Threads on Darwin at Free Republic
I received an e-mail from a Freeper who directed my attention to two threads at Free Republic dealing with Darwin; one was an argument about the character of Darwin in which the original piece made the case that Darwin remained a conservative English squire (and the Freepers discuss the matter in the message section) and the second discusses the supposed ``religious attacks`` on Darwin in Louisiana, and the thread argues the matter.
My thoughts on the matter are clear; anyone who bothers to read what Darwin had said knows that he was a revolutionary, albeit a gentle one. He did not call for a world uprising, nor did he lend his name to revolutionary causes, yet one cannot help but believe that a man who held the views espoused by Darwin was influenced by them in other areas of his life and work. Our worldview most definitely influences our lives, and I don`t doubt that Darwin`s theory was built on a foundation composed of his particular view. (Sigmund Freud, the other revolutionary theorist of the time certainly propagated his personal pathologies through his science, and the same tactics of accusing anyone who disagreed with being against science were used by the devotees of both theories.) Either that, or it just conveniently allowed his worldview to be propagated around the globe by sheer chance...
As for the supposed religious attacks on Darwinism, I refer you to the part about Freud above; this tactic actually goes back a ways, but Freud developed it to a fine art. It has been used by defenders of Darwin repeatedly to paint critics as green-toothed fundamentalist hillbillies who believe in God, flying saucers, the tooth faerie (they hope to get rich when all those green teeth fall out), and think jerry Springer is a thoughtful investigative journalist. That there are people who point out the problems with the evidence for Darwinism is never addressed, because it would mean an open discussion about the theory-strengths and weaknesses alike.
At any rate, these two threads are interesting whatever side you take on the issue.
My thoughts on the matter are clear; anyone who bothers to read what Darwin had said knows that he was a revolutionary, albeit a gentle one. He did not call for a world uprising, nor did he lend his name to revolutionary causes, yet one cannot help but believe that a man who held the views espoused by Darwin was influenced by them in other areas of his life and work. Our worldview most definitely influences our lives, and I don`t doubt that Darwin`s theory was built on a foundation composed of his particular view. (Sigmund Freud, the other revolutionary theorist of the time certainly propagated his personal pathologies through his science, and the same tactics of accusing anyone who disagreed with being against science were used by the devotees of both theories.) Either that, or it just conveniently allowed his worldview to be propagated around the globe by sheer chance...
As for the supposed religious attacks on Darwinism, I refer you to the part about Freud above; this tactic actually goes back a ways, but Freud developed it to a fine art. It has been used by defenders of Darwin repeatedly to paint critics as green-toothed fundamentalist hillbillies who believe in God, flying saucers, the tooth faerie (they hope to get rich when all those green teeth fall out), and think jerry Springer is a thoughtful investigative journalist. That there are people who point out the problems with the evidence for Darwinism is never addressed, because it would mean an open discussion about the theory-strengths and weaknesses alike.
At any rate, these two threads are interesting whatever side you take on the issue.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home