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)

Fixed. conservative 22:42, 7 January 2011 (EST)

I took Out the death bed part because there is no evidence that he said this.

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)

It should also be noted that the term 'Negro' has only been used in a negative way in the past 50 or so years. Dr Martin King used it in his famous speech "I Have A Dream" on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I also don't think that one quote from his book is enough alone to indicate racism, even if this quote suggests racism. - JamesCA 07:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Racist

This seems irrelevant as most men at his time were racist and he was no different than the rest of the western world at this point - Christians at this point participated in wide prosecution of blacks and colored people, and really the majority of people in the western world were racist at this point in time.

Seems irrelevant? You certainly don't appear very sure about this matter and obviously feel you have a poor case. I do know at the day of pentecost God assembled men from all nations and many were saved. Please see: Western atheism and race conservative 02:38, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Using the word 'seems' does not indicate that they believe they have a poor case. They may simply prefer not to use the 'this is right' style of writing, out of personal preference. I also know that the day of pentecost was not during Darwin's lifetime, and that is the context. They said "Christians at this point", not "Christians 1800 years ago." Also, United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." - 'three fifths of all other Persons' refers to blacks and colored people, those who held no other place in society in 1789 (and until 1863) than as slaves. This section of the Constitution is racist, and was written by people who (at least according to Conservapedia, I'm not sure about in general) were Christian. The point is, that the majority of people in the western world at this time (including Christians) were racist. Emphasis: at this time. - JamesCA 07:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

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.

Views on Slavery

"It is claimed that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified by the illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves to our poorer countrymen: If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin…"

Darwin, C., The Voyage of the Beagle, 1839, pp. 433-34 in the Meridian Version first published in 1996.

"I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place." - Letter from Darwin to J.S. Henslo, March 1834 http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

Could I get this in the see also

I'm working on compiling a list of The_works_of_Charles_Darwin and think it would be helpful to have it in the see also. Thanks! --Brendanw 22:25, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Unlocking

Could someone unlock this so I can add the Evolutionary racists category, or else add it yourself? DanielPulido 19:03, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Unlocked, Daniel! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:13, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Thanks TK; done! DanielPulido 19:28, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Category - Biologists

Should Charles Darwin be added to the category "Biologists"? Carltonio (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

Robert Skildelsky

User:Conservative]: You used a source on these major Portal pages: Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, John Maynard Keynes and Evolution (The costly return of geopolitics, Jun 27, 2023). His latest, Lord Robert Skidelsky: Pax-Americana is Over, seems to directly contradict your Essay: The United States will be the leading power in the world for the foreseeable future, who declares it has ended. To avoid the confusion you have created on the part of our readers between your ideas and Skildelsky, why don't you properly qualify the source by creating the Robert Skildelsky article? RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 13:23, April 20, 2025 (EDT)