Replies

It seems to me that it says a lot about evolutionists if they are so quick to dismiss and bury the founder of their theory.-me-

I reserve a fair portion of my contempt for idiots who do the whole personality cult thing.

Well, humans are human and hence not perfect, so we can agree on that. However, it seems to me that when in order to defend the theory of evolution you have to attack the founder, the originator, the person who laid the basis for the whole theory and who set its parameters, then I think that maybe, perhaps, it can be argued that it is the theory that is the problem and not the originator? I mean, how can the person who started the theroy by absolutely wrong in the details of the theory and the theory still be correct???????????

Good gosh...first of all let this thread die...it has no place here on FreeRep. Second, if you are going to debate, at least have the common courtesy of reading some of Darwins work, and the subsequent work of at least 10 others before you summarily dismiss the man.

While you are at it, why don't you look up the definition of science, and maybe the scientific method or better yet do more research here on freerep to educate yourself.

However, it seems to me that when in order to defend the theory of evolution you have to attack the founder, the originator, the person who laid the basis for the whole theory and who set its parameters, then I think that maybe, perhaps, it can be argued that it is the theory that is the problem and not the originator?

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. If you argued this, you would be guilt of "ad hominem". A fallacy. So no, you can't credibly say that.

There are many, many, cases in history where people credited with brilliant ideas were raving nutters of one sort or another and said or did stupid or absurd things. Isaac Netwon wasn't entirely right in the head and wrote a lot of books and treatises that were nonsensical gibberish, yet it turns out that some of his tangential meanderings in math and physics were brilliant. Albert Einstein became a crank when he got older and asserted many things of dubious credibility that he should be embarrassed about. Noam Chomsky and Roger Penrose are two modern individuals who are arguably very smart in their narrow fields of specialty yet utter fools the second their brains wander outside these very narrow fields. This is a very common pattern among brilliant folk. Not universal, but very common to the point of being cliche. The hard part about dealing with brilliant people is filtering the brilliance from the raving nonsense, both of which are often spewed forth in abundance. History does a very good job of this, even if their contemporaries do not.