jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (147 posts)

Anti-Darwin Feeling

  1. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    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?

    1. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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

      1. 0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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

        1. Trish_M profile image87
          Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, being presented with quotes out of context, by better educated people, could be the reason for some of this ~ and a belief in Bible literalism ~ but all the same, it seems so out of proportion.

    2. Susana S profile image91
      Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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!

      1. 0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        yes, I noticed these views bigtime on HP - guess because most people from there

      2. Amanda Severn profile image91
        Amanda Severnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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?

      3. superwags profile image82
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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...

        1. Susana S profile image91
          Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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! lol

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Susana

            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 smile

            1. Susana S profile image91
              Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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 lol

              1. Trish_M profile image87
                Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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 smile smile smile

                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.

      4. Trish_M profile image87
        Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Re education:
        There are highly educated people with PhDs, who reject evolution and condemn Darwin.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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. sad

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I know. Look at the Muslimist going at it like he knows what he is talking about. Probably never opened a scientific book in his life. sad

        2. Susana S profile image91
          Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, Susana, that is very true.
            I'll have a look at that article.

            1. Trish_M profile image87
              Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

        3. 0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          they will come in religious and won't open their minds

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And yet, Baileybear, some Creationists seem to think that it is the so-called 'Darwinists' who won't open their minds to Creationism

            1. 0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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

              1. Trish_M profile image87
                Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hi Baileybear smile

                The hubs that I am working on include dragons, too smile smile

                Great minds!

                1. 0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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

                  1. Trish_M profile image87
                    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I noticed that ~ I wondered where it had disappeared to smile

                    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. sad

                2. 0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  just published my dragon hub

                  1. Trish_M profile image87
                    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Just read it smile smile
                    Voted in up.

    3. superwags profile image82
      superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      Scarey stuff

      1. Trish_M profile image87
        Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you think this 'big religious/ political push' exists?

        1. superwags profile image82
          superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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!

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, Superwags, very strange sad

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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. lol

            1. Trish_M profile image87
              Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But why so very anti-Darwin in some places but not in others, I wonder??

              1. Susana S profile image91
                Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                This is why...the mega church


                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4904400_f248.jpg

                1. Trish_M profile image87
                  Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Good heavens!!!

                  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.

                  1. Susana S profile image91
                    Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah they can brainwash 16,000 people in one go at that particular venue sad

          3. 0
            Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            some even say the mythical creatures in the bible were dinosaurs that lived at the same time as humans

            1. Trish_M profile image87
              Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That explains that, then smile

              1. 0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                here's a link why there were no dinosaurs in the bible

                http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/the-t … t-behemoth

                1. aka-dj profile image79
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Now that's really authoritative! hmm

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It is quite well written actually dj. Certainly better than "majik."  lol

                  2. 0
                    Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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?

    4. Shahid Bukhari profile image58
      Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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 !

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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. sad

        1. Shahid Bukhari profile image58
          Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I leave it to The Day ...

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This would Be why your Religion Causes so many Konflicts. Believing nonsense and attacking atheists for not Believing Nonsense will always cause conflict. Always.  sad

            1. Onusonus profile image87
              Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's pretty funny! I like irony, you accusing other people of causing conflict. LOL!

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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. sad

                1. Onusonus profile image87
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Accusing me of abusing my children.....

                  This is why athiests cause so much conflict. sad

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You do abuse them. Teaching them nonsense as fact is child abuse and aught to be illegal. sad

      2. Trish_M profile image87
        Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I did hope that this thread would stay polite and friendly. smile

        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.

        1. Shahid Bukhari profile image58
          Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hello Shahid Bukhari smile

            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 smile

            1. Shahid Bukhari profile image58
              Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Trish_M

              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"...

              Why ?
              So that all can see, Unaided ... Truth Is not subservient to Reason, Literature, Science, Technological Determinations, or Philosophy ...

              Truth, Is.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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. sad

              2. Trish_M profile image87
                Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hello smile

                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 smile

                1. Shahid Bukhari profile image58
                  Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Trish_M

                  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.

                  1. Trish_M profile image87
                    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi again,

                    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.

                  2. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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? smile

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "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.

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Jeff smile

            Well, yes smile

            I don't know how life got here, but, however it was, it was pretty amazing smile

  2. Aficionada profile image92
    Aficionadaposted 5 years ago

    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.

  3. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    Hello Aficionada smile

    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.

  4. earnestshub profile image85
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    It's a fundy thing. smile

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    everyone knows that, if Darwin was right, then god doesn't exist.

    I mean, come on, that's, like, a proven fact..

    ...

    ...

    ...

    1. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      many think that he set apart to get rid of god.  In fact, he was a trained minister and lost his faith as he realised nature didn't match up with what he'd been taught about god eg how wasps lay their eggs in live caterpillars.

  6. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "I'm a monkey"!!!!

  7. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    Hi smile

    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.

  8. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    There is a place for this kind of discussion in the religion and philosophy section.

    This is why darwinism causes so many wars. sad

    1. Druid Dude profile image59
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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?

      1. superwags profile image82
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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.

      2. Trish_M profile image87
        Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Druid Dude profile image59
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Druid Dude smile

            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.
            Thanks smile

            1. Druid Dude profile image59
              Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Trish_M profile image87
                Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I would certainly like to know more about it.

          2. 0
            Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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

            1. Trish_M profile image87
              Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely!

              And almost all of it supports his 'theory' smile

              1. 0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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

                1. Trish_M profile image87
                  Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, nothing short of genius, really smile

    2. superwags profile image82
      superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is nonsense. So many? Name 5...

      1. Onusonus profile image87
        Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Please don't hate me because you disagree with me. I am Onus, peaceful Mormon.......

        1. superwags profile image82
          superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't hate you, dont be ridiculous. Dont make things up - they should teach you that in sunday school!

          1. Onusonus profile image87
            Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Did you just call me a sunday? I prefer bananna split.

            This is why Darwinism causes so much conflict. sad

  9. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    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.)

  10. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    By the way, please don't let this thread degenerate into nastiness and disrespectful or insulting comments.  smile

  11. Jeff Berndt profile image90
    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago

    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.

  12. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    Hello Jeff,

    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?

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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?

      1. Trish_M profile image87
        Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If people draw those conclusions, it's hardly Darwin's fault.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. Trish_M profile image87
            Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes ~ a bit of open-minded discussion and education smile

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I dunno, maybe we're hoping for a bit too much for an internet forum...lol

              1. 0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                agree

  13. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    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 smile

  14. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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).

    2. canadawest99 profile image61
      canadawest99posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  15. Scosgrove profile image83
    Scosgroveposted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. Trish_M profile image87
      Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi!
      It must have been a very exciting adventure for him smile

  16. Alastar Packer profile image82
    Alastar Packerposted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. Trish_M profile image87
      Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi:)

      Yes, I believe that everyone should be free to believe as they choose.
      My problem is with those who mislead others by 'bending the truth'.

  17. maven101 profile image76
    maven101posted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. Trish_M profile image87
      Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, taking the evidence, as is, without bias, has to be the best way, I think. smile

      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.

      1. Druid Dude profile image59
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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? lol

          We know what triggers the changes. We have replicated the process in a lab.

        2. Trish_M profile image87
          Trish_Mposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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 smile

          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.

          1. Susana S profile image91
            Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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.

 
working