This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Charles Darwin. |
Hello Dave souza,
this edit does not make sense to me. Where does this "forcing new ideas" come from? Is this in the original conversation? If so, please cite directly. Furthermore, the word "admitted" in this context is not neutral.-- Eloquence * 20:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
At last a source. Have edited the section accordingly. . dave souza, talk 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"His work was pivotal in the development of evolution theory which some argue helps show that God is unnecessary, while others feel that attacking Darwin and restricting teaching of evolution helps to evangelise their faith." The second part of this sentence is completely unnecessary. The statement that some (presumably you meant Christians) "attack Darwin" and "restrict teaching" to advance their religion reveals bias and makes Christians sound very closed-minded and fundamentalist. Whether or not creationists/Christians ARE closed-minded and fundamentalist is a different discussion. This comment contributes nothing to the discussion of Darwin's personal religious views. I vote that the sentence should be shortened to, "His work was pivotal in the development of evolution theory."{{Subst:unsigned2|21:33, 8 October 2006|68.183.65.55]]
On the main page it says taht he was a theist during the time of writing origin of species, is this correct as it was publicized after the death of annie when he lost faith supposedly?—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.56.2.244 (
talk •
contribs) 15:38, 20 April 2007
As it happens, I was reading T.H.Huxley today, and it seems he invented the term agnostic - which may quite possibly have something to do with Darwin's choice of term. This might be OR, though. Adam Cuerden talk 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I take exception to the following lines in the first section. "To Darwin, Natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design" Is adapted from the following paragraph, which is the author's own opinion, not Darwin's.
Correspondingly, in the resulting theory, organisms are still regarded as being machines that are almost perfectly designed and adapted; although the benevolent omniscient designer, God, had been replaced by the omnipotent process of natural selection.
Darwin's opinion was given just above this as
When constructing his theory of evolution, Darwin still hoped that this theory could at least be brought into harmony with a deistic belief in God.
and moreso in this line "and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs."
There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me .... But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.
Which is a complete and utter reversion of what was stated above. I will admit to being a proponent of some form of Intelligent Design (though I am unsure of the intelligent part), though not a christian or believer in any form of organized religion. I don't feel that Evolutionists or, as they sometimes call themselves, Darwinists, should be allowed to bend facts to their own agenda. WookMuff ( talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance
It is quite wrong to say, as the intro does, "He [Darwin] still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views". This is simply not true, as evidenced by his discussions of rudimentary, atrophied or aborted organs, which he describes as "extremely common throughout nature". (Origin, 1st ed p320, and similar in later eds). In fact, no theory of evolution makes any sense if all organisms are perfectly adapted all the time, and Darwin was well aware of this. "It would be difficult to name one of the higher animals in which some part is not in a rudimentary condition" p321. Also, his continual harping on variations carries with it the appreciation that not all members of a population could be equally adapted. In fact it was the natural theologists that thought organisms were perfectly adapted, because they had been so created. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We can cover Darwin's Theism/Agnosticism/anti-atheism/whatever in his own article. We have the space to put the most important aspects of this page there, I se no need to fork the article into this (which is not even in the slightest as important as his work on evolution and adaption). Darwin was a scientist who studied and gave us our founding views of evolution. His views on religion aren't that important (though worth noting, as I said, just not worthy enough for it's own page). 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it was chosen on a derisive basis. Should it be changed to something neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiar skro ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been tidying the sources for this article and have added a few cites after direct quotes. I've been unable to find the source of a quote at the end of the section "Caution about publication, spiritualism":
If theism were true, "reason might not be the only instrument for ascertaining its truth".
This isn't in the letter sent by Darwin to Romanes on 5 Dec 1878. The letter is available
here. It includes the "very great interest" but not the quote above. Suggestions?
Aa77zz (
talk)
13:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Darwin was basically a creationist, this should be added to the article [1]
Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.
Latenightjogger ( talk) 22:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Religious views of Charles Darwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Charles Darwin. |
Hello Dave souza,
this edit does not make sense to me. Where does this "forcing new ideas" come from? Is this in the original conversation? If so, please cite directly. Furthermore, the word "admitted" in this context is not neutral.-- Eloquence * 20:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
At last a source. Have edited the section accordingly. . dave souza, talk 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"His work was pivotal in the development of evolution theory which some argue helps show that God is unnecessary, while others feel that attacking Darwin and restricting teaching of evolution helps to evangelise their faith." The second part of this sentence is completely unnecessary. The statement that some (presumably you meant Christians) "attack Darwin" and "restrict teaching" to advance their religion reveals bias and makes Christians sound very closed-minded and fundamentalist. Whether or not creationists/Christians ARE closed-minded and fundamentalist is a different discussion. This comment contributes nothing to the discussion of Darwin's personal religious views. I vote that the sentence should be shortened to, "His work was pivotal in the development of evolution theory."{{Subst:unsigned2|21:33, 8 October 2006|68.183.65.55]]
On the main page it says taht he was a theist during the time of writing origin of species, is this correct as it was publicized after the death of annie when he lost faith supposedly?—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.56.2.244 (
talk •
contribs) 15:38, 20 April 2007
As it happens, I was reading T.H.Huxley today, and it seems he invented the term agnostic - which may quite possibly have something to do with Darwin's choice of term. This might be OR, though. Adam Cuerden talk 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I take exception to the following lines in the first section. "To Darwin, Natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design" Is adapted from the following paragraph, which is the author's own opinion, not Darwin's.
Correspondingly, in the resulting theory, organisms are still regarded as being machines that are almost perfectly designed and adapted; although the benevolent omniscient designer, God, had been replaced by the omnipotent process of natural selection.
Darwin's opinion was given just above this as
When constructing his theory of evolution, Darwin still hoped that this theory could at least be brought into harmony with a deistic belief in God.
and moreso in this line "and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs."
There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me .... But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.
Which is a complete and utter reversion of what was stated above. I will admit to being a proponent of some form of Intelligent Design (though I am unsure of the intelligent part), though not a christian or believer in any form of organized religion. I don't feel that Evolutionists or, as they sometimes call themselves, Darwinists, should be allowed to bend facts to their own agenda. WookMuff ( talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance
It is quite wrong to say, as the intro does, "He [Darwin] still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views". This is simply not true, as evidenced by his discussions of rudimentary, atrophied or aborted organs, which he describes as "extremely common throughout nature". (Origin, 1st ed p320, and similar in later eds). In fact, no theory of evolution makes any sense if all organisms are perfectly adapted all the time, and Darwin was well aware of this. "It would be difficult to name one of the higher animals in which some part is not in a rudimentary condition" p321. Also, his continual harping on variations carries with it the appreciation that not all members of a population could be equally adapted. In fact it was the natural theologists that thought organisms were perfectly adapted, because they had been so created. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We can cover Darwin's Theism/Agnosticism/anti-atheism/whatever in his own article. We have the space to put the most important aspects of this page there, I se no need to fork the article into this (which is not even in the slightest as important as his work on evolution and adaption). Darwin was a scientist who studied and gave us our founding views of evolution. His views on religion aren't that important (though worth noting, as I said, just not worthy enough for it's own page). 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it was chosen on a derisive basis. Should it be changed to something neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiar skro ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been tidying the sources for this article and have added a few cites after direct quotes. I've been unable to find the source of a quote at the end of the section "Caution about publication, spiritualism":
If theism were true, "reason might not be the only instrument for ascertaining its truth".
This isn't in the letter sent by Darwin to Romanes on 5 Dec 1878. The letter is available
here. It includes the "very great interest" but not the quote above. Suggestions?
Aa77zz (
talk)
13:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Darwin was basically a creationist, this should be added to the article [1]
Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.
Latenightjogger ( talk) 22:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Religious views of Charles Darwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)