Darwin's Beagle ship replica plan [for his 200th birthday]

BBC News ^ | 19 July 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Plans are being drawn up to build a £3.3m working replica of the boat that took Charles Darwin around the world at Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire.

Fundraising for the project, which would mark the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth in 2009, is under way.

The aim is to built a seaworthy vessel identical to the HMS Beagle on the outside, but with a modern interior.

Darwin, who showed how natural selection could explain evolution, sailed on the Beagle between 1831-36.

Sitting opposite him on the expedition was mate and surveyor John Lort Stokes.

One of Stokes' descendents, Pembrokeshire farmer David Lort Philips, together with commercial yacht master Peter McGrath, have founded the Beagle Project Pembrokeshire.

Mr McGrath said the ship would look identical to the original Beagle on the outside but would have a 21st century interior with diesel auxiliary engines and generators.

Charles Darwin developed his early theories on board the Beagle

He said he hoped the fished vessel would inspire the scientists of the future and be used by researchers and scientists from across the world.

"Externally it will be exactly the same but we want it to do some serious scientific work and you would not want the crew living like they did in the 18th Century," he said.

The pair have spent three years putting their plans together and aim to raise the money through private and institutional investors along with public subscription.

"With all the Darwin 200 celebrations there is not one big project to focus the attention on," added Mr McGrath.

"I know the effect a square rigger has on young people - it's a jaw dropping site.

"But we do not want this just to be a replica - we want it to have genuine scientific benefits.

"We have started the fundraising. Construction will take 14 months and it has to be finished by early 2009.

"She will be built in Milford Haven and it will be her home. But what we want to do when she is built is visit the significant sights in Darwin's and the Beagle's life."

Researchers believe the original remains of the 27m-long Navy brig, that was sold for scrap in 1870, are embedded in a marsh near Potton Island in Essex.

Darwin, who published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, came fourth in a poll run by the BBC in 2002 to find the public's greatest Briton of all time.

His voyage on the Beagle allowed him to form the basis for much of his later work.

[stands2reason]

He's not talking about the Bible, he's talking about Biblical texts.

Those are two totally different things.

(/sarcasm)

[stands2reason]

Duh, does not preclude... don't know what I was thinking there.

[Oztrich Boy]

distinguish the difference between "the bible" and "biblical texts;"

distinction without a difference placemarker

[freedumb2003]

Thanks -- you had me worried there :)

[b_sharp]

"Regardless, it is not true that the biblical texts "have nothing to do with science." They happen to deal with the what, the how, and the why of physical reality. All of these questions are investigated by science."

You missed my point. Science is defined by the methodology not by what it investigates. Science is also very specific in its descriptions and explanations. The Biblical texts are broad, too broad to be anything but simple observations. Science is not 'simple observations'.

The only way you can include Biblical texts in the definition of science is by redefining the term 'science'. Without redefining terms, the Biblical texts have nothing to do with science.

Along with all the other logical errors you make, argument by redefinition just about completes the set.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yes. Primacy belongs to the biblical texts not only because they speak plainly and offer no reason to question their authenticity, but also because they largely concur with what is directly observable. Texts other than the biblical texts are a product of human invention, no better than no text at all.

The biblical texts serve as a perfect foundation for science, speaking plainly of the big issues every observer is curious about, and addressing the small issues each observer is genuinely concerned about. Even better, they leave unanswered the mechanical details so that the practitioners of science may enjoy a lifetime of study, all the while enjoying the benefits of a well-oiled, well sustained "machine."

The biblical texts are superior to all other texts because they have been supplied by the Intelligent Designer Himself in language that is neither esoteric nor fanciful. They govern every discipline of science and may be considered a reliable benchmark against which to test those things we experience through reason and senses.

[b_sharp]

"No. What I AM saying is that GIVEN the total lack of evidence for macroevolution or for any plausible mechanism for it, you must, when judging evolution and evolutionists, take into account the tens of millions of people who have died on account of doctrines which were clearly based upon evolutionist ideas.

Why?

What do you believe is macro-evolution?

What evidence do you have that macro-evolution is not accumulated micro-evolution? Have you discovered a mechanism that prevents accumulation of change?

"In other words, as pseudosciences go, evolutionism is a spectacularly dangerous and virulent one."

What makes the SToE a pseudoscience?

[b_sharp]

Question begging placemarker.

[Boxen]

What's wrong? Did the theory of evolution kill your mother or something?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The foundations of an ideology need not be equated with the ideology itself in order to be seen as mendacious. Few people are so logically deficient as to suggest or believe that one adopts Nazism by adopting Darwinism.

Or dost thou protest too much? Maybe you can point out the faults in Hitler's thinking as it relates to racial superiority in a world where progress (i.e. a transition from amoeba to whatever biological entity man is eventually destined to become) is governed by the scientific principle of "survival of the fittest." At what points does Hitler not square with Darwin?

But then, I've not been a fan of guilt by association as an argument for or against an argument based upon facts. The facts bear out diverse life forms for as long as science has been observing, recording, and quantifying life. It is only by suggestion and implication that these diverse life forms are the result of a history entailing developments from the simple to the more complex.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The two are not totally different. The "bible" is typically considered a specific collection of sacred writings with a more strict delineation of content than what I refer to as the biblical texts. Be that as it may, it is a consistent attribute of those who reject the biblical texts to engage in mysticism, superstition, philosophies, and false science.

Science works better when one knows where he came from and where he is going. Darwinists don't have that advantage. As such they have served as an albatross around the neck of science for the past 150 years with the exception of their keen ability to record certain specific facts in great detail.

[tomzz]

There're people walking around today with that much of a brow ridge. I don't see a reason to think those skulls are anything other than those of modern humans.

Basically the timeline for the sort of thing you're talking about is not feasible even if the scenario itself was, which it isn't. You're claiming that modern man arose way the hell back, a couple hundred thousand years ago, and then somehow stayed holed up in Africa while neanderthals ruled Europe for 150,000 yeas, and then "Geez I'm tired of being holed up in Africa, let's go conquer Europe...".

In real life modern man only takes a few hundred years to spread out over the whole planet and the idea of neanderthals holding Europe for tens of thousands of years against our own ancestors is not plausible. That would be like expecting a tribe of monkeys to hold out against the combined armies of Europe for that long.

[Coyoteman]

Our ideas about the past are very divergent.

It is hard to discuss this subject with you seriously when I have to correct about 90% of what you write.

I will try to get to this tomorrow.

Just one thing: brow ridges are one of many morphological traits that are examined. Teeth are also important, as are many other traits of the cranium and mandible. No one trait tells the story.

Until tomorrow.

[Dimensio]

Primacy belongs to the biblical texts not only because they speak plainly and offer no reason to question their authenticity,

How is this different than the texts of other religions? Please be specific.

but also because they largely concur with what is directly observable.

In what ways do they concur with what is directly observable?

The biblical texts are superior to all other texts because they have been supplied by the Intelligent Designer Himself in language that is neither esoteric nor fanciful.

You are assuming your conclusion. You cannot use the assumption that the biblical texts were "supplied by the Intelligent Designer Himself" in an argument attempting to show that the biblical texts were in fact "supplied by the Intelligent Designer Himself". You are appealing to a logical fallacy.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Pronouncements such as this are moot when coming from one who cannot distinguish the difference between "the bible" and "biblical texts;""

Well, if you can't be man enough to admit that *biblical texts* and the *bible* refer to the same thing, you are not worth debating with. Nobody is being fooled by your attempts to lawyer your way out of what you said.

"who thinks it is a logical fallacy to note the similarity between Hitler and the Dali Lama insofar as both exalt ther own reason over the biblical texts;"

It IS a logical fallacy, because the *similarity* is something they share with most people who have ever lived, the vast majority of whom did not act anything close to how Hitler did. Your comparing Hitler to Darwin is a desperate ploy to poison the well.

"who cannot see the difference between what the biblical texts say and what Adolph Hitler did under the pretext of accepting their authority."

I never said Hitler was interpreting the Bible correctly; I said I didn't know of any evidence to back your claim he rejected the Bible's authority. You have not shown anything to change that.

"A shrine is about to be erected in honor of one of your favorite philosphers of history."

Collingwood is getting a statue?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"In other words, as pseudosciences go, evolutionism is a spectacularly dangerous and virulent one."

Whatever you say, Ted.

[Oztrich Boy]

[Thatcherite]

When they talk about the Bible like this, they just might end up in hell, but that's not my call.

But presumably you do approve of people getting an eternity of torment for making a mistake about which Holy Work to believe?

[Deadshot Drifter]

Your rational replies to tomzz are a wasted effort. Not just having a problem with evolution, you are dealing with a true knuckle dragging, science is of the Devil, Luddite. Check this thread out.

Holding science in such disdain how would our resident Cap'n Quint even know which sharks are a threat to people. He'd be out there slaughtering whale sharks.

"WhoooWeeeee! Hold muh beer fellers, I done harpooned myself a reeeeal lunker!"

According to the ISAF there were 4 fatal shark attacks last year. In the world. Compare that to the 43 deaths in the U.S. alone by lightning. From theNational Weather Service

Do you believe in *microevolution* or speciation, tomzz? That God created the +shark+, didn't fiddle with it or micromanage it and it evolved into the Hammerhead, Lemon etc. Or maybe you think He created every single shark species one at a time.

Either way, who are you to decide an entire species should be wiped off the face of the earth. That is blasphemy, tomzz. After all, God must have created sharks (including the Great White), rays, skates and such because it pleased Him, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered.

Or maybe you have ideas that God could not have possibly created such efficient predators that can harm surfers and frolicking beachgoers.

No, perhaps those same wily,pre-Bronze Age geneticists that created flies and skeeters went on to create toothy killin' machines too. Bigger fish to fry, you might say.

Good grief.. and the CRIDers wonder why people are apprehensive about giving them a bigger say in science education.

[Thatcherite]

I not only started the thread, but I write all the posts that purport to come from various "evos" as well as being several admin monitors.