Charles Darwin was mentally ill

Quite ironic that the founding father of modern eugenics was himself throughly inbred. You see for many generations the Darwins only bred with the Wedgewood family. This is clearly documented. Charles even married his first cousin with who he had children. He questioned if his close genetic relationship with her caused his children to be weak, because of course he believe in planned breeding to "improve" his families genetics.

Scientific american article on it here.

Many famous and powerful families have been renowned for their pairing of close relatives, including the Hapsburgs and some ancient Egyptian pharaohs, and marrying relatives—both close and distant—was in general more common historically when groups were smaller and more isolated. But by Darwin's time it was already assumed that "consanguineous marriages lead to deafness & dumbness, blindness [etc.],"

Originally posted by epsilon69
Quite ironic that the founding father of modern eugenics was himself throughly inbred. You see for many generations the Darwins only bred with the Wedgewood family. This is clearly documented. Charles even married his first cousin with who he had children. He questioned if his close genetic relationship with her caused his children to be weak, because of course he believe in planned breeding to "improve" his families genetics.

Scientific american article on it here.

Many famous and powerful families have been renowned for their pairing of close relatives, including the Hapsburgs and some ancient Egyptian pharaohs, and marrying relatives—both close and distant—was in general more common historically when groups were smaller and more isolated. But by Darwin's time it was already assumed that "consanguineous marriages lead to deafness & dumbness, blindness [etc.],"

Stuff like that was quite common during those times. Luckily there's something called "scientific method" which ensures no negative effects of this would invalidate the theory of evolution

reply to post by epsilon69


I'm sorry, but Darwin didn't have anything to do with eugenics, as speciation via natural selection is actually the exact opposite of eugenics, which is directed selection.

To make it entirely clear, the modern eugenicists have actually all hated Darwin, especially Hitler.

What baffles me is that most creationists feel the need to worship whatever they consider to be the creator.

If you have an ant farm at home, and tiny baby ants hatch....would you expect them to worship you? Would you be angry and "send them to hell" for not worshipping you? After all, you gave them life, right?

At least the ants can SEE you through the glass of an ant farm. Creationists don't even have evidence to for the existence of a creator, yet they chose to worship it/her/him. But the people believing in unicorns are idiots...right?

Anyway, the point is: Science follows scientific method that requires peer reviews and the theories need to be falsifiable. Evolution fully satisfies those criteria, creationism doesn't even satisfy one of them. It doesn't matter WHO develops a scientific theory (apart from an ego boost and being mentioned in books), because in order to be a theory, others need to agree with it after testing it. If evolution were wrong, someone would have proven it wrong in over 150yrs

reply to post by Skyfloating


So you take it as gospel that there is an invisible, unknowable, omnipotent being that guides the universe?

You take this on what authority? Mans? A book? Fear of the unknown?

'nuff said.

reply to post by MrXYZ


You mean like Alchemists greating gold out of lead, or a different kind of close?

reply to post by ROBERT3


...no, like creating a simulation of the environment of the early earth and letting it run to demonstrate that the building blocks of and eventually life itself form naturally as a result of a chain of chemical reactions.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You can simulate the early Earth conditions that led to the 'Creation of Life'?

I congratulate you!

If you can't, but you believe another can, then how can you tell if their simulation is accurate or nonsense?

You can't know--neither can I.

You simply placed faith in others. So did Darwin--faith in the concept that intermediate forms would be found. Dawkins places faith in the concept that we will discover abiogenesis.

But you have not yet created life out of chemicals. I feel confident to say you will not. Someone might, but it seems very complicated and I do not have 'faith' that it will happen.

However, my lack of faith in these attempts means nothing. If someone creates life, then they will do it regardless of my lack of faith.

Similarly, the concept of God is not related to our faith. If there is a Creator, his 'being' is unrelated to our faith or our existence. I 'believe' that it is a mistake to confuse Narcissism for objective reality.

reply to post by LarryLove


In what way does fame 'Cancel', 'Negate' or 'Diminish' mental illness?

Should all mentally ill people be made famous?

In ancient Greece, Savants were seen as divinely blessed--so perhaps you are right.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I am trying to understand your need to constantly make reference to a book written by men as proof of it's incorrectness. (Origin of Species was also written by men.)

Why just take on board Darwin's ideas without critically assessing them.

Remember, Darwin was a Theologian, a follower of William Paley (Fundamental Creationist), who turned his back on this. He suffered pain and loss in his life--three dead children and daily incapacity.

Referring back to Darwins intellectual and religious roots, Judas Iscariot did the same thing. So, in a milder fashion did Job, King David, Solomon ... etc.

He still sits in the 'Biblical' tradition of those who turn away/backslide/apostasize.

Darwin makes great claims about how complex objects, which appear to be created, could come to be without being created.

This is of interest to a wide range of individuals. Not just atheists or 'Scientists', but artists, engineers, craftsmen.

I have worked with my hands in the past, and I engage in 'creative' activity through painting, media work etc.

Darwins (and all atheistic) claims are puzzling and challenging, because it goes against everything that I do, everthing I see and everything I use.

Riddicule is unworthy, yet so many atheists stoop to this. What has it to do with scientific rigour?

Darwin had dignity. His followers have little it seems.

reply to post by ROBERT3

Originally posted by ROBERT3
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You can simulate the early Earth conditions that led to the 'Creation of Life'?

I congratulate you!

If you can't, but you believe another can, then how can you tell if their simulation is accurate or nonsense?

You can't know--neither can I.

No, I actually can. If I wanted to take the time and energy I could investigate the claims of the published material. People tend to underestimate how important publishing is for science, as it is what makes things public, available by peers who are ready to tear each other a new one when they see a mistake.

You simply placed faith in others. So did Darwin--faith in the concept that intermediate forms would be found.

No, he actually hinged his idea on it. He said that if there were no intermediate forms than his theory would be bunk. There's a difference between placing faith and pointing out.

Dawkins places faith in the concept that we will discover abiogenesis.

...RNA has formed on its own in chemical mixes, it doesn't take much faith to think that this could happen naturally.
But you have not yet created life out of chemicals. I feel confident to say you will not. Someone might, but it seems very complicated and I do not have 'faith' that it will happen.

However, my lack of faith in these attempts means nothing. If someone creates life, then they will do it regardless of my lack of faith.

Actually, it's more due to your ignorance. And again, no faith required. They're trying things out, not claiming that something is happening without evidence.

Similarly, the concept of God is not related to our faith. If there is a Creator, his 'being' is unrelated to our faith or our existence. I 'believe' that it is a mistake to confuse Narcissism for objective reality.

So apparently my lack of belief in a claim based on the entire lack of evidence for something is the same as narcissism.

reply to post by ROBERT3

Originally posted by ROBERT3
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I am trying to understand your need to constantly make reference to a book written by men as proof of it's incorrectness. (Origin of Species was also written by men.)

No, it was written by a man.

Why just take on board Darwin's ideas without critically assessing them.

I have, countless others have as well. Hell, there have been people who went about trying to prove them wrong for a century and a half...and nothing came of it. Every attempt to disprove evolution has failed.

Of course, a lot of Darwin's ideas were modified in detail. The discovery of DNA filled the hole of heritable material, a greater understanding of familial genetics modified the ideas as well.

Remember, Darwin was a Theologian, a follower of William Paley (Fundamental Creationist), who turned his back on this.

Yes, because he realized it was stupid.

He suffered pain and loss in his life--three dead children and daily incapacity.

Not uncommon back then, especially since modern medicine (which is highly based on evolutionary theory) wasn't around to help people. Furthermore...he had 10 total children.

And frankly, this is just a giant ad hominem attack. What does Darwin have to do with it? He could have been a raving lunatic in an asylum who wrote his works on a cell wall in his own smeared feces and it would do nothing to effect the truth value of his claims.

Referring back to Darwins intellectual and religious roots, Judas Iscariot did the same thing. So, in a milder fashion did Job, King David, Solomon ... etc.

He still sits in the 'Biblical' tradition of those who turn away/backslide/apostasize.

No. Just no. This is all irrelevant, fallacious, and ignorant.

Darwin makes great claims about how complex objects, which appear to be created, could come to be without being created.

...clearly you're straw manning. Darwin made some claims about how life diversifies over successive generations.

This is of interest to a wide range of individuals. Not just atheists or 'Scientists', but artists, engineers, craftsmen.

So?

I have worked with my hands in the past, and I engage in 'creative' activity through painting, media work etc.

Darwins (and all atheistic) claims are puzzling and challenging, because it goes against everything that I do, everthing I see and everything I use.

So? You're not specialized in a field and it doesn't make sense to you...that's dandy. Maybe you should improve your understanding of the subject.

Riddicule is unworthy, yet so many atheists stoop to this. What has it to do with scientific rigour?

...ridicule is deserved when there are ridiculous things provided. If you bring up Darwin's personal life as an argument against his ideas and then compare him to some people your religion vilifies then I will point out that it's a really stupid thing to do and you should feel ashamed at yourself for failing at basic logic.

Darwin had dignity. His followers have little it seems.

He doesn't have 'followers'. Nobody is putting him up on a pedestal as the greatest man ever, though he did have the greatest idea in the history of biology (it would just be butterfly collecting without evolution). He's someone to be admired for his work and its merit, nothing more.