Talk:Charles Darwin

/Archive 1

It should be noted that this attitude was very much in line with the thinking of Darwin's time, and although his theory of evolution has withstood considerable examination over more than a century, he was not infallible.

Darwin: did he hold to weak atheism or agnosticism and did he lie about being an agnostic?

I believe that Darwin was a "weak atheist" and he was a proponent of what we would call scientism. I don't think that Darwin lied about being an "agnostic".

I cite the following:

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548839/k.2A55/Is_Darwinism_Atheistic_an_Examination_of_the_Beliefs_and_Practices_of_Charles_Darwin.htm

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877

Also, consider these:

http://bevets.com/equotesd.htm

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rational-atheism (scientism)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUaveling.htm (Aveling said Darwin was an atheist. He met with Darwin.).

Also, consider this:

• Dr. Aveling has published an account of a conversation with my father. I think that the readers of this pamphlet ('The Religious Views of Charles Darwin,' Free Thought Publishing Company, 1883) may be misled into seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my father and Dr. Aveling: and I say this in spite of my conviction that Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impressions of my father's views. Dr. Aveling tried to show that the terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" were practically equivalent-that an atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity. My father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (page 5) to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs.

The writings of Charles Darwin on the web by John van Wyhe F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905.

This might offer a little help in that it shows at some point Darwin abandoned theism altogether:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m20576222124043j/

As I stated before it does seem as if Darwin was a weak atheist and believer in scientism and not the idea that the issue of God was forever insoluble which I believe modern agnostics hold to. I think the confusion comes in because Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) who coined the term agnostic did not mean that the question of God was forever unknowable if I am not mistaken (but I certain could be in that I have not researched it in depth) Please see: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html.

Any thoughts on the above?

Conservative 23:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Darwin's Death

The date of death listed on this article is off by a year. It should be 1882 not 1883. I would gladly fix said typo myself but it appears the article is locked.--ScottA 22:29, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Evolutionary racist

The following is in reference to this quote: At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. How is this racist? I don't think Darwin was agreeing with his future vision of man. And was he wrong, at any rate? We have seen that he was right. If the "racist" bit was in reference to his calling Africans and Australians "savages", then I suggest someone here look up the definition of savage and the state of African and Aboriginal civilisation when Darwin was alive. They were by no means as advanced as even the simplest Europeans. This is not disputable apart from denying history. Please enlighten me. --JZim 23:32, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Banknote

This page is locked, so could someone who is able add that Darwin appears on the ten pound banknote in England? It would go nicely in the 'Cult of Personality' section (though maybe 'cult' is a bit strong).--CPalmer 07:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Bias

"Given Darwin's likely psychogenic or psychobiological illness various creationists have stated that Darwin's illness was the result of guilt and/or fear."

Is this appropriate? Stating things with no basis other than making yourself looking better looks plain unintellectual.