The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

[Bronzeage]

For the world of Christian orthodoxy, Darwin came along at a bad time. It had been a century or more since they conceded the Biblical version of astronomy was not factual. They now faced the same challenge from Geology. The world might be round, but they were pretty certain it was only about 5000 years old. Naturalists were beginning to understand the processes of geology and took a fresh look at features which were assumed to be created by the Flood of Genesis. It was becoming clear that whatever happened, it took a lot longer than 5000 years.

The last thing they wanted was another scientific process which dictated millions of years had to pass to reach the present state.

 

[Keith&Co.]

For the world of Christian orthodoxy, Darwin came along at a bad time. It had been a century or more since they conceded the Biblical version of astronomy was not factual. They now faced the same challenge from Geology. The world might be round, but they were pretty certain it was only about 5000 years old. Naturalists were beginning to understand the processes of geology and took a fresh look at features which were assumed to be created by the Flood of Genesis. It was becoming clear that whatever happened, it took a lot longer than 5000 years.

The last thing they wanted was another scientific process which dictated millions of years had to pass to reach the present state.

But is that really a threat to the theology or to the people in charge?

 

[bleubird]

Off topic,but I liked Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.1872.Kind of creepy stuff.The part about facial musicals and emotions.Put a dowel in the back of your mouth,and you fell better,like a smile.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.....

Which chapter, 1st Epistle of John chapter 2? "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Are there Christians who don't take that literally?

This isn't about taking Genesis literally. This is about why the heck would the sins of man require propitiation when the whole reason man is sinning in the first place is because not enough geological time has passed yet for him to finish evolving from an amoral animal into a good person? How the heck is that our fault?

 

[Learner]

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.

Now look what you've gone an done, disrupting the flow.. (sorry had to respond) but I'll save you time - You won't find any snide remarks or mistakes, that's all in Keiths mind (also applies to his post) but if there were... then, I take full responsibilty.

Sarcasm (light mocking humour) as opposed to Snide (derogatory) which I didn't do.

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

Ah it's in your mind too. How imaginative even though false. You can expand conversation on minimal knowledge, if you didn't know.

(I'll be on the religious section so wont reply to new posts)

 

[bilby]

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.

Now look what you've gone an done, disrupting the flow.. (sorry had to respond) but I'll save you time - You won't find any snide remarks or mistakes, that's all in Keiths mind (also applies to his post) but if there were... then, I take full responsibilty.

Sarcasm (light mocking humour) as opposed to Snide (derogatory) which I didn't do.

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

Ah it's in your mind too. How imaginative even though false. You can expand conversation on minimal knowledge, if you didn't know.

You can.

That really, really doesn't mean you should.

(I'll be on the religious section so wont reply to new posts)

Good.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.....

Which chapter,

Genesis

1st Epistle of John chapter 2? "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Are there Christians who don't take that literally?

well, there's Lumpenproletariot. ALL he gets out of the Books is (believe Jesus did healing miracles) = (go to Heaven). Nothing else need change in his or anyone's life but that.

This isn't about taking Genesis literally.

for whether evolution took millions of years as an attack on Bookology?

This is about why the heck would the sins of man require propitiation when the whole reason man is sinning in the first place is because not enough geological time has passed yet for him to finish evolving from an amoral animal into a good person? How the heck is that our fault?

Doesn't make the story less fuckery, but it does not make it a choice, ToE or God.
More, ToE plus or minus gods.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Now look what you've gone an done, disrupting the flow.. (sorry had to respond) but I'll save you time - You won't find any snide remarks or mistakes, that's all in Keiths mind

"Cancel culture." Most of the canceling going on right now is consevative action. So, you think that seriously contributes to the evolution discussion?

 

[Bronzeage]

For the world of Christian orthodoxy, Darwin came along at a bad time. It had been a century or more since they conceded the Biblical version of astronomy was not factual. They now faced the same challenge from Geology. The world might be round, but they were pretty certain it was only about 5000 years old. Naturalists were beginning to understand the processes of geology and took a fresh look at features which were assumed to be created by the Flood of Genesis. It was becoming clear that whatever happened, it took a lot longer than 5000 years.

The last thing they wanted was another scientific process which dictated millions of years had to pass to reach the present state.

But is that really a threat to the theology or to the people in charge?

How is there a difference. Theology is always coopted by power to serve the needs of power. Christianity has never been a good fit for authoritarians. Way too much love and forgiveness for their tastes. The solution is to create a "one and only one" theology, which is enforced by the might of the state. Love and forgiveness are now commodities controlled by the state, with God as a silent partner in the racket.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Christianity has never been a good fit for authoritarians. Way too much love and forgiveness for their tastes. The solution is to create a "one and only one" theology, which is enforced by the might of the state. Love and forgiveness are now commodities controlled by the state, with God as a silent partner in the racket.

If Yahweh would only spare us the tender ministrations of His Love Crowd. Those who believe that they are commanded to love their enemies and return good for evil. And their current idol, of course, has a guiding philosophy of "When someone hits you, you hit them back 15 times harder!" I love that 15, it's such a virile number to fix on. Sometimes given as 10, but I remember clearly when either Kellyann or Sister Huckabee fixed on 15 as the number. March on, Christians of America. Your powers of character discernment are a credit to your faith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

For the world of Christian orthodoxy, Darwin came along at a bad time. It had been a century or more since they conceded the Biblical version of astronomy was not factual. They now faced the same challenge from Geology. The world might be round, but they were pretty certain it was only about 5000 years old. Naturalists were beginning to understand the processes of geology and took a fresh look at features which were assumed to be created by the Flood of Genesis. It was becoming clear that whatever happened, it took a lot longer than 5000 years.

The last thing they wanted was another scientific process which dictated millions of years had to pass to reach the present state.

But is that really a threat to the theology or to the people in charge?

How is there a difference. Theology is always coopted by power to serve the needs of power.

But...but...they keep insisting that's false religions that do that!?
And 'we're not like the others' they chorus.

 

[Bronzeage]

How is there a difference. Theology is always coopted by power to serve the needs of power.

But...but...they keep insisting that's false religions that do that!?
And 'we're not like the others' they chorus.

Power is as power does. It doesn't matter if it's the Mayan Empire or the Holy Roman Empire. Whatever increases and stabilizes power's hold, will become part of the system. The denouncing of "false" religions is just practical defense.

 

[steve_bank]

How is there a difference. Theology is always coopted by power to serve the needs of power.

But...but...they keep insisting that's false religions that do that!?
And 'we're not like the others' they chorus.

Power is as power does. It doesn't matter if it's the Mayan Empire or the Holy Roman Empire. Whatever increases and stabilizes power's hold, will become part of the system. The denouncing of "false" religions is just practical defense.

Very well put.

 

[steve_bank]

Was the book published in his lifetime? It would certainly run counter to creationism jst as it does today.

If the original title was published today regardless of content it would immediately be denounced as racists.

It would be a double whammy, denounced buy both the left and right.

 

[atrib]

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?

He was being passive aggressive, since he apparently doesn't believe that biological evolution is real, and he doesn't have the tools to engage in an actual debate on the subject.

 

[atrib]

Was the book published in his lifetime? It would certainly run counter to creationism jst as it does today.

If the original title was published today regardless of content it would immediately be denounced as racists.

It would be a double whammy, denounced buy both the left and right.

Darwin lived in a different time, and certain worldviews were accepted as fact. As good a naturalist as he was, he may not have been immune to prevailing cultural biases. A serious biologist today would know better because they would have been exposed to a great deal more information than was available during Darwin's lifetime.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If the original title was published today regardless of content it would immediately be denounced as racists.

Well, so was the term, "niggardly," used properly in a conversation about budgets.

People just suck.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend
Upon thy self thy beauty's legacy?
Nature's bequest gives nothing, but doth lend,
And being frank she lends to those are free:
Then, beauteous niggard, why dost thou abuse
The bounteous largess given thee to give?
Profitless usurer, why dost thou use
So great a sum of sums, yet canst not live?
For having traffic with thy self alone,
Thou of thy self thy sweet self dost deceive:
Then how when nature calls thee to be gone,
What acceptable audit canst thou leave?
Thy unused beauty must be tombed with thee,
Which, used, lives th' executor to be.

Shakespeare's fourth sonnet. What a racist - in 1609!

 

[steve_bank]

If the original title was published today regardless of content it would immediately be denounced as racists.

Well, so was the term, "niggardly," used properly in a conversation about budgets.

People just suck.

amicall fixture used for machining or assembly to hold materials. At a company I was working at we told not to use the word because it could be misinterpreted.

It was a slur used racially, I had an uncle who used the slur 'jig a boo' for blacks. He had a slur for just about everybody.

 

[Tigers!]

If the original title was published today regardless of content it would immediately be denounced as racists.

Well, so was the term, "niggardly," used properly in a conversation about budgets.

People just suck.

When did the term niggardly become associated with race? I must have overlooked that memo.