Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what little I've read, Darwin did not become particularly incensed over the controversies surrounding his theory, or the attacks upon it; Darwin was, first and foremost, a man of science -- no more and no less.
I have a nephew who is severely autistic; both his parents hold DVM degrees granted by Cornell and Penn. I do not attempt to understand how his parents resolve their use of "hard science" with a belief system which relies heavily on miracles and must, by the nature of our society, direct its appeals toward the most-impressionable. I've heard it suggested, usually by the more-strident and simplistic of the Christian Right, that the high incidence of autism is "God's Punishment" on the better-educated. This has not stopped my brother and his wife from embracing a Christian belief, and participating in activities where their education is far from the norm; it has helped them through one of the harshest challenges life can offer, and that is sufficient.
The point I seek to make here is that not only Christianity, but all the monotheistic Western religions, are so vague that any assertive personality with a cause is free to hijack them for his/her own purposes. That, in turn, lies at the center of too much of man's inhumanity to man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grayrunner
Very simple to discredit these religious nuts. Since they are literal believers in the Bible, ask them two questions. 'What is the age of the earth' and 'does the sun revolve around the earth or vice versa?' Correct answers completely contradict their dogma (brainwashing). I know an engineer who gets angry and can't answer, shows the power of indoctrinating the young minds early.
I'll respond to both of these posts at once.
There is much in universe that is unknown and/or inexplicable, and religion often helps people to cope with difficult situations. Not all varieties of Christianity are antithetical to science, and that enables even well educated professionals to embrace the positive aspects of religion. Catholicism, for example, made peace with evolutionary theory back in the 1890s. Episcopalians and many other mainline Protestant denominations don't have a problem with evolution. It's mostly the fundamentalist Christian sects that take the Bible literally that have problems with science.
There is much in universe that is unknown and/or inexplicable, and religion often helps people to cope with difficult situations. Not all varieties of Christianity are antithetical to science, and that enables even well educated professionals to embrace the positive aspects of religion. Catholicism, for example, made peace with evolutionary theory back in the 1890s. Episcopalians and many other mainline Protestant denominations don't have a problem with evolution. It's mostly the fundamentalist Christian sects that take the Bible literally that have problems with science.
This was important to point out. There is a very small subset of Christianity, though it is vocally prominent in the US, that has such ultraconservative, antithetical beliefs. Most mainstream Christian denominations do not doubt of fight with science on the topics of things like evolution, age of the Earth, etc. Even the Catholic Church is far more progressive on these topics than most people realize. It's the Protestant sects and primarily the evangelical leaning ones that you have to watch out for.
As for what the OP copied and pasted...it would seem that is evidence of the scientific method working. Piltdown Man was hardly the only evidence for evolution.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein
Pondering the fullness of the quote would be far more productive and profound by the way:
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
As for the topic of Darwinian theory and science vs Biblical fundamentalism, Dr. Einstein had this to say:
". . . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it."
Einstein, Albert (1979). Autobiographical Notes. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 3-5.
Honestly, I couldn't give a hoot what Al Einstein or Chuck Darwin
thought about God. Einstein was a plagiarist, and Darwin misrepresented
adaptation as "evolution".
Honestly, I couldn't give a hoot what Al Einstein or Chuck Darwin
thought about God. Einstein was a plagiarist, and Darwin misrepresented
adaptation as "evolution".
Well good for you! I honestly don't give a hoot that you don't give a hoot.
If everyone had a chance to personally examine the "evidence" for evolution and did some critical thinking on the matter they would come up very doubtful.
Likewise if creationists would put critical thinking into their dogma they would have serious doubts.
Why is it so hard to just say, "We don't know".?
If everyone had a chance to personally examine the "evidence" for evolution and did some critical thinking on the matter they would come up very doubtful.
If everyone had a chance to personally examine the "evidence" for evolution and did some critical thinking on the matter they would come up very doubtful.
Likewise if creationists would put critical thinking into their dogma they would have serious doubts.
Why is it so hard to just say, "We don't know".?
The fossil evidence for the evolution is so overwhelming that only people who are ignorant of the depth and breadth of that evidence or who refuse to accept it because of some personal prejudice can deny it.
We absolutely do know that organisms change over time.
We absolutely do know that complex organisms developed later in the Earth's history than simpler organisms.
We absolutely do know that changes in the environment triggered changes in organisms, and that sometimes those that could not change died out.
We absolutely do know these are true because they are written in stone. Literally.
I'm going to ask my pastor what my opinion should be on this. After I hear from him, I'll post my opinion.
Erm, you aren't able to have an opinion of yours own? That's just sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
