[_ Old Earth _] A science lesson from Mr. Darwin

[kendemyer]

In ''Descent of man'' Darwin wrote: "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands"( see: Darwin, Descent of Man - Chapter 19 - Secondary Sexual Characters of ManChapter 19, 1871 edition at http://www.und.edu/instruct/akelsch/399/darwin.htm )

Do you see what happens when you make dogmatic and vehement statements based on errant speculation? Some people never learn. :D

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

And this has exactly what to do with the evolution / creation debate.

Oh, I see. YOu are trying to show that Darwin was sexist, and therefore evolutionary theory is wrong wrong wrong. I get it, in order for a scientific theory to be valid, the people responsible for formulating it must be perfect and politically correct. Of course, we all know that the clergy on 19th century england were far more enlightened then Mr. Darwin were in regards to sexual equality.

I suppose that if it were shown that Einstien had a bias against people of color then the theory of relativity would be incorrect.

 

[unred typo]

I suppose that if it were shown that Einstien had a bias against people of color then the theory of relativity would be incorrect.

I can’t even imagine how Einstein’s theory of relativity could be based on or even influenced by prejudices of skin color or bigotry. However, Darwin’s theories were obviously biased by such nonsense. Your oranges and apples don’t cut it.

 

[Sleeker]

I can’t even imagine how Einstein’s theory of relativity could be based on or even influenced by prejudices of skin color or bigotry. However, Darwin’s theories were obviously biased by such nonsense. Your oranges and apples don’t cut it.

Since when does it matter what the originator of a theory believes in personally when it's not about his theory?

 

[unred typo]

Since when does it matter what the originator of a theory believes in personally when it's not about his theory?

When it is about his theory.

 

[maranatha_man]

Please keep in mind the political & social climate at the time Darwin made this assertion - and the fact that many upright, Godly, etc....ministers of the Gospel would have likely been sympathetic, or echoed the same sentiment

 

[unred typo]

Please keep in mind the political & social climate at the time Darwin made this assertion - and the fact that many upright, Godly, etc....ministers of the Gospel would have likely been sympathetic, or echoed the same sentiment

Yes, exactly the type of climate that would spawn many erroneous concepts about the nature of God and man. As long as we incorporate this type of ignorance into our views, we will have a warped mindset.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin's theory has been modified a number of times as new evidence showed that it needed to be so.

Sexism was Darwin's personal opinion (which reflected what almost all people thought at the time) but it was not part of evolutionary theory.

Darwin's theory said:

1. More are born than can survive to reproduce
2. All organisms vary slightly
3. Those variations that improve chances of survival tend to increase in a population
4. These accumulate and account for the variety of life we see.

Notice that sexism is not part of it. Sexism was also believed by most creationists at the time, but it is not a part of creationism, either.

Evolutionists today are not sexists, because science shows that sexism is not rational. Many creationists are sexists, because they retain a conservative that women are inferior.

 

[unred typo]

Evolutionists today are not sexists, because science shows that sexism is not rational. Many creationists are sexists, because they retain a conservative that women are inferior.

Silly me. Of course Darwin’s prejudices would not enter into theories about survival of the fittest and superiority of one species, sex and race over another. So now all evolutionists are not sexists or many are not sexists? Exactly or approximately how many creationists are sexists?
Is it sexist to understand there are differences between males and females both physically and emotionally so that each has a unique function in life? The Bible refers to the woman as the weaker vessel, not the inferior vessel. (Just as a piece of bone china is weaker than a clay pot, and should be treated with more care and consideration.) More responsibility is placed on the man’s shoulders as head of household and the woman is especially adapted for her role, as much as a man is built for his. Not many men have adapted to birthing and breastfeeding babies. :o Do you have any stats on that?

Darwin's theory said:

1. More are born than can survive to reproduce
2. All organisms vary slightly
3. Those variations that improve chances of survival tend to increase in a population
4. These accumulate and account for the variety of life we see.

If that was all that Darwin’s theory was, it would not have bothered anyone.
1. God adapted his creatures to survive in the world that was subjected to death and decay.

2. God likes variety. He is creative. Maybe that’s why we call him the Creator.

3. Good adaptations were created by an amazing, intelligent being. Romans 8 says the creation was made subject to vanity… a system of self preservation to preserve it until the fallen world was destroyed and all was ready for the coming new world.

4. Variations accumulate as God intended. (see #3)

 

[Solo]

In ''Descent of man'' Darwin wrote: "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands"( see: Darwin, Descent of Man - Chapter 19 - Secondary Sexual Characters of ManChapter 19, 1871 edition at http://www.und.edu/instruct/akelsch/399/darwin.htm )

Do you see what happens when you make dogmatic and vehement statements based on errant speculation? Some people never learn. :D

That is the only thing that Darwin and I agree on. :D : :D :

 

[Sleeker]

If that was all that Darwin’s theory was, it would not have bothered anyone.
1. God adapted his creatures to survive in the world that was subjected to death and decay.

2. God likes variety. He is creative. Maybe that’s why we call him the Creator.

3. Good adaptations were created by an amazing, intelligent being. Romans 8 says the creation was made subject to vanity… a system of self preservation to preserve it until the fallen world was destroyed and all was ready for the coming new world.

4. Variations accumulate as God intended. (see #3)

Except that Darwin meant naturally, not supernaturally.

 

[Heidi]

In ''Descent of man'' Darwin wrote: "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands"( see: Darwin, Descent of Man - Chapter 19 - Secondary Sexual Characters of ManChapter 19, 1871 edition at http://www.und.edu/instruct/akelsch/399/darwin.htm )

Do you see what happens when you make dogmatic and vehement statements based on errant speculation? Some people never learn. :D

How can man be descending and evolving at the same time? :o Which is it?It appears that Darwin can't make a statment without contradicting himself.

 

[Solo]

In ''Descent of man'' Darwin wrote: "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands"( see: Darwin, Descent of Man - Chapter 19 - Secondary Sexual Characters of ManChapter 19, 1871 edition at http://www.und.edu/instruct/akelsch/399/darwin.htm )

Do you see what happens when you make dogmatic and vehement statements based on errant speculation? Some people never learn. :D

How can man be descending and evolving at the same time? :o Which is it?It appears that Darwin can't make a statment without contradicting himself.

Darwin was a lost soul descending to his own selection much like the humanists that are devolving today.

 

[Quath]

How can man be descending and evolving at the same time? :o Which is it?It appears that Darwin can't make a statment without contradicting himself.

Descending is a subjective opinion of where the process of evolution is going.

Quath

 

[unred typo]

Descending is a subjective opinion of where the process of evolution is going.

I like what solo wrote but you only got one word wrong. Descending is a subjective opinion of where the Theory of Evolution is going.

 

[Solo]

I can afford to be subjective in the matter of evolution descending and humanists devolving, because I am right. I am not required to be objective when the truth is as obvious as it is; and it is not an opinion, it is conviction.

 

[Lewis]

Darwin was a sicko, to the core, he has done and his work continues to do evil. His work has messed up the minds of millions. He has tried to down play the power of God, these type people are fools, and unless they repent and come to Christ. There is a place for them.

 

[Barbarian]

You'll probably get a lot more credibility without the screechy delivery.

Darwin was a rather ordinary upper-class Englishman, who happened to have a very good mind for science, and made a breakthrough in biology that has made modern biology what it is today.

God doesn't care whether you accept evolution or not. The only way you can lose your salvation over evolution, is to try to make it a salvation issue.

It's not.

 

[Lewis]

Sorry about the anger. But Darwin gets me upset, he did a lot of wrong he even said black people were lessor humans, so in reality Darwin was fool.

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry about the anger. But Darwin gets me upset, he did a lot of wrong he even said black people were lessor humans, so in reality Darwin was fool.

In reality, Darwin was considered to be a liberal on race issues. Like Abraham Lincoln, he considered blacks to be inferior, (almost all people of European descent had been taught that from childhood) but both Lincoln and Darwin differed from the creationists of the time in insisting that blacks were humans entitled to their freedom and the fruits of their own labor.

Darwin was, like Lincoln, a man of his time, and he shared some of the predjudices of his time. He was, however, more than most people, able to throw off some of them.

Today, of course, evolutionists aren't racists because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand, there are still many creationists who cling to racism.