• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Was Darwin Wrong?

Unless you're baiting 1inC, I suggest you put this in the Science forum.
 
Funny story

A co-worker of mine returned last week from a science teacher conference in San Jose. A booth was handing out these editions of National Geographic........A Creationist booth!!

Apparently, they had failed to actually open the magazine.:D :D
 
Was Darwin wrong?


katlefiya said:
NO!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I'm sure there are many aspects of modern evolutionary theory that deviate from Darwin's original hypotheses.

Of course, that doesn't dispute the point that evolutionary theory is as indistiputable as any scientific discipline, but there's no reason to assert that Darwin is the end all of evolution, no more than we would say that Newton is the ultimate source in mechanics.
 
cbish said:
Funny story

A co-worker of mine returned last week from a science teacher conference in San Jose. A booth was handing out these editions of National Geographic........A Creationist booth!!

Apparently, they had failed to actually open the magazine.:D :D
Click to expand...

I would give anything to open the "no" page in their faces. However I would probably be called "Satan" and then they'd start throwing rocks.
 
pgwenthold wrote:
I'm sure there are many aspects of modern evolutionary theory that deviate from Darwin's original hypotheses.
Click to expand...

There are. One is that Darwin was still a tad bit teleoligical in that he thought only beneficial traits were passed on. If it wasn't beneficial to survival and reproduction, it would eventually lose out. Even if a traits benefit was not self evident, Darwin would say that somehow it had to be beneficial. This would be a very consistent thought for the time.

Today, the line of thinking is more along the lines that as long as a trait doesn't hinder your reproductive capacity, it will be passed on.

In short, Darwin thought traits had to be beneficial. Today, beneficial or neutral as long as it doesn't impede reproduction.
 
c4ts said:
Unless you're baiting 1inC, I suggest you put this in the Science forum.
Click to expand...

Technically this post would have fit in either this forum or the science forum, since it is the essential battle between science and religion.
I posted it here because a) I thought it would get a better response/more views and b) because I wanted to see if 1inChrist would respond.
 
cbish said:
pgwenthold wrote:


There are. One is that Darwin was still a tad bit teleoligical in that he thought only beneficial traits were passed on. If it wasn't beneficial to survival and reproduction, it would eventually lose out. Even if a traits benefit was not self evident, Darwin would say that somehow it had to be beneficial. This would be a very consistent thought for the time.

Today, the line of thinking is more along the lines that as long as a trait doesn't hinder your reproductive capacity, it will be passed on.

In short, Darwin thought traits had to be beneficial. Today, beneficial or neutral as long as it doesn't impede reproduction.
Click to expand...

I think you guys are kind of missing the point. We're not debating which aspects of Darwinism is the right one. We're debating which of evolution or creationism has more evidence to back it up than the other. The article published by National Geographic claims that Evolution has been proven (or backed up) time and time again, while Creationism has not. And frankly, I agree.
 
cbish said:
pgwenthold wrote:


There are. One is that Darwin was still a tad bit teleoligical in that he thought only beneficial traits were passed on. If it wasn't beneficial to survival and reproduction, it would eventually lose out. Even if a traits benefit was not self evident, Darwin would say that somehow it had to be beneficial. This would be a very consistent thought for the time.

Today, the line of thinking is more along the lines that as long as a trait doesn't hinder your reproductive capacity, it will be passed on.

In short, Darwin thought traits had to be beneficial. Today, beneficial or neutral as long as it doesn't impede reproduction.
Click to expand...

I can buy that, and it only helps my point. Going back to Darwin on evolution only creates a great opportunity for strawman, in that creationists think all they have to do is to show he was wrong. My comparison to Newton I think is most relevent. Evolution is to Darwin as mechanics is to Newton. They both have their place and are widely applicable, but there are many aspects in which they are insufficient and even fail.
 
Katleyfiya.

You won't get much of an argument on this here, except from one or two deliberate trolls. I think you are preaching to the choir .
 
katlefiya said:
I think you guys are kind of missing the point. We're not debating which aspects of Darwinism is the right one. We're debating which of evolution or creationism has more evidence to back it up than the other.
Click to expand...

The title of your thread is not "Is Evolution Wrong?" It specifically asks if _Darwin_ was wrong.

Now, I realize that you pulled this out of National Geographic, and so I blame them for the sensationalized headline, and the wrong answer to that question.

The question of which has more evidence (evolution or creation) is not much of a debate.
 
Well, as many people said, he wasn't entirely right, but he did have the right idea. This is <strike>pretty much</strike>* true of all science. I mean, haven't they gone back and said, "OK, Einstein had the right general idea about relativity, it just doesn't quite work the way he thought."

*Mid-post Edit: All science works that way. Science has a built in error correcting mechanism. Duh, me.
 
You won't get much of an argument on this here, except from one or two deliberate trolls. I think you are preaching to the choir.
Click to expand...

NG has put up a forum for public discussion.

The site's text editor only handles about 30 characters per line, so I recommend composing in NotePad or something and pasting it in with no line breaks. And reopen a new browser rather than refreshing, or you'll double-post.

Pretty fun, even though only a few real wackos.
 
[Some] theists, myself included, don't have a problem with 'evolution'. I do not doubt that life has the capability to change form.
Don't forget though that the issue is one of origin.

Darwin didn't prove that life evolved from non-life, via chemistry. And even if this could be proved, one still has to ask from whence the order of the universe (and the universe itself) originated.

Perhaps Darwin is a kick in the teeth for biblical literalists, but not for 'God' itself.
 
lifegazer wrote:
Don't forget though that the issue is one of origin
Click to expand...

OK, this is called Biogenesis. Biogenesis and evolution are not necessarily the same thing. Rush Limbaugh failed to differentiate this to create one of his 'undeniable truths' in his first book.

Which is why:
Perhaps Darwin is a kick in the teeth for biblical literalists, but not for 'God' itself.
Click to expand...

I think the people at http://www.talkorigins.org/ would agree with this assesment.
 
cbish said:
lifegazer wrote:


OK, this is called Biogenesis. Biogenesis and evolution are not necessarily the same thing. Rush Limbaugh failed to differentiate this to create one of his 'undeniable truths' in his first book.

Which is why:

I think the people at http://www.talkorigins.org/ would agree with this assesment.
Click to expand...
The point is that Darwin did NOTHING to negate the existence of God.
Same applies to 'biogenesis'.

So what's the point of this thread other than to get on the nerves of biblical literalists?
 
lifegazer said:
So what's the point of this thread other than to get on the nerves of biblical literalists?
Click to expand...

Uh - to alert us to a potentially interesting and valuable article in an influential magazine with wide international distribution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom