Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Darwin's Illegitimate Brainchild

46 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

The concept of evolution by natural selection is sometimes referred to as Charles Darwin’s brainchild, and indeed he often referred to it in his letters to his friends as his dear ‘child’. However, this is a far cry from the facts. At best it was an adopted child; at worst an illegitimate child.

 

 

 

 

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The concept of evolution by natural selection is sometimes referred to as Charles Darwin’s brainchild, and indeed he often referred to it in his letters to his friends as his dear ‘child’. However, this is a far cry from the facts. At best it was an adopted child; at worst an illegitimate child.

 

 

 

 

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild

 

Yes sir!!

 

And did you know Sir, Erasmus Darwin was a FreeMason....Talk about a can of worms.

 

If anyone wishes to Poo Poo this, I suggest reading Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike to get an up close view.  I would Strongly suggest (from personal experience) that if you go any further, that is...start going down rabbit holes, you have and take the FULL ARMOR of GOD (See: Ephesians) with you.

 

That's all I have to say about that.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

:thumbsup:

 

Darwin's Kind Evolving Into Other Kinds

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:11-12

 

Is Snickered At By Farmers

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25

 

And Other Great Thinkers

 

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. Genesis 1:20-22

 

The World Over

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

The concept of evolution by natural selection is sometimes referred to as Charles Darwin’s brainchild, and indeed he often referred to it in his letters to his friends as his dear ‘child’. However, this is a far cry from the facts. At best it was an adopted child; at worst an illegitimate child.

 

 

 

 

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild

How is any child "illegitimate"?  All children are conceived in the same way - no difference among them at all. Why are you disparaging children to try to make a point about a scientific theory with which you disagree?  Sorry, that is a very poor and mean analogy.

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

The concept of evolution by natural selection is sometimes referred to as Charles Darwin’s brainchild, and indeed he often referred to it in his letters to his friends as his dear ‘child’. However, this is a far cry from the facts. At best it was an adopted child; at worst an illegitimate child.

 

 

 

 

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild

How is any child "illegitimate"?  All children are conceived in the same way - no difference among them at all. Why are you disparaging children to try to make a point about a scientific theory with which you disagree?  Sorry, that is a very poor and mean analogy.

 

The point is that Darwin took credit for something that he didn't originate.  He was not an honest man.  

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

The concept of evolution by natural selection is sometimes referred to as Charles Darwin’s brainchild, and indeed he often referred to it in his letters to his friends as his dear ‘child’. However, this is a far cry from the facts. At best it was an adopted child; at worst an illegitimate child.

 

 

 

 

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild

How is any child "illegitimate"?  All children are conceived in the same way - no difference among them at all. Why are you disparaging children to try to make a point about a scientific theory with which you disagree?  Sorry, that is a very poor and mean analogy.

 

The point is that Darwin took credit for something that he didn't originate.  He was not an honest man.  

 

How does that impact the veracity of the theory of evolution?  There are many discoveries that happened at the same time independently.  Research calculus.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Even if a scientist is a mass murdering pedophile, that would still have zero effect on the veracity of their claims.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edited by MrsRational
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Even if a scientist is a mass murdering pedophile, that would still have zero effect on the veracity of their claims.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Very well said.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Even if a scientist is a mass murdering pedophile, that would still have zero effect on the veracity of their claims.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

sure should make you very cautious about their claims though...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Unfortunately, MrsRational has a point with this. If Darwin had not published this, someone else would have published his own version, and we'd be calling it by someone else's last name.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Even if a scientist is a mass murdering pedophile, that would still have zero effect on the veracity of their claims.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Given that evolution is the Genesis for the racist eugenics of Margaret Sanger and the madness of Hitler's murders of over 11 million people, I find your statement rather telling.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

The concept of evolution by natural selection is sometimes referred to as Charles Darwin’s brainchild, and indeed he often referred to it in his letters to his friends as his dear ‘child’. However, this is a far cry from the facts. At best it was an adopted child; at worst an illegitimate child.

 

 

 

 

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild

How is any child "illegitimate"?  All children are conceived in the same way - no difference among them at all. Why are you disparaging children to try to make a point about a scientific theory with which you disagree?  Sorry, that is a very poor and mean analogy.

 

The point is that Darwin took credit for something that he didn't originate.  He was not an honest man.  

 

How does that impact the veracity of the theory of evolution?  There are many discoveries that happened at the same time independently.  Research calculus.

 

If a man is dishonest at his core, if he is willing to completely plagiarize and accept credit for something he did not really originate, why would you trust anything else he has to say???    Wouldn't the credibility of his clams be suspect?   If he is willing to lie about his research as if it was his idea alone, why would you trust him in anything else he has to say about his research???

 

I would say his integrity would have a huge impact on the credibility of his claims about Evolution.

 

But if people are so adamant about evolution that they would accept  the word of a liar simply to protect the theory, it is a sad statement about humanity in general.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

But if the theory of evolution was popularized by someone else, one of the men that Darwin built his theory upon, and was named after him rather than Darwin, could you still disclaim the theory based on authorship?

 

(I'm arguing this from a neutral perspective.)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

But if the theory of evolution was popularized by someone else, one of the men that Darwin built his theory upon, and was named after him rather than Darwin, could you still disclaim the theory based on authorship?

 

(I'm arguing this from a neutral perspective.)

Not on the basis of authorship, but on the basis of it not being a genuine theory.   I mean the argument agaisnt evolution would go to the fact that it was postualted before modern science even existed.   It would discredit the theory even more if it were an earlier invention from someone else.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

But if the theory of evolution was popularized by someone else, one of the men that Darwin built his theory upon, and was named after him rather than Darwin, could you still disclaim the theory based on authorship?

 

(I'm arguing this from a neutral perspective.)

Not on the basis of authorship, but on the basis of it not being a genuine theory.   I mean the argument agaisnt evolution would go to the fact that it was postualted before modern science even existed.   It would discredit the theory even more if it were an earlier invention from someone else.  

 

I'm not following your train of thought in this. Sorry. Would you expand on that please?

 

(Again, I'm not arguing against you, nor arguing for evolution by any means.)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Suppose we discovered Einstein to not only be a cad, but a habitual liar and so on. Should we, in that circumstance, stop using the theory of relativity?

 

The case is even more stark here insofar as, Darwin didn't even know what physical mechanism was behind evolution, and his guess was wrong. Since we know about genes now, the theory is on a firmer scientific foundation than it ever was during Darwin's time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Suppose we discovered Einstein to not only be a cad, but a habitual liar and so on. Should we, in that circumstance, stop using the theory of relativity?

That is a spurious comparison.   The issue is not about Darwin simply being a liar.  The issue is wether or not Darwin illegitimatley took credit for an idea that wasn't his.  It is a specific kind  of lie we are dealing with.

 

If you are a graduate student in a university and you present a thesis or dissertation  and it is discovered that even a paragraph was lifted from someone else without proper attribution and presented as your own, you can be subject to any number of disciplinary actions up to expulsion from the university, depending on that university's policy.

 

No credit will be given to the correctness of your information.   Your credibility and your honor are in the toilet after something like that.  You will forefeit the degree you were endeavoring to obtain.

 

Yet when it comes to Darwin and possibility that he took undue credit for an idea that wasn't his own, the attitude seems to be, "So what?"   Why don't we hold Darwin to the same level that we would any graduate student of science?

 

The case is even more stark here insofar as, Darwin didn't even know what physical mechanism was behind evolution, and his guess was wrong. Since we know about genes now, the theory is on a firmer scientific foundation than it ever was during Darwin's time.

 

Given what is known now about the single cell and the complexity it contains, had Evolution been introduced TODAY instead of over a century and a half ago, it would never have gotten off the ground.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

But if the theory of evolution was popularized by someone else, one of the men that Darwin built his theory upon, and was named after him rather than Darwin, could you still disclaim the theory based on authorship?

 

(I'm arguing this from a neutral perspective.)

Not on the basis of authorship, but on the basis of it not being a genuine theory.   I mean the argument agaisnt evolution would go to the fact that it was postualted before modern science even existed.   It would discredit the theory even more if it were an earlier invention from someone else.  

 

I'm not following your train of thought in this. Sorry. Would you expand on that please?

 

(Again, I'm not arguing against you, nor arguing for evolution by any means.)

 

What I mean is that Evolution isn't a theory.   It is an untested hypothesis.   The fact that this hypothesis pre-dates even Darwin means that it isn't scientific. It is an assumption that isn't based in science, but rooted in an unbelief in the Scriptures during the age of enlightenment.  

 

So if Evolution predates even Darwin that discredits evolution as being scientific and only shows that it is an untestable hypothesis with no basis in reality.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Suppose we discovered Einstein to not only be a cad, but a habitual liar and so on. Should we, in that circumstance, stop using the theory of relativity?

 

The case is even more stark here insofar as, Darwin didn't even know what physical mechanism was behind evolution, and his guess was wrong. Since we know about genes now, the theory is on a firmer scientific foundation than it ever was during Darwin's time.

 

What theory might that be??...please be very Specific concerning the Tenets?

 

Are you talking about "Macro" Evolution?  If so, lets see how "firm" that foundation is with Genetics.....Provide your "Scientific Evidence"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

shiloh alright. Let's say he was a complete liar, took false credit and so on. If anything, that means we should think about renaming the theory, but that doesn't make the theory itself any more or less true about the world.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

shiloh alright. Let's say he was a complete liar, took false credit and so on. If anything, that means we should think about renaming the theory, but that doesn't make the theory itself any more or less true about the world.

So if he is willing to take credit for the hypthesis that wasn't his, what does that tell us about how we should view any subsequent research?  If he is so dishonest at such a fundamental level, should any of his claims of observation be taken as truthful? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

shiloh alright. Let's say he was a complete liar, took false credit and so on. If anything, that means we should think about renaming the theory, but that doesn't make the theory itself any more or less true about the world.

So if he is willing to take credit for the hypthesis that wasn't his, what does that tell us about how we should view any subsequent research?  If he is so dishonest at such a fundamental level, should any of his claims of observation be taken as truthful? 

 

We don't have to trust him or his research. We can do it ourselves.  I don't think anyone really relies on Darwin's original research to establish evolution. It's referenced sure, but everything has been redone in a much more rigorous fashion.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

shiloh alright. Let's say he was a complete liar, took false credit and so on. If anything, that means we should think about renaming the theory, but that doesn't make the theory itself any more or less true about the world.

So if he is willing to take credit for the hypthesis that wasn't his, what does that tell us about how we should view any subsequent research?  If he is so dishonest at such a fundamental level, should any of his claims of observation be taken as truthful? 

 

We don't have to trust him or his research. We can do it ourselves.  I don't think anyone really relies on Darwin's original research to establish evolution. It's referenced sure, but everything has been redone in a much more rigorous fashion.

 

And to no avail.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And to no avail.

 

Alright. Suppose you are right, and that evolution is, at the end of the day, a terrible theory and ought to be dismissed. What does that have to do with the OP? Whether or not Darwin was an idiot, a thief, an all around terrible person with stupid ideas, what does *that* have to do with contemporary formulations of evolution which are based on new research and new understandings about how biology works? (whether or not correct)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Everyone,

               Wow,I think that is quite an interesting article & you would think that anyone that holds to the "theory of evolution" would want to give credit where it is due.......I think this type of exposure makes the entire hypothesis really appear to be hogwash, more than ever, that given the time that this speculation was suggested by Darwin was indeed"the age of enlightenment" & it was a perfect "time "for his attempt to discredit the Word of God  and would be accepted without reprocussions......I would imagine in an earlier time this kind of heresy could cause some heat(like being burnt at a stake)

                   I am not even discussing  the validity of natural selection because I do not think that is the OP point......very interesting,the man was a complete fraud & a fake.....again,nothing to do with "evolution"...but who was Charles Darwin really?

                                                                                                                                            With love,in Christ-Kwik

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0