Slashdot Mirror
Charles Darwin Online
eldavojohn writes "The entire works of Charles Darwin have been made available online. It includes scanned works that were owned by his family — many of which were signed by the author. The University of Cambridge hopes to have this completed by 2009 and is only estimated to be about half way done. If you have any love for books whatsoever, I suggest you take a look at how they present the user with each book. Take the very first edition of On the Origin of Species, for example, where they use frames to display the text on the left with the original image on the right. From the Reuters article: 'Other items in the free collection of 50,000 pages and 40,000 images are the first editions of the Journal of Researchers, written in 1839, The Descent of Man, The Zoology of the Voyage of HMS Beagle, which includes his observations during his five-year trip to the Amazon, Patagonia and the Pacific, and the first five editions of the Origin of Species.'"
The little-known fact that he signed his name as "Chuck D."
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Oooh, good, I've been looking for some new fiction to read.
(Let the flamewar commence.)
That web site is the best argument against intelligent design I've ever seen...
New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm. ~
vs.
English has a future tense for a reason. Please learn to use it.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
from tfa: This document has been accessed 87820 times since 09 October 2006
Gentle website, prepare to evolve or perish.
I can't seem to access the site, and I live in Kansas. Maybe it's just a technical problem. Please, could somebody pray to Our Lord and have Him fix my innerweb, in His mercy?
So is this what they call Open Darwin? *DUCKS*
Blah blah blah, religion.
Please respond with generic evolution flame.
thankyou.
Charles Darwin, should, regardless of your personal belief of the veracity of evolutionary theory, be regarded as on of the greatest men to have ever lived. He, in the face of tremendous religious and scientific adversity, put forth an astounding scientific theory worked out through great diligence.
In the Origin of Species, with relentless precision he works his way through the variation of domesticated and wild animals and plants, and eventually culminates in a very strongly supported theory which is almost elegant in its simplicity. He even anticipates many challenges to his theory, in the aptly named chapter, Difficulties on theory. Darwin's accomplishment is perhaps even more impressive when you take into account that he had no knowledge of genetics or the mechanism of inheritance, and was most certainly not aware of anything such as DNA. His writing is precise and lively; even today, 150 years later, the Origin of Species is easily followed by a layman.
This site is an honour to Darwin's efforts and I hope it will inspire some people to read his works.
The Reluctant Mr. Darwin (ISBN 0393059812) is a great recent (and concise) biography that picks up on his return from the Beagle adventure and takes the reader on an interesting journey past dangling duck's feet, barnacle gonads, and earthworm poop. And the publications, of course.
...
Sadly, since estimates of the opinions/beliefs of the US population usually hit around 40% "young earthers" and 45% "guided by the great spirit in the sky," this may be of interest to only a relatively small segment of the population
Trusted by cats.
Behold!
Proof of the existence of God by the Banana Argument.
(and here's the entire episode if this sort of TV evangelism tickles your fancy)
From what I see around me in the US these days, I thought your estimate of the Young Earthers is far too low. The OP's 40% is probably closer.
The "guided by the great spirit in the sky" camp isn't much of a problem; I believe that's the Catholic Church's position as well, that there's nothing saying the G/god didn't have some part in guiding the process, or setting it in motion. Darwin's theory doesn't concern these anyway, it just describes the evidence and makes predictions.
Luckily, you're right about them being a small percentage of Christians in the world. However, they're also in the most economically powerful (for now) and influential country, and have great support with the political administration currently in power. Bush himself probably believes in Creationism.
Also, I mentioned Catholics and you call them a small percentage of Christians, but I'd just like to point out to people not aware of this that here in America, Catholics are not considered Christians because they worship statues and believe that good works will get you into heaven. Don't argue with me about the worshipping statues bit either; argue with all the fundamentalists, since that's their position.
I'm not convinced about authorship. Has an expert actually authenticated this work?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
You seem to be missing the point that:
In-order to invalidate the "theory of evolution", the burden is on YOU to come up with a better theory.
Your new theory must also have falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
I look forward to reading your paper.
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
It is the worst kind of sophistry to argue that Darwinism can't be true because it makes you feel bad. Boo hoo! I was pretty upset when I found out that earth was not the center of the universe. But then I got over it-- in grade school.
Darwin did not "degrade life to an accidental tissue mass." He only made some observations about nature, and formed some theories based on those. As it turns out, these theories do a pretty good job of explaining how species change over time, and how new species are formed-- in fact, they've pretty much become the backbone of evolutionary biology.
Darwin himself was not a fascist or a rightist as you allege. In fact, he was a Christian, and he was as much troubled by questions of how to reconcile faith and reason as others. Hitler came to power almost a century later, and was influenced as much by nationalism and mysticism as by science. Stalin never accepted Darwinism-- in fact, he strictly prohibited it from being taught in Russia while he was in power. Instead, he favored the pseudo-scientist Lysenko. Try reading something about history before you spout this kind of nonsense. Assuming that history doesn't hurt your feelings too much!
Finally-- there is a lot of good evidence that man has transcended biological evolution. The whole point of having a big brain and a complex social structure is so that you don't have to make up a new gene each time you learn a new trick. And of course, in the future, genetic engineering will allow us to have whatever genes we desire.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
While you're at it, make sure to blame Newton for the improvements in artillery that ensued due to a better understanding of kinetics. Or blame Mendeleev for devising the periodic table, since improvements in chemistry led to mustard gas.
"Social Darwinism" was never part of Darwin's work. It's a fraudulent extension of it, and to blame Darwin for that is ludicrous.
And Darwin never said that any species, race, or specimen "deserved to die". He only described why some did and why some didn't. Almost every trained biologist buys into Darwin's theory of natural selection, and they all abhor the destruction of the environment.
I blame Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the destruction of the environment on ignorance, the kind that Darwin fought so effectively against, the kind you are propogating right now.
"Well, if you think about it, there are only two choices: Creation or Evolution. There is no third possibility. "
"Creation" is not even a "theory", as it makes no falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
If you have a reproducable test where you get "God" to create new life forms I think you should publish a paper.
As it stands, in the context of science, you have failed to provide a new "theory" of our origins.
(please try to avoid logical fallacies)
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
Darwin was not a Christian.
Darwin was on the verge of becoming a minister in the Church of England before we went on the Beagle.
You cannot reject the Bible, or any portion of it, and claim to be Christian.
Sure you can. All you have to do, like many sensible Christians have already done, is realize the Bible is not meant to be taken word-for-word literally. Even the Pope admitted that evolution happens, unless you want to say the Pope isn't Christian?
it was to point out the *consequences* of that belief.
Evolution is not a belief.
You mean God, who made a created perfect people but didn't foresee they were prone to temptation, and was surprised (according to Genesis) when they sinned against him, then banished them, then decided to wipe out all of them and their descendants, except for one family which was righteous, but the father of that family later turned out to be a drunkard and not so righteous after all?
The God who laid down the law for the Hebrews, telling them the wages of sin were death, then later coming to earth as a man and saying the old law doesn't apply anymore, that there's a new covenant where you don't have to die, but instead can have eternal life?
The God who smote Sodom and Gomorrah, but allowed Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, et al to do their nasty deeds until some HUMANS decided to put a stop to it?
Is that the unchanging God you're talking about?
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
can you please repeat with the "make sense" filter switched on.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
It's a good thing you didn't, because you make reference to intellectual honesty later in your post. Can you point us to some evidence that Darwin's goal was to escape responsibility to a God? I've never seen any such statements in his work. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you heard this from an unreliable source rather than just making it up. Of course, I could be totally wrong, but I definitely won't believe it without a solid reference.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
"Darwin was not a Christian. That claim demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a Christian is. Now I understand the reasons why someone might think that, as people generally broadly classify anyone associated with a Church that involves the Bible as being Christian, which isn't so. Society doesn't define what "Christian" is. Christ defined what Christian is. And one cannot reject the Word of God, and claim to be Christian. While it may seem uninstinctive or untraditional to do so, instinct and tradition don't define truth. According to the Bible, Catholocism isn't Christian either. You cannot reject the Bible, or any portion of it, and claim to be Christian. That isn't my opinion or religious belief -- its merely an accounting of the definition of what Christianity is and what it is not. "
:rolleyes: Again, you could apply the same to Martin Luther and Hitler and Christianity. Ever heard of "On the Jews and their Lies"? It's virtually the blueprint for the holocaust... and the final major work of the founder of the school of Biblical exegesis that you hold to.
Did you think this through at all? The Bible didn't EXIST during the time of Christ: how could Christ have endorsed a full literal reading of the Bible, including the NT, when it didn't even exist yet? How can Catholicism not be Christian according to the Bible when it was Catholicism that compiled the Bible in the first place? Good grief. Most of the traditions that Catholics hold that are extra-Biblical existed even before the Bible existed.
The view of of the Bible you are pushing didn't even emerge until just a few hundred years ago, and you want to pretend that it's the Original Gangsta Christian view? Come on: that's ridiculous.
Of course that's your opinion and religious belief. You don't get to personally define what Christianity is.
"I was saying that for those who have already accepted Darwinism, then they ought to examine the consequences of those beliefs and their contemporaries, and that is that regardless of their perceived (or hoped for) differences, Darwinianism puts them in the same philosophical category as those who committed those atrocities."
"It is unimportant whether Hitler and Stalin professed Darwiniianism, as their actions were consistent with the consequential philosophy, which is "whatever goes"."
Look, I really hope this gets through to you somehow: evolution is not a philosophy of "Darwinism." By and large, the only people who ever talk about Darwinism are creationists trying to make evolution sound big and bad. But evolution is NOT A PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE. It's a scientific description of how life developed on this planet.
"My interest is in intellectual honesty"
Well, you aren't doing a very good job of it, I'm afraid.
Don't act like the title is a hush-hush secret, because that title is printed in the Penguin edition I bought from Amazon a month ago. And by "races," he meant what we call species. This is obvious to anyone who reads the first few pages of the book, which tells me you didn't read the book. Let me be more clear by quoting from the book you denigrate, but never read:
Oh my, Darwin was a cabbage racist! Stop the presses! Oh wait, that's stupid. You saw the word "races," thought "aha, ammunition" and went running. Here's a hint--don't trust creationist web-pages, because they'll give you a misleading, caricatured idea of what Darwinism means. They'll make you look like an idiot because you'll run around calling him a racist, when anyone who even reads chapter 1 of the book knows he was talking about varieties, or species, not races like the KKK gets hung up on.
I'm not clear why I would credit Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot et al to Darwin since all of these dictators were motivated by a lust for power, not because they were convinced of common descent. Are you calling everyone who believes in common descent a Nazi? "Those murderous dictators" weren't perfect Darwinists, because nothing they did was "Darwinian." Darwinism is based on variation in the gene pool, acted upon by a selective force, leading to diversity. Oppose that to Hitler, whose philosophy was based on the idea of a "pure race." It's obvious that Hitler's views were not based on Darwin's ideas. In fact, both Stalin and Hitler actually banned Darwin's works. Stalin banned the teaching of Darwinian evolution. So by what stretch of the imagination were they "perfect Darwinists"? If a political leader banned the bible, would you infer from that that he was a perfect Christian?
Since Darwin died long before Hitler or Stalin came to power, how could he keep their company? Even if they based their policies on his ideas, which they clearly didn't since they banned his works, what control does a naturalist have over a wacko who kills people 70 years later?I don't ask that you suddenly change your mind. I do ask, however, that you stop being an idiot, and make an effort to think your arguments through. It takes one Google search and 30 seconds of reading to refute every single point you made. It's not that I think I'm smart, only that your arguments are so embarrassingly bad that people will inevitably conclude that you're stupid. If you aren't stupid, then stop being intellectually lazy.
Show me an experiment or a prediction or anything really that would prove ID wrong.
Oddly enough, it's the same thing that would prove Evolution itself (and just about every other scientific theory that has risen to the predictability of a law) wrong: ID is incompatible with a random universe. If you can show me a commonly accepted physical law changing at random, say the gravitational constant of the universe or agrivado's number, or some such thing; that would prove ID wrong because it would postulate *either* an irrational God or a universe that had lost any sembalance of guiding order or principle. In other words- if you can prove the non-existance of God OR the non-intelligence of God, without being anthromorphic in fallacy, you can prove ID wrong. Evolution would fall as well, and the entire study of physics and biology, but you will have proven ID wrong.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.