Difference between revisions of "Talk:Charles Darwin"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(62 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Shooting Darwin Down ==
+
[[Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 1|/Archive 1]]
  
−
someone who can write better than me should put this theory in the darwin, evolution, intelligent design and irreducible complexity pages<br/>
+
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.
  
−
[http://www.videosift.com/video/Peanut-Butter-The-Atheists-Nightmare|The Athiest's Nightmare]
+
== Darwin: did he hold to weak atheism or agnosticism and did he lie about being an agnostic?  ==
  
−
--[[User:Thurston|Thurston]] 21:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+
I believe that Darwin was a "[[Weak Atheism|weak atheist]]" and he was a proponent of what we would call [[scientism]].  I don't think that Darwin lied about being an "agnostic". 
  
−
:You ''can't'' be serious. I think that I may have lost an IQ point or two after watching that drivel. Is this from the same people who tried to put forth the ''domesticated'' banana as a disproof of evolution? --[[User:M|M]] 20:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
+
I cite the following:
−
----
 
  
−
This article is heavily weighted toward a discussion of Darwin's struggle with religious faith with comparatively little discussion of those things for which he is principally of interest.
+
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
  
−
Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)
+
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877
  
 +
Also, consider these:
  
−
Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --
+
http://bevets.com/equotesd.htm
  
−
== More deletions ==
+
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rational-atheism  (scientism)
  
−
I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.
+
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUaveling.htm  (Aveling said Darwin was an atheist.  He met with Darwin.).
  
−
Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.
 
  
  
−
It has not been proved to be un-true.  The section is awaiting citation.  Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue.  Thank you.  --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)
+
Also, consider this:
  
−
:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)
+
* 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.
  
−
Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
+
This might offer a little help in that it shows at some point Darwin abandoned theism altogether:
−
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)
 
  
−
It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?
+
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m20576222124043j/
  
−
No joke. This is completely refuted. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:50, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
 
  
−
----
+
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.
−
===Religious Views===
 
  
 +
Any thoughts on the above? 
  
−
I have completely revamped the '''Religious Beliefs''' section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.
+
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  
−
[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
+
==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.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:29, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
:::Fixed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:42, 7 January 2011 (EST)
 +
I took Out the death bed part because there is no evidence that he said this.
  
−
: Read a credible biography for once.  He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
+
== Evolutionary racist ==
−
: Oops, I stand corrected.  He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death.  Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)
 
  
−
You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his ''Autobiography'' is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published ''Origin of Species'' (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.
+
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. --[[User:JZim|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. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
  
−
[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
+
== 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]] [[User:Conservative|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. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
  
−
: Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)
+
== Banknote ==
  
−
False Information in Article
+
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).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)
  
−
Ernst Mayr, 1991 ''One Long Argument'' page 75 says Darwin became an Atheist and not an Agnostic. I own a copy of the book. The article as it now sits is wrong.
 
  
−
According to the ''Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition'' "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, ten years after ''Origin of Species'' was published.
 
  
−
Ray Martinez
 
  
−
PS: In fact, the entire Religious Views section looks like it was written by an evolutionist attempting to cover Darwin's atheism. I thought this was Conservapedia and not Wikipedia?
 
  
−
The section in question is totally wrong, illogical and written out of context.
+
==Bias==
  
−
Let me know if you want the truth written.
+
"Given Darwin's likely psychogenic or psychobiological illness various creationists have stated that Darwin's illness was the result of guilt and/or fear."
  
−
RM
+
Is this appropriate? Stating things with no basis other than making yourself looking better looks plain unintellectual.
  
−
----
+
== Views on Slavery ==
  
−
I have edited the ''Religious Views'' section in the article. Mayr said "Atheist" and not "Agnostic" on page 75 of his book. I also erased a paragraph beneath the Atheist fact that contradicted blatantly said fact with out of context and unreferenced assertions. I also erased a paragraph about Darwin's family being connected to Ben Franklin. If someone wants to re-edit the article and place it elsewhere then fine, but it does not belong in the ''Religious Views'' section of article.
+
"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.
  
−
When Darwin denied being an Atheist in 1879 he was speaking in a private letter to a person that is assumed to be a believer. In the 19th century England, atheists were highly discriminated against. Darwin always avoided the label in order to evade the negative stigma. We know he was an Atheist based on his theories that deny God had any part in producing reality, and because common ancestry by evolution flatly contradicts what God has said in Genesis.
+
"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 ==
  
−
Ray Martinez 6-12-07
+
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! --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:25, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
  
−
: Superb comments, Ray.  Please edit it further.  I just removed some of the liberal bias based after being alerted by your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
+
== Unlocking ==
  
 +
Could someone unlock this so I can add the Evolutionary racists category, or else add it yourself? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:03, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
  
−
Sorry for the bias - that was me - it was accidental.
+
:Unlocked, Daniel! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:13, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
  
−
Ray Martinez 6-12-06
+
::Thanks TK; done! [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:28, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
  
−
: Ray, I have to disagree with your reasoning for why we know Darwin was atheist, or at the very least with your usage of the term. I'm an atheist myself, and if you you look up the term in a dictionary, it's quite clear: atheists do not believe and any god or gods. While Darwin's theories prove he rejected a lot of major Christian beliefs, that does not nessecarily prove he completely rejected the existance of God (or a god, at least). I think agnostic would be a better term to use. [[user:Catgirlthecrazy]] - 12:50, 28 June
+
==Category  - Biologists==
 +
Should Charles Darwin be added to the category "Biologists"? [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 02:54, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
  
−
----
+
==[[Robert Skildelsky]]==
−
::::Ray, you asked me to intervene.  Can you quote verbatim Ernst Mayr stating that Darwin was a atheist?  Secondly, it seems to me as if this material has more historical immediacy in that it claims Darwin preferred to be called an agnostic and I cite footnote 30 from a AIG article: "In 1881, at a meeting with Edward Aveling (Karl Marx's son-in-law) and Ludwig Büchner, Darwin said he preferred to be called an agnostic. Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 286." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/slide.asp] Now Thomas Huxley appeared to have coined the term "agnosticism". [http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/origins.htm]  Thomas Huxley was a contemporary of Darwin so it appears as if Darwin could have called himself an agnostic. Any comments Ray?  I am open for discussion on this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:14, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
+
[[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]] ([https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/robert-skidelsky/costly-return-geopolitics The costly return of geopolitics], Jun 27, 2023). His latest, [https://youtu.be/ALnyAWz5l8I 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? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 13:23, April 20, 2025 (EDT)
−
::::::::It appears as if Ray used this reference to claim that Darwin was an atheist: Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument 1991:75  Ernst Mayr was a Harvard biologist and is a prominent figure in the history of the evolutionary theory.  Perhaps Mayr suspects that Darwin was a closet atheist due to the social stigma of proclaiming yourself an atheist that someone wrote above existed in Victorian England.  I was hoping that Ray would provide me a quote from Mayr's work but I don't think that will happen as I was told he was banned and that he has no further interest in Conservapedia.  If anyone wants to look this up it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:44, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
==Reply to Conservative==
 
−
 
 
−
'''Dear Conservative:''' I think you should review your own comments about Charles Darwin that appear on the Internet. Your flip flopping is atrocious. When Darwin said he preferred to be called an Agnostic the context was to avoid the negative stigma of Atheism in the 19th century. He was admitting Atheism but wanting to be called Agnostic for the reason just explained. It is a mystery that you suddenly do not understand this? If you have forgotten what you have said about Darwin in the past let me know and I will gladly post your previous opinions on your talk page.
 
−
 
 
−
In addition: Why do you suddenly doubt that Mayr said Darwin was an Atheist? Before, you had no doubt, now you are saying Mayr never said it. It is up to you to disprove if you disagree. Mayr 1991:75 says Darwin was an Atheist before the late 1830s.
 
−
 
 
−
Why has your good Fundamentalist buddy Moderator used the ultra-liberal "Religious Tolerance" web site to claim Darwin an Agnostic but you do not challenge this unscholarly source? Why does the Darwin article say he was an Agnostic using Mayr (who did not say Agnostic but Atheist) and not the liberal web page? As it sits now many Moderators know of this false information in article and have not changed it!
 
−
 
 
−
What is apparent is that you have made some serious mistakes and cannot simply admit it without making intelligence insulting excuses.
 
−
 
 
−
RM 2-7-07
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
REPLY TO Ray:
 
−
 
 
−
Ray, I saw today that you are back at Conservapedia. I understand that you and TK (the Sysop/Admin) are battling regarding the Darwin atheist/agnostic issue.  I wanted you to provide the Mayr quote so we could say in the Darwin article that the Prominent evolutionist and Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr said ".........................." and provide the footnote so this way TK could not easily dispute the matter.  I do believe that Conservapedia should be rule based and that material pointing to Darwin being a closet atheist should not be squelched out of a conservative encyclopedia merely because a Sysop/Admin (namely TK) doesn't like the material.  As far as me saying Mayr never said Darwin was a atheist I merely asked for a quote so this way the whole TK vs Ray issue could be diffused.  As far as me believing that Darwin was an atheist earlier, I think we should set aside this issue of what I believed or disbelieved and focus on factual matters in regards to issue at hand and that is: Was Darwin an atheist or a agnostic. 
 
−
 
 
−
'''I believe the case is extremely stronger for Darwin being a closet atheist who at times found it hard to maintain atheistic thinking than for Darwin being a agnostic.''' I say this based on what I strongly suspect Mayr said {which I wish you would provide a small quote for if possible) and the following material regarding Darwin which I read today:
 
−
 
 
−
"Ernst Mayr’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:
 
−
 
 
−
‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’ [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877]
 
−
 
 
−
I also cite a review of a book written in the British Journal for the Philosophy (Volume 47,1996, page 641) saying: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a materialist and mechanist...." [http://www.jstor.org/view/00070882/ap020188/02a00130/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf39@buffalo.edu/01cce4405c00501c2c38a&dpi=3&config=jstor]
 
−
 
 
−
I also cite this material from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
 
−
 
 
−
"In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:
 
−
 
 
−
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:56, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
Of course we know Darwin was a Materialist (= Atheist). I could provide these comments right from Darwin's own mouth (as you have). I wonder why the "most knowledgeable" TK has hand-waved Darwin the materialist away in favor of a liberal web page?
 
−
 
 
−
Mayr 1991:75 "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus.... but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' more or less = atheist"
 
−
 
 
−
That is the exact quote.
 
−
 
 
−
You are a Mod, why don't you revert the article back to the way Andy and I had it?
 
−
 
 
−
This is Conservapedia and not atheist-Wikipedia protecting a flaming Atheist like Charles Darwin. How could anyone who banished God think he was not an Atheist? THIS IS RHETORICAL.
 
−
 
 
−
Ray 7-2-07
 
−
 
 
−
== I created an article at another website ==
 
−
 
 
−
I created an article at another website:
 
−
 
 
−
[[Darwin's illness]]
 
−
 
 
−
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
 
−
 
 
−
Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty.  Should we add that to the article? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
* Your question solicits opinion, not fact. Can it be conclusively demonstrated that his illness was Divine punishment? If not, I would say leave it out. Unless it's proven, it doesn't matter how many people think this or that about it. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== A note on Darwin ==
 
−
 
 
−
He never stated that his theory of species evolution should be applied to humans.  If you read the last sentence of "The Origin of Species" he says something to the effect of "this could apply to humans, but I don't see how and frankly I'm not convinced"  so stop blaming him.
 
−
 
 
−
However, in the later book "the Descent of Man" he DID apply it to humans.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== The footnotes are messed up.  I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. ==
 
−
 
 
−
The footnotes are messed up.  I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
 
−
 
 
−
==More advanced then women?==
 
−
 
 
−
I can't find that phrase in Decent of Man is their a citation for this? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Revamp the article? ==
 
−
 
 
−
It seems a little odd to me that the section on Darwin's religious beliefs dwarfs the rest of it...--[[User:M|M]] 17:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== A naturalist is a kind of biologist... ==
 
−
...so Darwin belongs in ''both'' categories.
 
−
"1. One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany." [http://www.bartleby.com/61/4/N0030400.html] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:07, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== religioustolerance.org==
 
−
Per discussions with User:Conservative, the link to religioustolerance.org is a decidely [[leftist]] and anti-Christion site. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Conservative&diff=prev&oldid=192253#religioustolerance.org][http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS/archive3#I_dislike_the_lefty_religioustolerance_site_too_but....]  An article in the ''National Review'' [http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp] says this of religioustolerance.org,
 
−
 
 
−
:"a number of Lefty sites that link to the following description of Dominionism at religioustolerance.org. This description includes the claim that Dominionists “advocate genocide for followers of minority groups and non-conforming members of their own religion.” I’m not sure this is accurate, even for the minuscule number of actual Dominionists. But the disturbing thing is the way this and other Left-leaning sites use logical sleight-of-hand to tar ordinary evangelicals with the madcap musings of a few fevered “Dominionists.”"
 
−
 
 
−
Citations to this website have already been removed from the [[Creationism]] article.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=prev&oldid=192474]  Religioustolerance.org is not an appropriate cite we should be linking to.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:34, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
:: Why did a Conservapedia Mod use this site to begin with? Are we to believe he did not know? The article now says that Mayr said Darwin was an Agnostic when Mayr said Atheist. Why hasn't the Mod who reverted back to Agnostic not used the web page? The article gives the false impression that Mayr said Darwin was Agnostic. I find it hard to believe that the Mod who used the liberal web site forgot to change his source to that site instead of Mayr.
 
−
 
 
−
::Ray Martinez 2-7-07
 
−
 
 
−
:::All sources I've read say he was an atheist.  In fact, reading personal quotes on "Christianity" and "the Judeo-Christian God" in [[Jacques Barzun]]'s book, the man sounds just like [[Adolf Hitler]] in ''Hitler's Table Talk''.  Please feel free to make the correction.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::I have unproteced the page so someone can make the correction.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 

Latest revision as of 22:23, April 20, 2025

/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? RobSZelensky Must Go! 13:23, April 20, 2025 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Darwin&oldid=2122923"