Posted on 12/23/2002 7:26:26 AM PST by Deadeye Division
The biggest money around is government money and that is all behind the evolutionists. Like all the leftists, the evolutionists live off the public trough and misuse our money to support their theory which has absolutely no scientific basis.
What isn't "really" correct? The info about The Linnaean Society paper was in the post of mine that you are here replying to. (Why didn't you quote the portion of my message relevant to your reply, btw?) What you say is essentially correct. The Linnaean Society paper attracted very little attention, but I never said anything to the contrary. I'm quite aware of the context of these events. I was just pointing out the fact that Darwin did present his theory in a paper before setting it out in The Origin. If you were aware of this previous to my incidental comment then that's great, and I'm pleasantly surprised.
Right, gore. And is the conspiracy that suppresses this related to the Bush/Moussad conspiracy that crashed those planes into the WTC, or are the space brothers behind it?
No he wasn't.
Charles Darwin - his religious beliefs
This website contains text extracted from "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin" edited by Nora Barlow.
Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist.This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as the possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such a grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.
Please note that the preceding was written by Darwin as a private personal history. It was intended only for his family and Darwin never anticipated that it would be published. This document, written late in his life, is as close to his true and genuine views as we do have or could reasonably expect to have.
On what basis, Gore, do you claim to know Darwin's views better than he did?
Huge he err, toot.
Ego he, O'er truth.
"Ogre," he utter. Oh!
HOT: He true Ogre.
Right, gore. And is the conspiracy that suppresses this related to the Bush/Moussad conspiracy that crashed those planes into the WTC, or are the space brothers behind it?
We know what the 'conspiracy' is. Look at the fights over evolution in schools. There is an inbred bunch in education which fights tooth and nail against anyone who denies evolution. Those who oppose it are insulted and often fired.
However, that does not mean that scientific research has not disproven evolution. Real scientists (not the Goulds, Dawkinses, and the bureaucrats of evolution such as that fool editor of Scientific American who have not been inside a lab since High School) constantly show evolution to be well nigh impossible. If often cite the discovery of genetics, the discovery of DNA and the discovery of the importance of non-coding DNA as examples disproving evolution. However, if you have examples of scientific discoveries in biology which tend to prove evolution, kindly tell me and we can discuss it.
Problem with using that is that references to his atheism were taken out from the publication at the insistence of his wife. Here is some of what was taken out and strong proof in his own hand of his atheism:
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include My Father, Brother, and almost all my best frieds, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.
Further on he says:
A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of lower animals throughout almost endless time.
From; Gertrude Himmelfarb, 'Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution' page 385, quoting from unpublished passages in the Autobiography.
That Darwin was totally dishonest about his religious views in public, there is tons of evidence:
Many years ago I was strongly adviced by a friend never to introduce anything about religion in my works, if I wished to advance science in England; and this led me not to consider the mutual bearings of the two subjects. Had I foreseen how much more liberal the world would become, I should perhaps have acted differently.
From: Gertrude Himmelfarb, 'Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution' page 383, quoting from the Cambridge manuscript.
Last night Dicey and Litchfield were talking about J. Stuart Mill's never expressing his religious convictions, as he was urged to do so by his father. Both agreed strongly that if he had done so, he would never have influenced the present age in the manner in which he has done. His books would not have been text books at Oxford, to take a weaker instance. Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise.
...
I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect; real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks.
From: Gertrude Himmelfarb, 'Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution' page 387, quoting from the Cambridge manuscript.
"P.S. Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.
Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."
From: Daniel J. Boorstein, The Discoverers, page 475.
No doubt from a subconscious desire to remain mysterious.
This is not so profound as it is profuse; few among the many actually brute about the orts and bits that buttress the contemporary convential wisdom; it's so much easier to accept the word of "experts."
It is more humane than cock-fighting?
Poor history, that. Darwin did make an allowance for the "faithful" in Origins, but wrote God off as unnecessary in "The Descent of Man."
Having been around many researchers, I maintain that only a few are indifferent to money.
This is a poor example; if a sixth finger could be envisioned to be beheficial, it would need to be fully muscled and increase either dexterity or gripping strength.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.