(Untitled)

[doesntrush_sci]

Happy 200th birthday, Charles Darwin.
From the ArticleI do not understand why it seems so important to theologians (and some sociologists) to find an explanation for human behavior that extends beyond the purely naturalistic. If the genetic research now being conducted in laboratories around the world tells us anything, it is that the interaction of

Comments

[mabofwinterdark]

Why, Mac, I do believe you have a bit of nerd showing.

(edited now that the mun has more than scanned the link...)

[doesntrush_sci]

*Brushes off shoulder.* It comes from all those microscopes.

[mabofwinterdark]

Fortunately for you, it's oddly endearing. And that's certainly an interesting perspective on the man.

[doesntrush_sci]

I don't think anyone has ever told me that before. How so?

[mabofwinterdark]

What can I say? I'm a woman with a unique point of view.

Neither deifying nor demonizing the man. Treating him like what he was, a man with interesting theories that changed the way people look at things but should not necessarily force a change in the founding beliefs of a person.

[doesntrush_sci]

Apparently.

Ah yes, it's a very good article and an even better view of Darwin. I would agree with you that depending on the circle you travel he's either a sinner or a saint.

[mabofwinterdark]

A fact time will make you only more sure of, I do not doubt.

I never really believed him either, but I'm not much of one for faith, be it in the church of science or deity. Just a man who managed to change the world. There have been many of them.

[doesntrush_sci]

I am already very aware, I just need reminders every once and awhile.

You didn't believe Darwin, you didn't believe his theory and observations?

[mabofwinterdark]

Reminders I can do.

I believe, at the very least, that micro-evolution is a fact. But no, I don't believe all of his theories and observations. Have you ever read the work? Some of it was blatant pandering to the racist people of his era.

[doesntrush_sci]

Well of course, you have to take what he wrote with a rather large grain of salt and look at it in the context of the age he wrote it in. Even books written as fact fifty years ago might be considered laughable now.

[mabofwinterdark]

Yes and no. I remember reading it at-when I was younger. He meant what he said as an encompassing whole. It was thought of the era, and of course one has to attempt to look at it through the proper lens, just as what is expected from a father and mother has changed a good deal over time. We discount them now because it seems logical, but at the same time it's dismissing the reality of their lives at the time.

I believe he was a necessary change in belief for those studying the world. But he is no more a saint to me than any other scientist.