The only astoundingly shoddy scholarship is your own, Mr. "Wow."
==In point of fact, Marx resided in Berlin only between 1835 and 1841, which, of course, surfaces the question of what particular “writings and ideas” of Darwin he might have encountered there.
Wrong.
==other than the First Edition of the Voyage of the Beagle published in 1839 there is nothing Marx could have gotten his hands on.
Wrong again.
==The 2nd Edition (published in 1845) is a different story because Darwin updated it with his first conjectural thoughts that later became part of his Theory. But the point is that Marx departed Berlin 4 years earlier than the publication of the 2nd edition
You might want to do your homework before putting your foot in your mouth in the future, Mr. "Wow." Karl Marx returned to Germany in 1848-1849 to fan the flames of the ill-fated (thank God!) communist revolution there. Needless to say, his return to Germany occured THREE YEARS AFTER the 2nd Edition of Voyages was published. As such, he could have very well read it during this time period. But who really knows, since Dr. Bergman only mentions the connection between Marx, Darwin, and the University of Berlin in passing, with no date or footnote. As such, maybe that's where Marx first encountered Darwin's writings, or maybe it wasn't...at this point we just don't know. I have sent an email to the Journal of Creation to get to the bottom of this.
Bottom line: Marx most definitely was in Germany after the publication of the 2nd edition of Voyages--which, needless to say, invalidates your entire argument.
Contrary to your unsupported assertions, I am in fact exactly correct in my post and exactly correct in pointing out sloppy scholarship. You may note that the point of reference cited by YOU and pointed to by ME was:
“....and was judged by his teachers ‘moderately proficient’ in theology (his first written work was on the ‘love of Christ’)8-10 until he encountered Darwin’s writings and ideas at the University of Berlin. Marx ….“
Since the University of Berlin is in fact in Berlin, in the English I speak YOUR CITATION says that Marx read Darwin while he was there and clearly implies that Darwin’s writings somehow led Marx away from Christ. This is the central propaganda point of the entire piece and the departure for attempting to savage Darwin by association, implying accountability for communism and its many sins and failings.
As to facts which can be documented, in Germany, Marx resided at in Trier where he was born and raised, not far away in Bonn where he first attended University, Berlin beginning in 1835 where he completed his education, and Cologne at a couple of points post Berlin. But he resided in Berlin only between 1835 and 1841.
Marx’s life is well known. If he lived in Berlin any other time, either earlier or later, you will be able to produce a credible scholarly source. Have at it. And at whatever point you establish Marx as having read Darwin (in Berlin or otherwise), validity of your central point requires establishing that Marx was still then a “good Christian” rather than avowed atheist. Since you now seem to be claiming maybe Marx read Darwin “in Germany” (not Berlin as written) “in 1848”, then you also have the impossible burden of establishing that Marx was not by then firmly in the atheist camp.
Note also that any scholarly source which establishes Marx read Darwin in Berlin would also make clear what bit of Darwin he read. If there is any truth at all to the assertion that Marx read Darwin between 1835 and 1841, the only plausible bit of Darwin was the First Edition account of the Beagle voyage – which is mute on “Darwin’s Theory.” Even the second edition does not provide much more than an omen of thoughts to come.
As a lesson in geography examine a German map. Trier is within spitting distance of Cologne and Bonn in far western Germany and not far from Brussels, Belgium where he also lived (with Engles) between 1844 and 1848. Berlin is better than 400 kilometers to the northeast from a Brussels, Cologne, Bonn, Trier axis. Economically, Marx was a miserable failure and hung out in this neighborhood because it made it easy to sponge off of family. Add a little time in Paris and 1849 until death in London and you have Marx’s life geography.
Marx’s return to “Germany” that you so ignorantly cite as proving your point was to Cologne, not Berlin. THAT is clearly documented. For someone that most certainly did not know there was any difference between the First and Second editions of Darwin’s account of the Beagle voyage before I pointed it out (and is unlikely to have read either) and persists in having no real idea in where Marx was when, claiming my scholarship is shoddy is pretty amazing,
In the meantime, let us examine some of YOUR new words:
“ …As such, he could have very well read it during this time period. But who really knows, since Dr. Bergman only mentions the connection between Marx, Darwin, and the University of Berlin in passing, with no date or footnote.
As to “could have”, it is possible I suppose that you are not an idiot. But possibility is not evidence and conjecture is not scholarship. Perhaps you are admitting as much when you say “who really knows?” But the real killer is implying that is OK to pass off a lie so long as it is not dated or footnoted.
The BIG LIE “Dr Bergman” is pushing is trashing Darwin by saying that Marx read him. Educated people prone to crudity would say BFD. Hitler read the Bible and Billy Graham probably read Mein Kampf.
What makes this insinuated “guilt by association” especially contrived and perfidious is the point I attacked: the assertion and bald LIE that Darwin somehow led Marx away from Christ with follow on nonsense to the effect that Darwin is in some measure accountable for Soviet atrocities. Darwin made Marx an atheist. Ergo, Darwin is responsible for the actions of godless Communists. The derivative propaganda point for your obviously not very astute followers seems to be to keep your children away from Darwin or they will become godless communists!
If not parody, such dissociated thinking is ordinarily called deranged, especially when there is no truth or foundation to the premise. As to Marx’s “conversion”, the propagandists at CMI might look at who Marx was hanging out with before Darwin published anything.