1 posted on
02/22/2006 7:01:17 PM PST by
gobucks
Bringing them into the picture would spoil the halo over Darwins head and cast doubt on his singularity. Someone once said it even better: "The little people first!!"
2 posted on
02/22/2006 7:01:43 PM PST by
gobucks
(Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
To: gobucks; PatrickHenry; Junior
Lets all bash Darwin. Then maybe his theory will just go away ===> Placemarker <===.
3 posted on
02/22/2006 7:08:55 PM PST by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: gobucks
Darwinians of the day recoiled in horror from these splendid discoveries. They proudly declared their faith in the master while hurling themselves vehemently at the new science. One, the brilliant Karl Pearson, persisted in dogged opposition to genetics until his death in 1936! So much for evidence. Those dogmatic Darwinists just stuck to their pet theory like glue. Nothing would make them begin to question its validity!
Of course, as this article points out, Darwin HAS been refuted. Clever guy, but he got it wrong. "Darwinism" has been replaced by the much more modern "Theory of Evolution".
Nowadays, it is the proponents of the Theory of Evolution who dogmatically stick to their pet theory like glue. Nothing will make them begin to question its validity!
My, how times have changed.
To: gobucks
pinging myself for the AM, too late to digest all this.
5 posted on
02/22/2006 8:10:15 PM PST by
jocon307
(The Silent Majority - silent no longer)
To: gobucks
This is silliness...to say that Darwin didn't accomplish anything significant because he didn't discover Mendelian inheritance is like saying Newton didn't do much because he didn't discover quantum mechanics.
The fact is that Darwin was a prodigious observer and collector of data, he did numerous experiments, a great systematizer, and his insights provided powerful explanations as to how and why the observed natural world is as it is, and revolutionized the scientific understanding of the biological world. The basics of his theory, inheritance, with modification, and natural selection, leading to new species adapted to their environment, has been continuously confirmed since the theory was first published in 1858.
Darwin's publications are interesting and readable, Creationists who want to slime him should have the intellectual honesty to read his works, at least Origin of Species.
6 posted on
02/22/2006 8:30:25 PM PST by
MRMEAN
(Corruptisima republica plurimae leges. -- Tacitus)
To: gobucks
To: kajingawd
8 posted on
02/22/2006 8:45:29 PM PST by
kajingawd
(Humans share 50.6% of their DNA with bananas.... I can't wait for the next Evolution.)
To: gobucks
That's a lot of pomp and ceremony to celebrate the life of a man whose admirers, in the main, are only too pleased to assure everyone that life is undirected, random, meaningless, pointless, and that man is bereft of free will.
10 posted on
02/22/2006 8:52:19 PM PST by
JCEccles
To: gobucks
"What grading system ranks Origin as the greatest book in science? What titles were runners-up? What were those signal discoveries that transformed the biological sciences of his day? What was his new concept of humankind?"
Well, there is Charles Murray's book on human accomplishment. He explicitly used the econometric criteria to grade the relative importance of various prominent scientists in several different fields, and came to the same conclusion: in the field of biology Charles Darwin IS the greatest.
14 posted on
02/22/2006 11:38:15 PM PST by
GSlob
To: gobucks
I heard he repented on his deathbed. I hope he did. His "theory" has done a lot of damage to men's souls.
22 posted on
02/23/2006 3:59:19 AM PST by
RoadTest
("- - a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people." - Richard Henry Lee, 1786)
To: gobucks
The legend-credulous express dismay when challenged to produce just one instance of a Darwin discovery that was taken over by experimental biologists.Hiram must be a scientific ignoramus. Took me all of 10 seconds to come up with "an instance". There are more all over the web.
Here's one:
"Jeffrey Podos, Joel A. Southall, and Marcos R. Rossi-Santos
Vocal mechanics in Darwin's finches: correlation of beak gape and song frequency
JEB 2004; 207(4): 607-619"
To: gobucks
"Mendel believed that his discovery disproved Darwins theory."
Did Mendel ever mention Darwin? I've never read that he did. Mendel's work shows that he thought he was working on a different mechanism for evolution. I don't think he and Darwin were at cross purposes.
30 posted on
02/23/2006 6:25:47 AM PST by
Varda
To: gobucks
Mendel and Pasteur were Christians, and only fools would say this limited their scientific accomplishments. That's why the secular monkey-men of today refuse to acknowledge them as superior to their imam, Darwin. You can't argue with their religious convictions.
To: gobucks
"The reality: Darwins science was in the amateur mode of the naturalist, whereas the physical and biological sciences had shifted into the precision instrument mode of the modern laboratory."
And that is still true today.
To: gobucks
To: gobucks
The most grotesque distortion is the claim that Darwins discoveries reformed the biological sciences of his day. The reality: Darwins science was in the amateur mode of the naturalist, whereas the physical and biological sciences had shifted into the precision instrument mode of the modern laboratory. This difference was well established in the public mind. That's a bit of a stretch. The broad professionalizing of science only got going well into the 1860s. Darwin was not at all behind the times as the article seeks to suggest. Plus Darwin did plenty of lab type work, e.g. his extensive dissections, especially of barnacles.
49 posted on
02/23/2006 9:58:28 AM PST by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: gobucks
Interesting article. At one time, Freud was adored by the psychiatric community. Times change.
54 posted on
02/23/2006 10:06:58 AM PST by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: gobucks
The Triumvirate of Modernism were Darwin, Freud, and Marx. Marx and Freud are already on the skids, which leaves Darwin as a primary target of the Post-moderns--that's us.
83 posted on
02/23/2006 11:11:18 AM PST by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson