Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Darwingate Papers (Darwin plagiarist, scientific criminal???)
ARN ^ | August 10, 2008 | David Tyler

Posted on 08/11/2008 3:04:34 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

This publication marks the 150th anniversary of the joint presentation of Darwin and Wallace of their thinking about evolution by natural selection to the Linnean Society. The book is a blockbuster because it claims that "Darwin perpetuated one of the greatest crimes in the history of science". It concludes that Darwin plagiarised Alfred Russel Wallace, deceived the world about the maturity of his own ideas before 1858, and, to satisfy his personal need for glory, failed to give credit to scholars who influenced his thinking...

(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: alfredrusselwallace; asagray; barbarabeddall; charlesdarwin; creation; crevo; edwardblyth; evolution; intelligentdesign; jeanbaptistelamark; liar; loreneiseley; plagiarism; professordarlington; roydavies; scientificcrime; steamingpile; thomasmalthus; whereisskullporn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 08/11/2008 3:04:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

ping!


2 posted on 08/11/2008 3:07:03 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; metmom; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; BlueDragon; AndrewC; Tailgunner Joe; valkyry1

ping!


3 posted on 08/11/2008 3:07:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Can’t wait to see this thread ‘evolve’......


4 posted on 08/11/2008 3:18:06 PM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

looks like a great book!


5 posted on 08/11/2008 3:22:15 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty; The Pendleton 8: We are not going down without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
OK.
Meaningless.
Who should care?
It's the idea that matters, not the sainthood of the messenger.
It's most often the promotional skills of the messenger that determine who is given credit and all science is built on the work of others.
6 posted on 08/11/2008 3:22:29 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12

Rest assured, guilty or not, the Temple of Darwin will defend their patron-saint to the last man.


7 posted on 08/11/2008 3:22:48 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: norton

==Who should care?...It’s the idea that matters, not the sainthood of the messenger.

Well, for starters, if the book is true, we will have to remove Darwin’s name from Darwin Day.


8 posted on 08/11/2008 3:26:36 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Interesting... The Father of Evolution is a liar. The number of phony/fraudulent evo evidense claims are something like 100 or 1000 to 1 versus phony ID/creationist evidense claims. Why does that not surprise anyone?


9 posted on 08/11/2008 3:26:45 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

==Interesting... The Father of Evolution is a liar.

LOL...that pretty much sums it up.


10 posted on 08/11/2008 3:28:59 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Rest assured, guilty or not, the Temple of Darwin will defend their patron-saint to the last man.

First off, these charges are not new and I don't believe they are accurate. But what you don't seem to understand is that Darwin could have been a cannibalistic serial killer for all it matters. Evolution is still an observed fact. If Einstein had been a pedophile, would E not equal MC ^ 2? This is about facts, not personalities.

11 posted on 08/11/2008 3:29:25 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

It can be ordered here...can’t wait to get a copy!

http://darwin-conspiracy.co.uk/book/where2buy.html


12 posted on 08/11/2008 3:32:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
BTW, without reading the book, this seems like total garbage.

Wallace and Darwin came up with natural selection independently. Darwin read a paper by Wallace, a quick sketch of the theory, and decided to step up publication of On the Origin of the Species to avoid getting scooped. If Darwin had plagiarized Wallace, he would have had to have written the book in about 15 minutes.

In fact, Wallace and Darwin became good friends and close collaborators. If Darwin had plagiarized Wallace, Wallace certainly didn't seem to think he had.

13 posted on 08/11/2008 3:35:27 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Here you go

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm

14 posted on 08/11/2008 3:35:45 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
The Father of Evolution is a liar.

Don't believe everything you read. Darwin didn't plagiarize Wallace.

15 posted on 08/11/2008 3:36:20 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Like father (of all liars) like son... :)

Remember, the hardest hit dog yelps the loudest. On 1...2...3...

16 posted on 08/11/2008 3:38:13 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

==Evolution is still an observed fact.

Only on the micro-level. Molecules to man evolution is not an observed fact, otherwise the evos wouldn’t be getting their butts kicked by Creation and ID scientists.

==Evolution is still an observed fact. If Einstein had been a pedophile, would E not equal MC ^ 2? This is about facts, not personalities.

We’re not talking about whether Darwin is a pedophile, we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists. If so, Darwin himself will have to be dethroned, and the Darwinian ToE will have to begin with a new name (or names).


17 posted on 08/11/2008 3:38:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Darwin read a paper by Wallace, a quick sketch of the theory, and decided to step up publication of On the Origin of the Species to avoid getting scooped. If Darwin had plagiarized Wallace, he would have had to have written the book in about 15 minutes.

Yes, yes... that what it was. Darwin said so himself I'm sure...

18 posted on 08/11/2008 3:39:59 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

That was the first thought that popped into my head when I read your original comment.


19 posted on 08/11/2008 3:40:13 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Yes, yes... that what it was. Darwin said so himself I'm sure...

Well Alfred Russel Wallace certainly never accused Darwin of plagiarizing -- and the two spent decades collaborating after On the Origin of the Species.

Don't you think he just might have said something? The fact of the matter is that Russel stumbled on the outlines of the theory. However, Darwin's Origin of the Species is far more sophisticated and fleshed out than what Wallace had been working with. At least Wallace himself seemed to have thought so... but what did he know!

20 posted on 08/11/2008 3:45:42 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

He not only copied from Wallace, he also copied from his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who wrote of the same things (see his epic poem, “The lives of plants”, and other works.)

“Darwinism” was first applied to grandfather Erasmus’ ‘evolution-like’ theories, not to his grandson’s.


21 posted on 08/11/2008 3:46:28 PM PDT by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Cool. A link to an intelligent design weblog. Guess we know where this is going.


22 posted on 08/11/2008 3:46:46 PM PDT by saganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Only on the micro-level.

No, that's not correct. We have a huge number of observations of evolution in the fossil record, in the lab and in genetics. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is certainly not limited to "the micro-level."

I understand that to you disbelief in evolutionary science may be an article of faith and no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise. But hopefully there are others more susceptible to reason on this thread.

We’re not talking about whether Darwin is a pedophile, we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists.

And? What does that have to do with whether or not his theory is correct?

23 posted on 08/11/2008 3:49:33 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

It wasn’t just Wallace, it appears he plagiarized the work of a number of scientists, to include Edward Blyth and Thomas Malthus. And it would appear that poor old Wallace went to his grave never knowing that his so-called friend ripped him off.


24 posted on 08/11/2008 3:54:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“The Father of Evolution is a liar.”

The Father of Evolution is the “Father of lies”.


25 posted on 08/11/2008 3:54:56 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
We’re not talking about whether Darwin is a pedophile, we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists. If so, Darwin himself will have to be dethroned, and the Darwinian ToE will have to begin with a new name (or names).

And rabid creationists will have to pick a new name to demonize.

Really, this is silly. You can't disprove the theory of evolution so you are left with trying to discredit its author -- 150 years after the fact.

This sure shows the bankruptcy of creationism and ID. And it says something about those individuals eager to believe any ill of Darwin.

26 posted on 08/11/2008 3:56:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; GodGunsGuts

No what it shows is you did not bother to read enough to find out that GGG did not introduce that statement into this thread, that or there is another answer to this routine failure of yours.


27 posted on 08/11/2008 4:02:45 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Somehow renaming it the Wallace Award just doesn't sound right.
28 posted on 08/11/2008 4:05:03 PM PDT by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I don't know about you but for me in my personal life, if I know a person is a liar, I SUSPECT EVERYTHING THHEY SAY. EVERYTHING! If they say "the Sun will rise tomorrow", I go out and watch to see if it happens. But... that's just me. This “quirk” has served me well over my lifetime and the proof is that the number of times I’ve been conned/hustled over a lifetime can be counted on less than 5 fingers.
29 posted on 08/11/2008 4:12:15 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

==We have a huge number of observations of evolution in the fossil record, in the lab and in genetics.

I won’t be waiting with baited breath for you to come up with a CLEARCUT example of observed macro-evolutionary change. I’m not talking about variation within species or even families, I’m talking about showing me an expiriment where a member of one family evolves into a new family entirely....like a dog becoming a cat or vice-versa. When you find an observed, reproducible example of this type of evolutionary change, be sure and ping me.


30 posted on 08/11/2008 4:15:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists. If so, Darwin himself will have to be dethroned, and the Darwinian ToE will have to begin with a new name

So this of historical and intellectual interest. Scientifically, it is meaningless. Cool.

31 posted on 08/11/2008 4:15:23 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

wow. another crevo thread.

the same five or six people posting the same things over and over and over.


32 posted on 08/11/2008 4:17:37 PM PDT by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==And rabid creationists will have to pick a new name to demonize.

I’m sure it won’t be difficult. There’s always plenty of dirt on those who invent theories for the purpose of denying God.


33 posted on 08/11/2008 4:18:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And it says something about those individuals eager to believe any ill of Darwin.

All I know is if Darwin was on the HMS Beagle, he undoubtedly ate drowned babies and spotted dogs.

34 posted on 08/11/2008 4:20:07 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dmz

==So this of historical and intellectual interest. Scientifically, it is meaningless. Cool.

If the book turns out to be true, and Darwin is not dethroned, then this case will cut right to the heart of the integrity of science.


35 posted on 08/11/2008 4:20:30 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Darwin investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838. Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority. He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described a similar theory, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.

Wallace had once briefly met Darwin, and was one of the correspondents whose observations Darwin used to support his own theories. Although Wallace's first letters to Darwin have been lost, he carefully kept the letters he received. In the first letter, dated 1 May 1857, Darwin commented that Wallace's letter of October 10th which he'd recently received as well as Wallace's paper "On the Law that has regulated the Introduction of New Species" of 1855 showed that they were both thinking alike and to some extent reaching similar conclusions, and said that he was preparing his own work for publication in about two years time. The second letter, dated 22 December 1857, said how glad he was that Wallace was theorising about distribution, adding that "without speculation there is no good and original observation" while commenting that "I believe I go much further than you". Wallace trusted Darwin's opinion on the matter and sent him his February 1858 essay, "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type", with the request that Darwin would review it and pass it on to Charles Lyell if he thought it worthwhile.

On 18 June 1858, Darwin received the manuscript from Wallace. While Wallace's essay did not employ Darwin's term "natural selection", it did outline the mechanics of an evolutionary divergence of species from similar ones due to environmental pressures. In this sense, it was very similar to the theory that Darwin had worked on for twenty years, but had yet to publish. Darwin sent the manuscript to Charles Lyell with a letter saying "he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters… he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer to send to any journal." Distraught about the illness of his baby son, Darwin put the problem to Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, who decided to publish the essay in a joint presentation together with unpublished writings which highlighted Darwin's priority. Wallace's essay was presented to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858, along with excerpts from an essay which Darwin had disclosed privately to Hooker in 1847 and a letter Darwin had written to Asa Gray in 1857.

Wallace accepted the arrangement after the fact, happy that he had been included at all. Darwin's social and scientific status was far greater than Wallace's, and it was unlikely that, without Darwin, Wallace's views on evolution would have been taken seriously. Lyell and Hooker's arrangement relegated Wallace to the position of co-discoverer, and he was not the social equal of Darwin or the other prominent British natural scientists. However, the joint reading of their papers on natural selection associated Wallace with the more famous Darwin. This, combined with Darwin's (as well as Hooker's and Lyell's) advocacy on his behalf, would give Wallace greater access to the highest levels of the scientific community. The reaction to the reading was muted, with the president of the Linnean remarking in May 1859 that the year had not been marked by any striking discoveries; but, with Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species later in 1859, its significance became apparent. When Wallace returned to the UK, he met Darwin and the two remained friendly afterwards. Over the years, a few people have questioned this version of events. In the early 1980s, two books, one written by Arnold Brackman and another by John Langdon Brooks, even suggested that not only had there been a conspiracy to rob Wallace of his proper credit, but that Darwin had actually stolen a key idea from Wallace to finish his own theory. These claims have been examined in detail by a number of scholars who have concluded that they are not credible.


Doesn’t sound like plagiarism to me. It sounds more like scientists working independently within the same field of interest and then sharing their findings and papers for peer review and critique and publishing both jointly and separately. It happens all the time in the scientific community and it’s certainly not plagiarism. Thomas Edison has been accused of much worse I might add.
36 posted on 08/11/2008 4:29:28 PM PDT by Caramelgal (Just a lump of organized protoplasm - braying at the stars :),)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

DO NOT CONFUSE this book with “The Darwin Conspiracy” by John Darnton. John’s is a novel. FYI.


37 posted on 08/11/2008 4:32:42 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I walked into a Chinese restaurant, the chef asks me "Can you smell what the woks been cooking?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal

==Doesn’t sound like plagiarism to me.

Did you read about the new evidence the author and others have since unearthed? It’s looking very much like Darwin plagiarized the work of others.


38 posted on 08/11/2008 4:34:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature

I’m not, but thanks for the headsup anyway :o)


39 posted on 08/11/2008 4:35:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I figured you wouldn’t but wanted the post there so others can see it. FReepOn!


40 posted on 08/11/2008 4:39:46 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I walked into a Chinese restaurant, the chef asks me "Can you smell what the woks been cooking?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Did you read about the new evidence the author and others have since unearthed? It’s looking very much like Darwin plagiarized the work of others.

I read the article you posted not once, but twice and it’s not looking to me like anything but the author’s pure conjecture and his preconceived notions – no facts or references but just speculation.

"Darwin perpetuated one of the greatest crimes in the history of science". It concludes that Darwin plagiarizedAlfred Russel Wallace, deceived the world about the maturity of his own ideas before 1858, and, to satisfy his personal need for glory, failed to give credit to scholars who influenced his thinking...

Did you bother to read what I posted about the actual and well documented correspondences between these two men and their contemporaries both before and after publication? There was no argument or any discontent between these scientists except for in the vivid imaginations of the ID’ers some 150 years later.
41 posted on 08/11/2008 5:24:48 PM PDT by Caramelgal (Just a lump of organized protoplasm - braying at the stars :),)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Well, for starters, if the book is true, we will have to remove Darwin’s name from Darwin Day."

I think I can bear the pain of that action - whatever you decide to rename "Darwin's theory" it won't change his actual writings, or the basic premise.

But if it makes you feel good and you want to presume the book to be true...

Bottom line is that people are trying to make more of BOTH Darwin and ID than is there to be made - neither should invalidate the other whether true or simply reasonable.

42 posted on 08/11/2008 5:27:56 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal

==There was no argument or any discontent between these scientists except for in the vivid imaginations of the ID’ers some 150 years later

First of all, the author is neither an IDer or a Creationist. He is the former head of factual programs for the BBC. In the meantime, here’s another review of the book from that noted creationist website, RichardDawkins.net.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Mail-boat record ‘proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist’

by Steffan Rhys, Western Mail

CHARLES DARWIN’S theory that for 150 years has been viewed as explaining the origin of mankind was stolen from a Welsh scientist, the author of a new book has claimed.

In his book The Darwin Conspiracy: Origins of a Scientific Crime, published this week, Roy Davies claims to have unearthed new evidence that shows Charles Darwin stole the ideas of Alfred Russel Wallace for his work On the Origin of Species, and that it is Wallace who should be credited as having first proposed the theory of evolution.

Davies accuses Darwin of incorporating the revolutionary ideas of Wallace into his manuscript then claiming them as his own.

His crucial evidence, he claims, is in pinpointing the exact dates that letters from Wallace to Darwin explaining his theories arrived at Darwin’s home, proving that the Welsh scientist developed them first.

And experts on the Welshman yesterday agreed that Wallace had been unfairly treated by history but said it would be difficult to prove his ideas were in fact stolen.

“I researched the book for 12 years,” said Davies, a former head of factual programmes at BBC Wales.

“At the beginning, I believed Darwin was a genius. By the time the book was finished, I had long since realised that it was Wallace who was the genius and Darwin, 14 years his senior, who was the plodder.

“In the end, the crucial evidence came from an expert on Dutch maritime shipping in the 19th century, Professor Femme Gaastra of Leiden University.

“He was able to pinpoint exactly which boats picked up Wallace’s mail in the Malay Archipelago (now Malaysia and Indonesia), where he was working as a collector of new species, and delivered it to the P&O liners who shipped the mail home to Southampton.

“Before the research, Darwin’s supporters were able to argue that the letters he received from Wallace arrived at his home when he claimed they had.

“Professor Gaastra’s great contribution was that he was able to show that two crucial letters written by Wallace between October 1856 and March 1858 arrived in Britain long before Darwin admitted they had. Wallace’s ideas appeared in Darwin’s work soon afterwards.”

Wallace was born in Llanbadoc, near Usk, in 1823 and became an explorer, collector, naturalist, geographer, anthropologist and political commentator. He died in 1913. Experts at the Natural History Museum say he came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection at the same time as – but entirely independent of – Darwin, but has since been overshadowed.

While feverish with malaria on the Malay Archipelago in 1858, Wallace wrote to Darwin explaining his ideas because he knew Darwin was also working on the theory.

Both men presented their theories to the scientific Linnean Society of London, but Darwin’s manuscript was published the following year, and he has since been universally credited with the theory, while Wallace’s name has largely been forgotten.

“It is terribly unfair on Wallace,” said George Beccaloni, a curator at the Natural History Museum and founder of the Alfred Russel Wallace Memorial Fund.

“The fact of the matter is they both simultaneously published the theory of natural selection in 1858, 15 months before Origin of Species.

“But everyone credits Origin of Species as being the place the idea was first published, which isn’t true. Wallace definitely deserves half the credit for the idea.

“On the face of it, it certainly seems there are questions that should be answered by historians.

“But whether Darwin stole the idea remains to be seen.”

Davies said the implications for Darwin’s status as an honest scientist were serious but said his theory would face “serious opposition” from academics.

“Any attempt to restore Wallace’s name to anything like equality with that of Darwin’s is bound to fail,” he said.

“All I can hope for is that fair-minded people read the book and make up their own minds.”

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2637,Mail-boat-record-proves-Darwin-stole-his-original-ideas-from-a-Welsh-scientist,icWales,page2#comments


43 posted on 08/11/2008 6:00:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: norton

See #43


44 posted on 08/11/2008 6:01:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal; GodGunsGuts
"...Thomas Edison has been accused of much worse I might add."

He might even have been guilty of at least some of it. Edison, I mean.

What you share here, sounds like strong refutation of the thesis of the article, heading this thread. (not that it matters to me all that much, it's all water under the bridge, now, regardless of who was thinking what, first.)

Still, could I ask for a citation/source for that which you have copy/pasted?

Though even having a source for what you've quoted, most likely wouldn't resolve just exactly who the " number of scholars" is, who opine that the claims of these other, named persons (who show their work!) are "not credible"...

45 posted on 08/11/2008 6:41:08 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Actaully, the cut and paste does not include the new scholarship. Also see the RichardDawkins.net review in reply #43.


46 posted on 08/11/2008 6:42:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Sounds like a good read, history starts with good press and incomplete data, the idea that it might take a hundred or so years to add details to it isn't a reach.

I'd like to see credit go where it is due - both men seem to have been out there at the front and (as I tried to state) credit does not always go where it is most due.

Which does not change the basic theory or it's applicability, the gaps between it and the complexity that ID postulates, or the "how did it all get started" question.

Most interest on FR is apt to be due to ID/Evo dynamic rather than historic interest.

That is the shame of it.

47 posted on 08/11/2008 7:01:23 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Oh, my mistake. I included you in the "post to" portion, since you had pinged me to this thread. The copy/paste source info, I was seeking from the other poster.

Sorry for any mis-direction this may have caused.

48 posted on 08/11/2008 7:08:01 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The bigger lie than Al Gore's global warming is the Darwinist's lie that science proves evolution.
49 posted on 08/11/2008 7:12:18 PM PDT by fish hawk (a taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
The bigger lie than Al Gore's global warming is the Darwinist's lie that science proves evolution.

The scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.

It does not support anthropogenic global warming.

And it certainly does not support creationism.

50 posted on 08/11/2008 7:24:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson