The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

[BH]

I read the Origin of Species by Mr. Darwin. To be honest I dont understand why the religious people throw fits over what he wrote. Evolution as he describes has been observed in plants and domesticated animals and he cites examples. Nothing to throw a fit over.

 

[bilby]

I read the Origin of Species by Mr. Darwin. To be honest I dont understand why the religious people throw fits over what he wrote. Evolution as he describes has been observed in plants and domesticated animals and he cites examples. Nothing to throw a fit over.

It's just an early example of Conservatives getting mad about things they made up.

You didn't think that they actually read his book before deciding they were opposed to it, did you?

When your pastor, vicar, mullah, or rabbi tells you that the latest book (or movie, or TV show, or whatever) is insulting to God, your duty is to loudly or even violently condemn it. Under no circumstances should you expose yourself to the dangerous heresy or blasphemy by actually finding out what it actually contains.

The dead giveaway with Origin is that the god-squad who condemn it never ever mention pigeons, despite Charlie having a huge amount to say about them. He barely mentions primates, and was clearly a keen ornithologist and botanist.

 

[skepticalbip]

I read the Origin of Species by Mr. Darwin. To be honest I dont understand why the religious people throw fits over what he wrote. Evolution as he describes has been observed in plants and domesticated animals and he cites examples. Nothing to throw a fit over.

It was the idea of evolution itself that twisted the knickers of the religious in the mid 1800s. Their view was that species were exactly as god made them to populate the garden of Eden. Even today there are holdout religious groups that maintain that new "kinds" can not emerge... that god created "kinds" and there can only be variation within "kinds" but not new species.

You may enjoy visiting the website "answers in Genesis" as they seem to be preaching that view.

 

[Learner]

There may have been some issues with the original full title. Just as well it's not used today, there'd probably be protests from the cancel mob trying to stop it being sold on amazon etc..

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of "Favoured Races" in the Struggle for Life”.

 

[untermensche]

Darwin's ideas were plausible.

And if you were intelligent you could conclude several things from them. Many religious people are intelligent. They just have been abused so rigorously in childhood and indoctrinated beyond escape.

1. Species, like humans, are not immutable. They come and go. Humans arose out of some species that was similar but not identical.

2. No creative force is needed to arrive at the current display of species in the world.

3. There is no directionality. Nothing was planned ahead of time.

These ideas bothered a great number of people and still do.

Not just religious people but also so-called "spiritual" people.

People that think humans and therefore they are the center of all existence are bothered by these ideas.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Good news! A majority of Americans now believe in evolution!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...-minority-in-the-u-s/ar-AANynH6?ocid=msedgntp

 

[Keith&Co.]

There may have been some issues with the original full title. Just as well it's not used today, there'd probably be protests from the cancel mob trying to stop it being sold on amazon etc..

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of "Favoured Races" in the Struggle for Life”.

Since Darwin really tried to avoid talking about humans in The Origin, what do you suppose 'race' meant in that context?

For that matter, since evolutionary theory is treated as an atheistic idea by so many critics, what would you think 'favoured' was supposed to mean?

 

[Learner]

There may have been some issues with the original full title. Just as well it's not used today, there'd probably be protests from the cancel mob trying to stop it being sold on amazon etc..

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of "Favoured Races" in the Struggle for Life”.

Since Darwin really tried to avoid talking about humans in The Origin, what do you suppose 'race' meant in that context?

For that matter, since evolutionary theory is treated as an atheistic idea by so many critics, what would you think 'favoured' was supposed to mean?

What ever it is, some people may be offended by it, thinking in context to ethnicity, most likely because of his view, on white Europeans compared to Africans etc.. not on an equal basis, apparently. But I do find it more interesting now myself, because of the extra words in the full title.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There may have been some issues with the original full title. Just as well it's not used today, there'd probably be protests from the cancel mob trying to stop it being sold on amazon etc..

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of "Favoured Races" in the Struggle for Life”.

Since Darwin really tried to avoid talking about humans in The Origin, what do you suppose 'race' meant in that context?

For that matter, since evolutionary theory is treated as an atheistic idea by so many critics, what would you think 'favoured' was supposed to mean?

What ever it is, some people may be offended by it,

So, you don't know if you're scoring points off of Darwin or showing your ass.
'Kay.

thinking in context to ethnicity, most likely because of his view, on white Europeans compared to Africans etc.. not on an equal basis, apparently.

By 'apparently,' have you read Darwin's full writings on such things? Or just highlighted excerpts, published by people trying to 'cancel' Darwin in an attempt to 'cancel' evolution?

But I do find it more interesting now myself, because of the extra words in the full title.

Everyone has an editor.

 

[skepticalbip]

There may have been some issues with the original full title. Just as well it's not used today, there'd probably be protests from the cancel mob trying to stop it being sold on amazon etc..

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of "Favoured Races" in the Struggle for Life”.

Since Darwin really tried to avoid talking about humans in The Origin, what do you suppose 'race' meant in that context?

For that matter, since evolutionary theory is treated as an atheistic idea by so many critics, what would you think 'favoured' was supposed to mean?

What ever it is, some people may be offended by it, thinking in context to ethnicity, most likely because of his view, on white Europeans compared to Africans etc.. not on an equal basis, apparently. But I do find it more interesting now myself, because of the extra words in the full title.

There will be someone offended no matter what is written. The only way to avoid offending some people is by writing or saying nothing... and even that will likely offend someone.

"Origin of Species" avoided mentioning humans. His book several years later, "Descent of Man", was written in part because of the absurd interpretations of his earlier book that were being made by some.

 

[Bomb#20]

I read the Origin of Species by Mr. Darwin. To be honest I dont understand why the religious people throw fits over what he wrote. Evolution as he describes has been observed in plants and domesticated animals and he cites examples. Nothing to throw a fit over.

Different religious people have different reasons; but it seems to me evolution is a knife at the throat of Christian theology. No Adam and Eve, no Fall of Man. No Fall of Man, no need for Redemption through God's Grace. No need for Redemption through God's Grace, no reason for Jesus to die for our sins. It's one thing to blame a fallen being for his imperfections; it's quite another to blame a rising ape.

 

[Bomb#20]

I read the Origin of Species by Mr. Darwin. To be honest I dont understand why the religious people throw fits over what he wrote. Evolution as he describes has been observed in plants and domesticated animals and he cites examples. Nothing to throw a fit over.

It's just an early example of Conservatives getting mad about things they made up.

Funny story about that: America's most famous creationist. William Jennings Bryan was one of the chief agitators for laws against teaching evolution and he helped prosecute the high-school teacher John Scopes; Bryan was also one of the chief founders of progressivism and was the Democratic candidate in three presidential elections. He threw fits over evolution because he felt it supported capitalism, its amoral materialism undermined Christian ethics, especially teachings about caring for the poor, and it was a doctrine of upper-class elitists who figured they knew better than The Common Man.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I read the Origin of Species by Mr. Darwin. To be honest I dont understand why the religious people throw fits over what he wrote. Evolution as he describes has been observed in plants and domesticated animals and he cites examples. Nothing to throw a fit over.

Different religious people have different reasons; but it seems to me evolution is a knife at the throat of Christian theology.

Only those that take that chapter literally.
If you see it as a parable about man's capacity for sin, then science isn't any more of a problem than the science that says the moon reflects, or the sky isn't solid, or the Earth isn't flat, or the continents move, or the Earth orbits the sun, or snakes never talked, or.....

 

[Learner]

What ever it is, some people may be offended by it,

So, you don't know if you're scoring points off of Darwin or showing your ass.
'Kay.

Well it wasn't an argument, and by that logic it seems, we all winners scoring points...simply by posting.

thinking in context to ethnicity, most likely because of his view, on white Europeans compared to Africans etc.. not on an equal basis, apparently.

By 'apparently,' have you read Darwin's full writings on such things? Or just highlighted excerpts, published by people trying to 'cancel' Darwin in an attempt to 'cancel' evolution?

But I do find it more interesting now myself, because of the extra words in the full title.

Everyone has an editor.

Apparently... is a yes, I haven't checked the race/racial claim.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The average erect gorilla penis is 3 cm. (1.2 inches) long. "Is that a baby carrot or are you glad to see me?" Three cheers for evolution!

 

[Learner]

"Origin of Species" avoided mentioning humans. His book several years later, "Descent of Man", was written in part because of the absurd interpretations of his earlier book that were being made by some.

Ok, I see, sounds reasonable, cheers.



(Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I don't usually go outside the religious section, apart from reading interesting posts, although however, when theres hints of religion, I may once in a while make a post.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well it wasn't an argument, and by that logic it seems, we all winners scoring points...simply by posting.

if it wasn't an argument, and you haven't looked up what 'race' meant in that context, what the fuck did you mention it for?

Apparently... is a yes, I haven't checked the race/racial claim.

Then how do you bring in what his views apparently were? I do not understand your participation. Just to make snide comments you won't back up or take responsibility for?

 

[Learner]

Well it wasn't an argument, and by that logic it seems, we all winners scoring points...simply by posting.

if it wasn't an argument, and you haven't looked up what 'race' meant in that context, what the fuck did you mention it for?

Apparently... is a yes, I haven't checked the race/racial claim.

Then how do you bring in what his views apparently were? I do not understand your participation. Just to make snide comments you won't back up or take responsibility for?

I thought that it was interesting and maybe others would too, regarding the full title since the title of the thread is about the very same book. A little dialogue and if someone knows about it, they would share something about it.

I take full responsibilty for any mistakes or snide remarks I've made.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I thought that it was interesting and maybe others would too, regarding the full title since the title of the thread is about the very same book. A little dialogue and if someone knows about it, they would share something about it.

I take full responsibilty for any mistakes or snide remarks I've made.

You want discussion, but threw in "cancel" culture.
What do you find 'interesting' about the change in the title?
And what, still, do you think 'race' means in Darwin's title? White supremacy?
And what makes a race 'favoured' if evo's an allegedly atheist notion?

 

[bilby]

if it wasn't an argument, and you haven't looked up what 'race' meant in that context, what the fuck did you mention it for?
Then how do you bring in what his views apparently were? I do not understand your participation. Just to make snide comments you won't back up or take responsibility for?

I thought that it was interesting and maybe others would too, regarding the full title since the title of the thread is about the very same book. A little dialogue and if someone knows about it, they would share something about it.

I take full responsibilty for any mistakes or snide remarks I've made.

So is Learner saying that everything he posts here is either a mistake or a snide remark? I haven't checked the mistake/snide remark claim, but I think it's very interesting.

Lots of people these days seem to post nothing but mistakes and snide remarks, so I feel that a fact-free bit of passive aggressive idiocy might be entertaining for other people, and that JAQing off all over the thread is a valuable use of my time, because despite having nothing whatsoever to say that I haven't qualified and hedged into a completely deniable stance if challenged, I really wanted to disrupt people from saying things that I wish were not true.