Comments on: John Howard vs Charles Darwin?

By: Sacha

Sacha — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:36:04 +0000

“Mankind evolved by natural selection from lower animals, as Darwin’s theory suggests.”

Hmmm - what distinguishes a “lower animal” from a “higher animal”?

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:26:14 +0000

Even most of us who would say we subscribe to Einstein’s theories would not be able to correctly answer even quite basic questions about Riemann geometry and the functional form of the tensor equations.
It’s the mechanism and its implications, not the details of implementation, that matter here, Andrew.

Of course historically the reason Darwin was timid about putting forth natural selection was because it left no room for “intelligent design”, a point immediately grasped by both his critics and supporters. That, not the notion that the bible was not to be taken literally (which no educated person then believed - my how we have regressed), was what caused the furore.

For my part, I’m very much of the school that natural selection renders God an unnecessary hypothesis. This, combined with Hume and Kant’s demolitions of the purported logical proofs of the old fogy’s existence, means that the only motives for believing in him are sentimentality, self-deception and and conformism.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:45:20 +0000

“Plenty of people accept Darwinism and also believe the universe and all in it were created by God. In this view Darwinism can be one of the many mechanisms of how we got to be like this.”

At the end of the Toronto exhibition on Darwinism, there was a video presentation in which various scientists explained how they reconciled their religious beliefs with their scientific profession. I gave it only a few minutes, but interesting that the museum thought it was necessary.

By: Francis Xavier Holden

Francis Xavier Holden — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:40:17 +0000

“But among the many wrong things people believe, that man was created by God does not seem to be exceptionally harmful.”

Plenty of people accept Darwinism and also believe the universe and all in it were created by God. In this view Darwinism can be one of the many mechanisms of how we got to be like this.

Creationists just have one limited literal view of how God “created”. Others would not pretend to know the details of HOW that creation happened.

By: charles

charles — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:24:30 +0000

Science or fairy tales? If we are going for fairy tales lets go for witches and goblins and things. These God botherers take there fairy tales way to seriously.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:42:32 +0000

Pedro - I was brought up a Christian Scientist, and attended a school run by Christian Scientists, so I am well aware of that particular issue. On the other hand, this seemed to be compartmentalised craziness. Insofar as I can recall it, we had a pretty conventional science education at school with no hint that it was inconsistent with religion. We were neither brainwashed nor dupes - I certainly wasn’t alone in my religious scepticism.

By: Pedro S

Pedro S — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:33:45 +0000

Andrew: Sure, overall Christianity and religious beliefs don’t impact health and medicine, but they do on occasion. The opposition of Christian Scientists in going to doctors is one example, the Jehovah’s witnesses opposition to blood donation another and the way the Falun Gong believe all illnesses are due to bad Chi or whatever is yet another and Scientology’s opposition to Psychiatry another.

Some Christian Sect could quickly arise in the US that reached what is surely a more consistent position and did oppose medicine and GM crops.

It’s no great concern, as you say, but something to be alert for.

By: Rafe

Rafe — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:02:17 +0000

Charles Darwin Uni, that is just great, if only we had a Huxley College, like in the Marx Brothers film where Darwin and Huxley college played a football game. Was it “Horsefeathers”?

By: Spiros

Spiros — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:50:20 +0000

“are the people who live after the city named after him more likely to believe his work?”

What about the people who work in Darwin’s risibly named Charles Darwin University?

By: Andrew Leigh

Andrew Leigh — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:41:40 +0000

Jacques, in that case, you may be the perfect person to answer the question that’s been troubling me: are the people who live after the city named after him more likely to believe his work?