Happy 199th birthday, Charles Darwin!

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
M. Spector M. Spector's picture
Happy 199th birthday, Charles Darwin!

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/home/2008.php]What are you doing for Darwin Day?[/url]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]What are you doing for Darwin Day?[/b]

I thought I'd just see how things evolve.

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I thought I'd just see how things evolve.[/b]


heh [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Trevormkidd

That also makes it Abe Lincoln's 199th birthday. But ironically enough I am I reading the second volume of Janet Browne's biography on Darwin (The first was Charles Darwin: Voyaging; the second in Charles Darwin: The Power of Place)

I agree with completely with this quote by philosopher Daniel Dennett:

quote:

If I were to give a prize for the single best idea anybody ever had, I'd give it to Darwin for the idea of natural selection – ahead of Newton, ahead of Einstein. Because his idea unites the two most disparate features of our universe: The world of purposeless, meaningless matter-in-motion, on the one side, and the world of meaning, and purpose, and design on the other. He understood that what he was proposing was a truly revolutionary idea.

But that's my bias.

oldgoat
Michelle

It's Abe's birthday. It's a close relative's birthday. It's the anniversary of another close relative's death. And now I find out it's also Charles Darwin's birthday.

Eventful day!

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]It's Abe's birthday. It's a close relative's birthday. It's the anniversary of another close relative's death. And now I find out it's also Charles Darwin's birthday.

Eventful day![/b]


More than you think. According to current world population figures, today is the birthday of (approximately) 18,590,195 people - that's besides all the dead ones.

Does anyone know how to send out a mass birthday greeting email?

Trevormkidd

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
And I'm reading her much more compact and accessible Darwin's Origin of Species: A Biography, in which she remarks:

I haven't decided if I should read that afterwards, but Browne is a great writer so I probably will.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


The widespread American skepticism about evolution is a phenomenon unique in the developed world, as is the controversy over whether evolution or religious theories of creation should be taught in public school science classes. The usual explanation for this anomaly is the equally anomalous (again, in developed countries) persistence of fundamentalist religion in the United States. But that explanation is too simplistic and leaves out what may well be more important - the American public’s low level of scientific knowledge, independent of religious beliefs and completely at odds with America’s image of itself as a world leader in education, science and technology.

In 2006, a Gallup Poll found that only 30 percent of Americans continue to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, with its six days of creation - a 10 percent decline over the last three decades. It is difficult to reconcile that finding with the results of a 2005 poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, indicating that only 48 percent of American adults accept evolution (even if guided by God) and only 26 percent are convinced of the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection. If only 30 percent believe that the Bible is literally true, why do so many more Americans reject the evolutionary theory considered settled science in the rest of the developed world?

The answer is ignorance - and Americans may be no more ignorant about evolution than they are about other aspects of science. According to surveys conducted for the National Science Foundation over the past two decades, more than two-thirds of adults are unable to identify DNA as the key to heredity. Nine out of 10 Americans - nearly 63 years after the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima - do not understand what radiation is or its effects on the body. One in 5 believes that the sun revolves around the Earth.

This knowledge deficit has nothing to do with religion, but it does point to a stunning failure of American public schooling at the elementary and secondary level. One should not have to be an intellectual or, for that matter, a college graduate to understand that DNA contains the basic biological instructions that make each of us a unique human being or that the Earth is not the center of the solar system.


[url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/12/EDCPV0DED.DT...

remind remind's picture

I am going to spend the day wondering how his ancestors can be so narrow minded.

rabbelious

What Evolution really means (and why it must be denied at all costs - which you pay):

[url=http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36]http:/...

marzo

I think I'll observe Darwin Day by bringing back a long-forgotten family tradition. I'll grow a tail and climb a tree.

remind remind's picture

rabbelious, your last thread was shut down correctly so, and yet you come back here and post this nonsense again.

clersal

nazisociopaths???? Definitely in the wrong forum.

rabbelious

Nazisociopaths is the factually correct term for our supposed "rulers".

Besides, how 'bout some intelligent criticism, as opposed to: disagree with objective fact and argument (because reality is inconvenient).

Yibpl

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b][url=http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/home/2008.php]What are you doing for Darwin Day?[/url][/b]

Plagiarizing my Grandfather's work.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

What a thoroughly ignorant thing to say!

Boarsbreath

I never know what to make of those Gosh-aren't-they-dum statistics. I mean, what would [i]you[/i] say to some stranger who phoned you to ask, "Do you think the earth revolves around the sun?"

I would say, "Earth...?"

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I would probably say Yes.

Your answer would probably count as "no opinion".

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b] The answer is ignorance - and Americans may be no more ignorant about evolution than they are about other aspects of science. According to surveys conducted for the National Science Foundation over the past two decades, more than two-thirds of adults are unable to identify DNA as the key to heredity. Nine out of 10 Americans - nearly 63 years after the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima - do not understand what radiation is or its effects on the body. One in 5 believes that the sun revolves around the Earth.[/b]

Ignorance? Not complete loss of faith in authority figures, and a concurrent loss of interest in what it is they have to teach, valid or otherwise?

I would say the era of science was ushered in as the great tool that would salvage mankind. At this time interest in science, and the authority that it imbued, both in those who taught it, and those who followed its teaching. Science, and rationalism have failed to provide, and what results is a great deal of cynicism, nor does education, in and of itself, necessarily guarantee an improvement in the daily life of the individual.

To say that people don't know a lot about evolutionary theory because they are ignorant of evolutionary theory (more or less the thesis of the above quoted statement) is essentially tautological.

My view is that people have lost faith in authority, both scientific, and faith, per se.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

USians have not lost faith in the authority of the Christian church, which is an enemy of science and reason.

They could stand to lose a bit more faith in that regard. They might begin to understand some basic science.

Cueball Cueball's picture

No. Your article states there has been a 10% decline in the number of people who can be shown to believe in fundamental Christian theological ideas, such as the creation of the earth. This demonstrates a continued loss of Christian ideological supremacy.

I suggest, that even when you include the increase in the number of people who are religious who believe in non-Christian religious teachings that this means that the number of "believers" is probably static, in a statistical sense, throughout the population.

I suggest that your assertion that people in the US are just as convinced of Christian teachings, now as they were 30 years ago is false and the appearance to the contrary is probably due to the powerful position the Christian church holds within the establishment, and its consequent ability to promote itself so that they can create the appearance of dominance.

Appearing dominant is fundamental to propogating conformity.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

rabbelious

The truth is the ONLY AUTHORITY is what is proven by fact, observation and reason in the area of action leading to consequence per the laws of nature or "creation" for the religiously inclined.

The mistake is intellectual lazyness and BELIEVING those false authorities who misrepresent truth and claim that their OPINION is TRUTH. There is a very large difference between rejecting those wielding false authority and the truth they misrepresent.

I call this EXPERTITIS - a deadly social disease.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by rabbelious:
[b]The truth is the ONLY AUTHORITY is what is proven by fact, observation and reason in the area of action leading to consequence per the laws of nature or "creation" for the religiously inclined.[/b]

What, and whose truth, would you be talking about here being the only authority? And what actions and what consequences?

quote:

[b]The mistake is intellectual lazyness [/b]

I can see what you are saying, as it is happening with your post.

quote:

[b]and BELIEVING those false authorities who misrepresent truth and claim that their OPINION is TRUTH. [/b]

As opposed to believing your authority and your claims to know the truth, about whatever it is you are talking about?

quote:

[b]There is a very large difference between rejecting those wielding false authority and the truth they misrepresent.[/b]

Sure wish you had made it clear as to what truths and authorities you are speaking about.

quote:

[b]I call this EXPERTITIS - a deadly social disease.[/b]

I think I would rather have experts trained to have some degree of impartiality advising me as opposed to personal opinion, or let's say religion.

Erik Redburn

I'm still wondering about the connection being made between Darwin and the men's "rights" nonsense posted.

[b]Originally posted by rabbelious:
The truth is the ONLY AUTHORITY is what is proven by fact, observation and reason in the area of action leading to consequence per the laws of nature or "creation" for the religiously inclined. [/b]

Do any reputable scientists still argue that male domination is pre-ordained by "evolution"?

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Ignorance? Not complete loss of faith in authority figures, and a concurrent loss of interest in what it is they have to teach, valid or otherwise?

I would say the era of science was ushered in as the great tool that would salvage mankind. At this time interest in science, and the authority that it imbued, both in those who taught it, and those who followed its teaching. Science, and rationalism have failed to provide, and what results is a great deal of cynicism, nor does education, in and of itself, necessarily guarantee an improvement in the daily life of the individual.

To say that people don't know a lot about evolutionary theory because they are ignorant of evolutionary theory (more or less the thesis of the above quoted statement) is essentially tautological.

My view is that people have lost faith in authority, both scientific, and faith, per se.
[/b]


Science isn't the problem, it never was, it's the claims made in the name of science by vested interests and how they too often apply its products that's wrong.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sure. But you get the point.

Erik Redburn

I get it, but seen some of the debates over science and religion here get stuck over just those small points. The dominant culture of one or the other get taken as its nature, parallel arguments that go right past each other.

Unionist

Happy 200th, Charles!

[url=The">http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/10/14/tech-pterosaur-new-darwin.... Flight of the Darwinopterus[/url]

Quote:
A new type of pterosaur has been found in northeast China and it's filling in some of the gaps in the evolutionary record of the extinct flying reptiles.

British and Chinese paleontologists found more than 20 fossil skeletons of the new pterosaur, which they've dubbed Darwinopterus, to mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin's founding book on evolutionary biology.

Mike Stirner

Darwin isn't that big of a deal

Unionist

Thanks for that insigh

Mike Stirner

Your welcome, but seriously, for those who lost all sense of processes and becoming, of seing things in circles and cycles, of simply understanding the immenance of the world and the universe which is the case of the forever stunted judeo-platonic west I can see why darwin is a down right religious experience to some. To the chinese and the indians at their zenith or more immediate existing peoples such as native americans he would have been an interesting variation on what they already knew.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Yeah, right!

jrootham

Mike, your pronouncement is simply incorrect.

The "Origin Of Species" is anti clyclical, it actually specifies path following, in the mathematically technical sense of the term.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:
But ironically enough I am I reading the second volume of Janet Browne's biography on Darwin (The first was Charles Darwin: Voyaging; the second in Charles Darwin: The Power of Place)

And I'm reading her much more compact and accessible [url=http://www.douglas-mcintyre.com/book/9781553652489]Darwin's Origin of Species: A Biography[/url], in which she remarks:

Quote:
By the time of his death...Darwin was fкted as a great scientific celebrity, a grand old man of science, someone who had looked further and seen more than others, of an intellectual rank as great as Newton, and certainly deserving to be honoured in the country's primary commemorative setting. Professors, churchmen, politicians, medical luminaries, aristocrats and members of the public crowded [Westminster] Abbey to see him to the grave. "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom" sang the choir. [p.118]