Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Blagoblog, Feb 12, 2009.
In other news, "gullible" isn't in the dictionary
Today is Lincoln's birthday.
But, equally important, today, Feb. 12th, is Darwin's (200th) birthday.
2009 is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of his revolutionary "On the Origin of Species". (a book as shattering & profound as Copernicus' "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" -- a book which hypothesized a heliocentric universe, placing the sun in the center instead of the Earth; the Catholic Church banned the book, of course)
According to a recent Gallup poll, only 39% of americans believe in evolution.
If you are a college postgraduate, these numbers jump to 74%.
If you are attend church at least once a week, these numbers drop to 24%.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin!
If you are attend church at least once a week, these numbers drop to 24%...........does that mean if your a religious wingnut that your are as dumb as a fence post?
U.S.A. sure has more than it`s fair share of insane people. They would rather believe in a book written by some ancient jews 2500/4500 years ago when it was accepted that Earth was the centre of the universe. The reason they stick with the creation story is that if they question one aspect of the bible, then the whole lot will eventually crash down. If anyone really believes that Eve came from Adams rib, that virgins can give birth, and that dead people(skeletons) can rise from the dead, they are truly crazy.
Glad to see that someone bought up Darwin's name on this anniversary.I went to Down House (his home in Kent) yesterday for the first time in my life,despite the fact that I live only 15mins away! How bad is that??!!
Happy Birthday Charles. Why do some men have big dicks and some men have small dicks?
If any of you clowns had read ORIGIN OF SPECIES you would know that Darwin was kind of mystical and thought that there was an overall shape to evolution (intelligent design).
His collaborator Wallace at that point was not, but later became someone who fell heavily under the spell of mediums and spiritualism.
The problem with these polls is that they frame the question so as to make evolution and the concept of God mutually exclusive. Based on how those polls are worder, If you beleive in evolution then you must reject ANY role for God. And the opposite is true. If you believe in God in any way, then you must comepletely reject evolution. I'm not sure there isn't room for true sceince and God.
Whether Darwin recanted or not is irrelevant to the subsequent scientific record. Snap!
Darwin probably wished there was evidence of intelligent design, because he was somewhat religious when he began working on his theory. In fact, while in university, his natural science textbook was the greatly revered Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity.
Darwin referred to this book many times which is not a surprise because it was the classic natural science text from 1802 up to the period when Darwin was using it in college. In this book, Wm Paley, Christian apologist and philosopher, lays out his argument for Intelligent Design with the God of Abraham being the designer. Darwin referred to it in his autobiography and said that initially he was convinced of Paley's argument.
However, what Darwin ultimately ended up with was a theory about the diversity of life on the planet that did not require a designer. This is why he worked for decades before publishing it, collecting enough evidence that to make it a slam dunk. What Darwin was clearly proposing was a third explanation for the diversity of life. The first two being random chance and design. He was also very clear that he saw nothing teleological about evolution (meaning that evolution is simply opportunistic and is not working to perfect a species or create a succession of species towards some goal.)
But yes, the theory of Intelligent Design is about 200 years old, and over that period of time, there has been nothing new added to the theory and there has never been any evidence to support it. Where some 400 papers per month on evolution related papers are published in professional journals per month, there are no papers published related to design.
Yes, that is the problem with those polls. They set up a false mutually exclusive dichotomy that only is valid for fundamentalists, which represent a small minority of Christians.
In fact, the results are inconsistent with the doctrines of a cross section of Christian denominations. Those mainstream denominations that formally embrace science and accept the Theory of Evolution account for about 1.8 billion out of 2 billion Christians worldwide.
However, I don't blame the inconsistency completely on the wording of the poll. If you interviewed the members of any given mainstream Christian congregation in the USA with much better wording, you would find most of them unaware of the position their denomination takes on the subject and you would find over 50% of them doubting evolution because they think it conflicts with their faith.
I hold the public school system, the scientific community in general, and the mainstream denominations reponsible for this tragedy of ignorance.
Happy Birthday Charles D.
And once again, 1.8 billion of the worlds 2 billion Christians belong to denominations whose doctrines clearly and formally agree with you on this topic.
Happee Busssssday, Mr. Evoluyooshionnist,
Happee Busssssday tooooooo yoooooooooo........
my ears my ears
Whether that is true or not, it's irrelevant to Evolution. Just as if he did "recant"(he didn't), it would be immaterial to the theory.
Evolution is not a cult of personality, but Darwin is very well respected.
I will bet that nobody on this thread was with Darwin when he died so if he recanted it is hearsay.
In fact the source of the rumor is well documented.
Taken from the book The Survival of Charles Darwin: a Biography of a Man and an Idea by Ronald W. Clark, published by Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1985 (p. 199)
"Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."
With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever." (Ellipsis is in the book)"
Darwin's Son Francis:
"Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so."
See, now I'm tempted to put a bookmark in both Collapse and Voyage of the Beagle and start reading Darwin's Autobiography.
That or just read Collapse that much faster and save The Third Chimpanzee for another time...
Simple- insufficient selection pressure.
IF it mattered, just like the antlers on an elk, like the tail of a peacock, penis size would show evidence of competitive convergence.
i've started reading it...not exactly the most captivating read, i must say, but i'm still gonna try to make it through
Dear Darwin: Big fan here. First time caller.
I've read all and reread Darwin's works. With specific regard to the Galapagos Islands, today he would be able to observe the impact humans have had on that group of islands now "protected" as an eco-reserve. There are a couple of landing strips and several trashy piers that serve as port-o-call for the thousands of visitors who throng to the area every year. And I'm certain of one thing: he could marvel at the change from pristine deep clear blue waters surrounding the islands as recently as the 1950's has now changed to greenish blue with substantially impaired visibility. Then there's the trash problem from the tourists (and those who have moved their to permanently eek out a living) in addition to the eco-reserve people, themselves.
Nothing like "progress" to stress out the local flora and fauna.