By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - New Charles Darwin film is 'too controversial' for religious American audiences

Chacron on 15 September 2009

It seems plausible that Darwin refrained from publishing his findings until he was absolutely certain that his findings were incontrovertible, that and his fears of reprisal from the religious sector.



 

 

 

Around the Network
Naum on 15 September 2009

Wait what? some people blame Darwin for WWII?? that's funny since Religion have pretty much been behind every single war in this world.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

Chacron on 15 September 2009
Naum said:
Wait what? some people blame Darwin for WWII?? that's funny since Religion have pretty much been behind every single war in this world.

Darwin is as responsible for WW2 as Jesus is responsible for the KKK



 

 

 

Final-Fan on 15 September 2009
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:

"Had Washington not only refused but made a speech that disauded them... someone else might of even taken over."

Not sure what you mean by that, since he DID do those things ... maybe you meant "had not"?

Anyway, the real question there is, 'What would have come of it had Washington not stepped in so effectively?' And we don't know. Maybe he made a huge change there -- I'm skeptical (though I confess lacking any in-depth knowledge here). Certainly he did so much for the revolution that it seems hard to believe that any single man could have stepped in for all of it had he not been there.

No.  What i propose is that Washington telling him men that they shouldn't rebel was something no one else would of been willing to do.

As that showed the reset of the army was ready to mutiny.


The thing is... with people like Washington and Churchill we DO know.  We know because they were the ONLY People saying the things they were at the times they were.

Everyone else of an equal position and standing was of the opposite opinion.

Unlike Darwin who had numerous people of the same opinion.

If my suggestion on correcting your sentence is incorrect, we are back to the sentence as written not making sense to me, since he did those things and no one took over.  Perhaps "Had" shouldn't even be there??  Then it would also mesh with your sentiment. 

Also, isn't it true that sometimes people will only speak up if no one else says what they want to -- i.e., someone else might have taken their place (if perhaps not quite as effectively), especially if their specific position was held by that other person (as they aren't in it)?

(I admit that I seem to recall sociology being your thing, and it isn't mine.)

And is it certain that the officers as a whole were discontent (as opposed to some of them) and is it considered likely that they would have actually deserted/rebelled/whatever but for that speech (as opposed to grumbling and lower morale)?



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 15 September 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Well, I guess my memory was mistaken.  But ... Darwin might not ever have published?  Really? 

Either never or posthumorsly... I think it was due to the aforementioned religious troubles.  He was afterall going to be a priest at first... that beign his goal in college.

Wallace actually sent him his thesis because they were friends and that's why Darwin did publish.

Darwin took 20 years to publish after the trip that supposidly inspired him.

20 years after 5 weeks of research... he had plenty of info... but was unwilling to go foward with it for whatever reason.

It's why he and Wallace presented jointly in the same year.

It should also be noted by the way that Darwin and Wallace weren't actually the first peope to write about Natural selection. 

A few papers before them existed... they just weren't as widely talked about.

The thing about just about every "great" scientist is... they're usually not supremely smarter then everybody else.  Just slightly smarter then 3-4 people who are on the same trail.

Darwin acknowledges a lot of people that did fieldwork in the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, he also states that he had to rush his abstract so it could be released before other competing theories of evolution were released. So yes if Darwin hadn't developed the theory of evolution someone else would have, Wallace being one of the forerunners. But most scientists work in this way, a lot of them "stand on the shoulders of giants" as it were. It's an ugly business really, when you think about it like that.

While I acknowledge that Darwin by no means the only person working on a theory of evolution and if I he hadn't existed someone else would have taken his place. I also certainly wouldn't begrudge him of the accolade, because then we must start saying people like Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Curie, Faraday, Bacon, etc. weren't important because people would have taken their place had they not existed.

I actually would say that.

Not rob them from their greatness.... but understand what their greatness was.  That they just beat out people slightly.

For example Rath treated it as if there wasn't Darwin evolution wouldn't of been a theory.

In my book when you go with the arguemtn of "who was more improtant" scientists lose out because of replaceability.