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.

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.

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

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

Peace

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

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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