing with Organic Science, follow the Darwinian Assumption ... This in itself, is enough, by way of accusation.
They do, just as you say, that he does not deny God's Existence ... not that it matters ... For, Creation, is not subject to Darwinian Assumption ... Or, as you say ... it is our Evolution, from a Monkey, into the Perfect Human ... is what, he is talking about.
But I would be grateful, and in the process you shall stand vindicated ... if you could provide me with a Specific Reference ... in state of Darwin's stated, that "God Created the amoeba, which later evolved into complex life.
Hello Shahid Bukhari
I don't know whether or not Darwin specifically mentioned the amoeba. I shall have to read his works and check.
Why don't you do likewise
As I understand, and rather briefly ... Darwin traces the "Self-Evolution" of the "Self-Existent" ... Single Celled Organisms, into, the Perfectly Bonded ... Billions of cells Composed, Complex, Perfect, Living ... Forms ... such as the Humans.
Yet, not one of the Secular Thinkers, or Scientists ... meaning, Darwin, along with all the modern Scientists, assisted by Technologies, and Philosophies ... can show, "how" the Apes have Evolved, into the Proliferating, Human Form ... There is always a "Lucy" ... !
Because, without exception, all Secular Theories ... are afflicted with the Phenomenon of "Missing Link" ... be it Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, or Genetics ... There is always "a Missing Link" which Clearly Divides their Known, from the Existential's Reality.
I am not aware, if Darwin employs the term, Amoeba ... but I am very certain, that he is deeply influenced by Aristotle's idea of the "Atomos" ... Leeuwenhoek's, "Animalcule" ... and Kant's Philosophy, pointing at the Existence of an Elemental Creator, along the lines of Nature ... you have called Darwin's god ...
On the other hand, Darwin's Idea, about Self-Existence, and Life, are essentially influenced by such, as Hegel, and Mills... besides Descartes ... famous for his Philosophical dictum ... "I think, therefore, I am ! "
The fact is, that Theoretical "Assumptions" mostly operating freely, beyond, sanity ... can create, and deny "anything" ... and thus, they assume the power to grant a Theoretical entity, the Will, to do ... along with an acutely discerning Mind, and the Ability of Choosing correctly, from among billions of probable choices ...
But they stubbornly refuse to Believe, when I say, God Hath Created the Existent Totality ... for sanely speaking, its beyond the Amoeba, or a super-compressed particle of Matter, to do all this Creating !
Whats interesting is the fact, that these, Theory Created Entities, always invariably choose correctly, and Bond, at the right time and with the right kinds, into the Distinct ... Human or any other living, or non-living Form ... But the more surprising, is the Theory, that they came a riding, this way ... by hitching a ride on a Meteorite !
These daft ideas, collectively influence modern thinkers like Jean Paul Sartre ... and his Philosophy of Existentialism; the mother of all the present Freedoms of the individual in the so called Free Societies ... Ruled by Animals !
Trish, as a matter of Principle ... I do not waste my time reading Epics and Iliads ... for that matter, any other thousand paged justifications, of an Idea or a plot ... as is the case with Dostoevskies, and Kissinger type books and Theories, etc.
"Truth is Simple, and Brief ... Truth Is Manifest ... Truth can Amply Justify, Being"...
So that all can see, Unaided ... Truth Is not subservient to Reason, Literature, Science, Technological Determinations, or Philosophy ...
Wow - you show utterly no respect for any potential reader do you?
Darwin postulated the idea that more complex organisms evolved from less complex ones - right back to a single celled organism.
We have proof and evidence that this is the case. There is no "missing link." Please stop lying that there is. Thank you.
This would be why your belief system causes so many conflicts. You have no moral compass to guide you and are evil.
I am sorry, Shahid Bukhari, but I cannot understand quite what you are saying. I will have a try at following what I can of your argument.
Darwin believed that complex creatures evolved from simpler creatures.
Yes, that is true and the evidence exists to support this.
In the words of Dawkins; 'The missing link is no longer missing.'
Lucy was a potential ancestor.
I do not know who influenced Darwin, but most intelligent and interested people might be influenced by other intelligent and interested thinkers.
Evolution does not deny the existence of God as creator ~ this is why both believers and atheists may accept the truth of evolution.
Potential evidence of extra-terrestrial life has been found on meteorites. Whether or not the planet was seeded from outer space I have no idea.
I don't know why you mention epics. What do they have to do with it?
I suggest that you read the scientific works of Darwin.
I have written some hubs, which clarify evolution from the viewpoint of the non-scientist. Why don't you take a look?
If you could explain more clearly, then I shall attempt to answer more fully. Thanks
Thank you for reading my reply, I suggest, you look up the references at Wikipedia.com, and then read again what I have stated ... do so for a few times ... it will clarify what I have explained.
You see, there are two ways of looking at "Reality"... Meaning, How Things Really are ... One Way is to Believe in The "Truth" ...
And the other way, is to Deny the Truth, and start making and Believing in the Half-Truth of "Theories" ...
The question is ... Why do people deny the Truth ?
The answer is,
"For many reasons
But mainly, people deny, because, what they are told, is the Truth, neither can, nor does stand up to, the more powerful, meaning, empirical Proofs supported Logical arguments, of Theory ... "
Thus, Theory appears to be the more plausible ... the "more probable" of what could be the reality, or what might have really happened, than ... what the outdated Religious Stories tell...
Historically, the Priests, Poets and Politicians have told these stories ... but ever since the Renaissance, the Scientists are telling all the Stories ...
Its their "business" to tell Stories ... to put up one, against the other ... mainly in Rejecting, Religious Stories... and thus, make a cozy living ...
The Priests, however, have been telling stories for a longer duration of time ... not only in Judaism and Christianity , but also in Islam, and sundry Religious Branchings, such as the Dravidian ... and those, "unaware" of The Truth ... of Belief, or Science ... thus, falling into their "business" traps.
Regarding Darwin's belief, that complex creatures have Evolved from simple creatures ... is a technology's supported argument ...
Darwin had with him the Microscope, while those before him, did not have the Microscope, or an organized body of Knowledge ... Biology etc.. Sciences ... that could Divide, and Distinguish Organic Life, into Species and Sub Species etc...
Darwin did this, and deserves credit for doing the Researches.
But ... Darwin was confused ... In the sense, that he could not reconcile his Scriptures stated, with the Empirical Reality ... meaning, he could not Relate The Ordained "Proliferation of The Created Species, by Replication ... and the involved ... Exact Cellular Multiplications" with what he saw under the Microscope !
He could not See Adam, in the Human ... he saw the amoeba ... as they now see the Amino Acids, with Electron Microscopes ... and believe.
Why ... Because he did not have The Truth Concept of Creation, to Define the Organic Form's Origins, within, the Exact Replication of Forms ... so he named it ... Evolution ... which means, Self-Evolution of Living Forms in a "Natural" Selection, where the Fittest Survived ...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution, per se, Is Denial ... of The Deliberate Act of Creation... but as Science progresses, they are coming closer, to the Reality, and conditionally accept The Truth of Creation, Theoretically, within yet another Theory of Intelligent Design !
Even today, Sciences do not know, how Cellular Replication is effected !
Therefore they cling on to the Idea of Self-Evolution ... What Dawkins believes ... whoever this Dawkins is, or was ... is proof ... of what I have said about Theories.
What they call Evolution ... Is the Existential State of Creation ... and I have a Clear Understanding of the Reality, in my Correct Belief ... than they have, or can ever have, with Logics, Philosophies, and Theories.
About the modern day Stories ... Epics ... Heard of Homer's Odyssey ... a long, "thousand" paged story, the "Epic" of a Greek Hero, Ulysses, and his Adventures ... Odyssey, is the old Form of Theory, which attempted to justify the Greek Mythology ...
The 21st Century has another type of Epics ... Political Justifications of nonsensical ideas, and the Scientific Theories, such as the Strings Theory ... The Relativity Theory ... Evolution Theory, The Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics ... and countless other theories. Besides, we also have other "thousand" pages long :Epics" ... such as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy ... etc..
Briefly, what you are referring to as Facts ... are just Theories.
Where Lucies will always pop up ... but Lucies will always be Lucies ... Theories, defining one or the more probable ways, of how Things could, or might have been...
There is nothing Conclusive about theories ... they just have a Logical Potential of ... If ... ever Proven ... to be ... in what is Impossible ... The Statement of The Truth of Reality.
This is why, people, who have been misled by Clergy and Theoretical Science's narrow interpretation of The Word of God ... are the first, to deny The Act of Creation ... and start making, then believing in home grown Theories ... such as Theories, Defining Existence, in tracing Existence, to extraterrestrial origins of Life ... and then this Alien life, Developing into the Complex Life, and Eco systems ... in Self-Evolution.
I will read your hubs and may revert back, with Questions ... perhaps some more Answers ...
So Good Bye my friend.
It looks to me as if you are trying to blind people with philosophy.
Yes, please do read my 'evolution' hubs, because they include more than I can put in a forum post and they clarify matters, I think ~ I hope.
The evidence is definitely there for evolution.
It's fine that you can continue to post Islamic propaganda at your leisure, but these kind of posts in the Education section are clearly dishonest and show you to be little more than one who fabricates lies in order to support your propaganda.
Is this the kind of person Islam is known to create?
"Darwin's theory does not deny the act of creation by God."
No, it really doesn't. Not even a little bit. It makes no assertion about the existence, or non-existence, of a Creator deity. All it says is, "Hey look what happens when two isolated populations of a single species have to deal with different environmental requirements: they change! The changes are gradual, over many generations, but change they do. This is probably why some birds are vultures, some are crows, some are owls, and some are ostriches." (This is a gross oversimplification, of course.)
Nothing in there about God one way or the other.
Personally, I think if God set up the universe so that Homo Sapiens Sapiens would evolve, that makes Him a lot cooler than just going "Okay, lemme see, the head bone's connected to the neck bone...doo dee doo dee doo...boom, there's Man."
But that's just me.
The HubPages forum is a great place to learn that the way we see the world is definitely not the only one! Pretty much every point of view that can be imagined will be despised and condemned by someone here, if it sits around long enough to be found. It's enlightening in a sort of sad way.
Yes, it's true that there are many viewpoints.
And we cannot all agree on everything ~ that's for sure.
But the amount of anti-Darwin feeling has really surprised me.
everyone knows that, if Darwin was right, then god doesn't exist.
I mean, come on, that's, like, a proven fact..
I do realise that it seems to be related to Christian fundamentalism ~ but there are Christians who accept evolution. They think that God created life and that it then evolved. Since no-one actually knows where life came from, that could be a possibility.
There is a place for this kind of discussion in the religion and philosophy section.
This is why darwinism causes so many wars.
Lotta holes in the theory of evolution. Darwin erred in several places. Why do some evolve and others, not at all? Doesn't make sense. Awfully long list of creatures that have unergone no changes at all. Immaculate conception?
Instead of just making throw away comments, why don't you back them up with something? Because you can't. It's just silly religious-driven drivel.
Hi Druid Dude,
Organisms evolve, if they need to evolve to survive.
If they are already well-suited to their environment, then there is no need to adapt to it.
I agree that there has to be adaptation, all I'm saying is that Darwin was the first word, not the last, and there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. Take for instance, the discovery of the flat faced forest ape. Walking upright w/o knuckle walking a full million and a half years before the Leakey's "Lucy" (Who also knuckle walked). Changes things about what we thought we knew. Some said the world was flat, some still insist that it is round. It is actually oval. Things change, and sometimes that change depends on just one discovery.
Hi Druid Dude
Of course, science is on-going.
Can you tell me the name of the flat faced forest ape, please ?
I'd like to read about that.
I saw it on of the ed channels on The Tube. Sorry, but I watch for it all the time. More adapted to upright walking. Didn't even get to see the whole program myself, but will let you know if I see it again.
there's been plenty of science done since Darwin. He started the ball rolling. Since then, much is now known about genetics, DNA etc. Plenty of fossils found. Evolution isn't just about Darwin
And almost all of it supports his 'theory'
I think Darwin did very well, considering not much about science was published, people couldn't visit other countries as easily and nothing was known in about genetics and microbes
Please don't hate me because you disagree with me. I am Onus, peaceful Mormon.......
I don't hate you, dont be ridiculous. Dont make things up - they should teach you that in sunday school!
Thanks everyone for responding.
I deliberately did not put this is 'religion' section, but in 'science', because I did not want to simply assume what the outcome of the discussion might be.
So it is just to do with religious beliefs, then, and not really to do with science or with Darwin as a person, at all??
Maybe if the USA wasn't forced to separate church and state, there wouldn't be such a reaction. We in the UK have a state church ~ yet, even though I know lots of Christians, and other believers, we come over as a non-religious country ~ and I think Darwin is well-respected here. (I'd like to hear from any UK members who think differently, though.)
By the way, please don't let this thread degenerate into nastiness and disrespectful or insulting comments.
Interestingly, the fellow who argues for creationism in the Scopes Monkey Trial, William Jennings Bryan, argued against evolution not only because he felt it contradicted scripture but also because he feared that folk would use Darwin's writings as justification for the wealthy exploiting the poor (otherwise known as social Darwinism).
I'm not sure if this is what you were asking about, but it does seem to be related to the topic.
I'm sorry, but you will have to excuse my ignorance ~ I hadn't come across 'Social Darwinism' before, either.
Why would the theory of evolution encourage people to treat the poor badly??
Have I missed something?
The 'logic' behind social Darwinism goes something like this:
If survival of the fittest is the way things work in nature, then clearly the animals best equipped to compete are the ones that succeed.
If you apply that principle to people as well, then clearly the people who succeed are obviously the ones best equipped to succeed, and the people who fail obviously weren't cut out for success, evolutionarily.
So if some people are rich, it's clearly because they deserve to be so. Further, if some people are poor, it's clearly because they deserve to be so.
So there's nothing wrong with rich people exploiting poor people; after all, if poor people were good for anything else, they wouldn't be poor, would they?
If people draw those conclusions, it's hardly Darwin's fault.
No, not at all. For my money, the right thing to do would be not to try to discredit Darwin's work entirely, but rather to explain that Darwin's work has little if anything to do with human economics, psychology, or social dynamics. But perhaps that's a bit too nuanced?
Yes ~ a bit of open-minded discussion and education
I suppose that, although evolution seems logical to me, one can imagine why suggesting that our g g g * grandparents were apes and that our g g g g g g g * grandparents were fish, and that we are cousins of bananas and grass might seem weird to others
According to Wikipedia;
'Social Darwinism is a term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies which .. exploited ideas of survival of the fittest'......
'The term first appeared in Europe in 1877. The term was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter ..'
It seems that this, again, was an American idea that really had nothing to do with Darwin, but was about other people and their theories.
No, it has little to do with Darwin's actual work, but folks used Darwin's work as 'support' for their philosophies, and even to lend a false legitimacy to racist ideology, 'reasoning' that since white people were in control of pretty much everything, it was because they were evolved to be so.
It's pretty disgusting stuff, but people will do pretty much anything to make themselves feel better about themselves (except try to become a better person).
Religious people are against darwin cause his theory is about change, but in the catholic church, nothing changes ever, even though the evidence is all around.
I'm not sure if this is slightly off topic, but...
Has anyone here read much of Darwin's work? I'm a huge fan.
The main part that sticks out in my head is the voyage to Tierra del Fuego and the story of Jemmy Button.
Just thinking about it makes me want to read it again. So wild.
Mr. Knowles is correct. I believe a person should be able to believe what ever they want so long as it doesn't hurt others or they are led astray by 'leaders' who would have them do the same. Wouldn't it be something if one day it was discovered that the great apes are actually a degeneration from the human line - just speculation.
Say someone approached us and said "Jesus had two natures and was God incarnate, man and spirit, effecting salvation."
Some could say, "Well you've got me convinced. That's what the Bible says."...End of discussion, end of debate...The Bible tells me so.
Or some others could say, "Prove it... You can't... Your logic and evidence are crap. It makes no sense. So you're either stupid or crazy, or just plain intellectually lazy."
Still others would say, "What an intriguing way of looking at it the way the ancient Greco-Roman philosophers did... To see how they used what knowledge they had, stretched it to the limit, and then went for an irrational mystery.. Now, what's it mean? What were they trying to get at? How is it relevant? It was probably special if they went to all that trouble. And how does it relate to other religions or worldviews? Are there parallels? Is there any meaning to be gleaned, maybe even transformative meaning, if I try to get inside it and poke around?".
This was Darwin's approach...an approach without prejudice, simply taking the available information and formulating a " theory " of evolution...
I like the last option best and the first option least. I find the middle option safe but boring.
Yes, taking the evidence, as is, without bias, has to be the best way, I think.
This is why it is so sad, and annoying, that a man, who simply collected samples, conducted experiments and came up with a logical theory, should be so vilified, by so many.
Darwin's theories still don't explain why so many species have undergone no change. The actual number is quite huge. Not saying he was wrong, just saying, WE STILL DON'T HAVE ALL THE DATA. Can't tell who wins the race, until somebody crosses the finish line. It is certain that mutations take place, but how, and exactly what triggers it is still being researched. Oh, and Trish. I think he's gotten over the rebuke by now.
Darwin's theories have been well developed and improved since his day. We have plenty of data. Which are these species that have undergone no change?
We know what triggers the changes. We have replicated the process in a lab.
Hi Druid Dude
Species evolve when they need to adapt; if they are thriving and fit into their environment well, then there is no need to adapt / evolve. There's no need to fix what isn't broken, as they say
There is plenty of data ~ enough to back up this scientific theory.
Of course the research goes on. That is the nature of science.
As for 'the rebuke', Darwin is not here to know about it ~ but I am and I am very offended, angry and bewildered on his behalf ~ and my own.
There are so many people criticising him, who have no idea what evolution really entails, or even what a scientific theory is. It is unfair and wrong.
That is very true indeed. Many people, and not just creationists, seem to think that evolution means that one animal magically transmutes into another one. I've seen that said so many times here and each time I am blown away by the lack of knowledge.
by Tricia Mason5 years ago
Hello:)I have had discussions, on this site and elsewhere, with a number of Creationists.For those who have not been involved in such discussion, I should clarify a few things:I do not think that the Bible is the word...
by pennyofheaven6 years ago
I was on the other evolution thread a minute ago and read this comment and it brought to mind a few questions;(the comment was in reply to someone else)Please feel free to start those threads. You'll find that if...
by daeemomin8 years ago
DARWINISM’S UNSCIENTIFIC FORMULAPlentiful Muddy Water + A Long Time + Many Coincidences = CivilizationWhen the subject of evolution comes up, many people imagine that this is a scientific problem—and that for anyone...
by Richard Parr5 years ago
“Evolutionary theory is not a slam-dunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory” [William A. Dembski]In his article 'Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge', Dr Dembski asks...
by thetruthhurts20097 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You...
by fallenangel6666 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.