Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

the Dark Face of Darwinism

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 
Well your point is taken but I need to bring up Wallace here...they guy Darwin got most of his ideas form scratch.




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
this is not a discussion about religion, it is a discussion about the Theory of Evolution and what it has offered to humanity.

thanks again...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Well put, that is what I am thinking. The thread says debate away. When we debate, our statements are not what he is looking for.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by SlyFox_79
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


How about instead of getting bytchy about one another's own beliefs, try to debate and discuss, this is what ATS is meant for.
Creationism isn't proven.
Evolution isn't proven.
It's wide open for you both to try and prove.


That particular part of the video goes quickly into how the Theory was accepted by religious groups at the time of its introduction.

.


Well its hard to imagine what that amounted to. Considering all the majior christain denominations had great efforts going on at the time to take the word to the four corners of the earth. Any christain religious groups that accepted this were just not reading thier own bible.


are you talking about Theism in general ? becausr that covers quite a bit of ground...

If people insist on attacking Christianity it really says alot about them and, their disposition and their bias.

I have put negative connotations about the dark face of Darwinism in my opening statement and in the thread title itself.

Consider this (Evolution Vs. Theism) in general, if thats what you wish... form there we may be able to have a logical and matured discussion.


My statment above was not an attack. The refrence was to the Baptist and many other denominations that were all over the world dealing with all sorts of races of people. They certainly had not taken on any of the Darwin race ideas otherwise they would have just stayed home.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
this is not a discussion about religion, it is a discussion about the Theory of Evolution and what it has offered to humanity.

thanks again...


en.wikipedia.org...

There's a good place to start. Also, try Google. It's amazing what you can find out without resorting to messageboard discussions.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 

The theory of evolution offers another explanation to God's plan. So therefore they go hand in hand. Evolution has had a major affect on our outlook of the origin of life and how that life changes to the environment. If this is not a major contribution to humanity, then please explain a theory that has had a more effect on the way nature interacts with changes to the environment.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
this is not a discussion about religion, it is a discussion about the Theory of Evolution and what it has offered to humanity.

thanks again...


en.wikipedia.org...

There's a good place to start. Also, try Google. It's amazing what you can find out without resorting to messageboard discussions.


please no altered version of user-entered Wiki fact...

I would prefer Dictionary or Encyclopedia links also, everyone knows by now since it is all over the news just how accurate Wiki is.

still waiting for 'positive and negative' aspects of Darwins Theory, possibly could even be in (One's Own Words) which shows what they have learned about the world we live in.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



There is no such thing as "Darwinism" except in the minds of religious fanatics.


Which one you prefer Darwinism or Social Darwinism ?

Peace



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Positive= new outlook on life, Negative=Although his theory is being added to every day, religous fanatics still have nothing to fire back, therefore criticizing the little inconsistencies of this new theory.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 
Ok here is one for me. Nagative. Darwin devalued man to a complicated monkey thus gave a scientific devaluation of mans spirituality and his higher meaning on this earth.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
please no altered version of user-entered Wiki fact...

I would prefer Dictionary or Encyclopedia links also, everyone knows by now since it is all over the news just how accurate Wiki is.

still waiting for 'positive and negative' aspects of Darwins Theory, possibly could even be in (One's Own Words) which shows what they have learned about the world we live in.


The good thing about internet access is that you can double check Wikipedia's entries to verify them. If you choose to discuss such matters in web forums rather than to educate yourself beforehand one can only question your motivations.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
Which one you prefer Darwinism or Social Darwinism ?

Peace


The entry for "Darwinism" explains basically the same thing I've said here. "Social Darwinism" is an entirely different construct than is implied by the term "Darwinism" in the posted movies.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The OP with the videos, just explains, that Social Darwinism, is based on the "Survival of the Fittest".

Here is the explanation.

Social Darwinism is a term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies which, while often contradictory, exploited ideas of survival of the fittest.[1]
Source

But to blame it only to the Religious fanatics, is not so correct. All the fanatics are to blame, religious or not. That is my opinion.

Peace



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
The OP with the videos, just explains, that Social Darwinism, is based on the "Survival of the Fittest".


Then perhaps they should have named the video "Problems With SOCIAL Darwinism". The result remains the same: it's intentionally misleading.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Then perhaps they should have named the video "Problems With SOCIAL Darwinism". The result remains the same: it's intentionally misleading.


That´s true, but the Creator of the videos made clear where the Social Darwinism comes from. Namely from the "Survival of The Fittest".


"Darwinism" soon came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches was that summed in the phrase "survival of the fittest" by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, which was later taken to be emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer's own understanding of evolution was more similar to that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck than to that of Darwin, and predated the publication of Darwin's theory. What is now called "Social Darwinism" was, in its day, synonymous with "Darwinism" — the application of Darwinian principles of "struggle" to society, usually in support of anti-philanthropic political agendas.

Darwinism

Peace
edit on 22-12-2010 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
One of the more prominent approaches was that summed in the phrase "survival of the fittest" by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, which was later taken to be emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer's own understanding of evolution was more similar to that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck than to that of Darwin, and predated the publication of Darwin's theory.


Ahh, I see. So it's really the "dark side of Spencerism".
Interestingly enough, they did not title it "the dark side of the theory of evolution". I wonder why.

edit on 22-12-2010 by traditionaldrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Interestingly enough, they did not title it "the dark side of the theory of evolution". I wonder why.


Because what is now called "Social Darwinism" was, in its day, synonymous with "Darwinism" — the application of Darwinian principles of "struggle" to society, usually in support of anti-philanthropic political agendas. As i posted on my previous post.

Hence the name "The Dark Face of Darwinism", of the videos.

Peace



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
Because what is now called "Social Darwinism" was, in its day, synonymous with "Darwinism"


It's certain though that this video was not made in that time. There is now a clear delineation between "Darwinism" and "Social Darwinism".

Either way, my original point still stands. Those who use the term "Darwinism" tend to use it as a pejorative and the term almost always accompanies an argument against some aspect of the theory of evolution, often in support of a religious or unscientific hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Either way, my original point still stands. Those who use the term "Darwinism" tend to use it as a pejorative and the term almost always accompanies an argument against some aspect of the theory of evolution, often in support of a religious or unscientific hypothesis.


Your point would have been valid if it was discussion between Creation/Evolution debates.

In the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for evolutionary theory.
Darwinism

The Point from the OP and the videos just showing the other side of "Darwinism". It´s the same thing when someone shows the other side of "Religion". At least that is the way i understood it.

Peace
edit on 22-12-2010 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
Your point would have been valid if it was discussion between Creation/Evolution debates.


It's valid regardless




In the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for evolutionary theory.
Darwinism


Indeed, there are exceptions to the rule. I think the relevant issue is as stated above: "Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term".





new topics




 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join