So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

The Royal Institute of Philosophy ^ | 21 Feb 2006 | David Stove

[Politically Correct]

Why not start another Evo-Crevo thread?

[Mojave]

[Revolting cat!]

I'm in, I'm in! Before 1,000! Wow! Look ma!

[frankiep]

Maybe it's just me, but the first paragraph alone was just dripping with arrogance.

[RichInOC]

Each one of these threads that gets started makes me sympathize more and more with Elvis shooting his TVs.

[Politically Correct]

Maybe it's just me, but the first paragraph alone was just dripping with arrogance.

Arrogance in the defence of truth is no vice........no,no I don't think that's how the quote goes is it?

[Paradox]

Does anyone really think themselves "Darwinists"? It seems that mostly creationists use that term.

As for me, I was intrigued by the book "Calculating God", by a Canadian Sci Fi author named Sawyer. Sort of an ID/Evolution mix..

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

http://www.blackmask.com/Detailed/Liberal_Arts/Charles_Darwin/The_Origin_of_Species_by_means_of_Natural_Selection_752.html


Above URL has free book in several formats.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In on the first page!!!!

[Cicero]

Great fun. And it's a criticism of Darwinism that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or creationism or intelligent design.

The logic is rigorous and irrefutable, although no doubt the Darwinists will soon pile in with their boilerplate refutations. I'm going to bed, but I enjoyed this article very much, arrogance and all.

This one is definitely worth a read.

[Tribune7]

And a good way to do it. Bump

[freedumb2003]

The logic is rigorous and irrefutable, although no doubt the Darwinists will soon pile in with their boilerplate refutations.

1+1=2. Pure boilerplate.

[Tribune7]

ping

[SteveMcKing]

I vote Darwin.

If the author has a friend, that person needs to stop him from making such an ass of himself by writing essays like this.

[wallcrawlr]

16

[js1138]

I vote Darwin. The author is a great builder of straw men.

The same kind of reasoning makes cannibals of Christians And haters of parents and family. It's easy to write stuff like this.

[Vicomte13]

My biggest concern with the article is that there is scarcely any reference to Darwin in it. Most of the references are to sociobologists and various modern scientific thinkers. Darwin's propositions seem to be limited to observing that organisms seek to reproduce as much as possible (he overstates the case, but organisms do seek to reproduce), and his statement that unfavorable genetic developments are RIGIDLY destroyed. Obviously that's not true.

Darwin's explanations of things were very mechanistic, to be sure. He and others discounted things like animal emotion and animal intelligence, reducing animals almost to mere automata.

This was far too simplistic, but the overall concept of increase of the more fit for survival is not very controversial (is it?).

I wouldn't tar Darwin with the more political expostulations of some of the modern scientists.

[b_sharp]

What is troublesome is not the ease of writing but the ease some find in believing such tripe. I'm not sure why it happens but it seems anti-evolutionists are far more willing to use and believe 'appeals to emotion' than anything rational.

[js1138]

Faith is an appeal to emotion rather than to rationality, as is the threat of eternal consequenses. How is it rational to base truth on bribes and threats? Sounds more like the arguments of men seeking power than the word of God.