Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?
Posted: November 26th, 2016, 3:01 pm
Darwinian evolution is part theory and fact.
It is a solid and amazing scientific work that was framed and detailed much before Darwin wrote about it. Darwin praises a particular author for his elegant framing of the design that Darwin then went on to look for and detail. Rarely do you find people praising the work that so inspired and framed Darwin's search.
People do mistake, over-apply, and misattribute Darwin's work. Thankfully, Darwin left details about his though process, his beliefs, inspirations, and respectfully gave honor to the works that deeply influenced him.
For controversial works such as these, I often research the author, their beliefs, their thought process, and their attributed influences. Therein lies the deeper root as to their work. It would seem that many people lack the skill to decipher such roots, deny them, or quite frankly never seek to find them. As such, they often times replace the Author's roots and foundations with their own so as to feel strengthened in their own personal beliefs. This is mistaken and dishonest.
Having researched an author's self-proclaimed roots and foundations, it is quite interesting when someone praises their works and attempts to use their works to bash a particular philosophy that the author themselves maintained and cites as their inspiration.
You really have to just laugh and the absurdity of such mistakes which I do often. Interestingly, when you point this out and highlight the author's roots, you'll often note silence, a lack of responses, childlike questions from supposed intellects, or fits/tantrums/philosophical squirming as one fights the glaring contradiction that manifests within themselves.
It's quite the scene...
It is a solid and amazing scientific work that was framed and detailed much before Darwin wrote about it. Darwin praises a particular author for his elegant framing of the design that Darwin then went on to look for and detail. Rarely do you find people praising the work that so inspired and framed Darwin's search.
People do mistake, over-apply, and misattribute Darwin's work. Thankfully, Darwin left details about his though process, his beliefs, inspirations, and respectfully gave honor to the works that deeply influenced him.
For controversial works such as these, I often research the author, their beliefs, their thought process, and their attributed influences. Therein lies the deeper root as to their work. It would seem that many people lack the skill to decipher such roots, deny them, or quite frankly never seek to find them. As such, they often times replace the Author's roots and foundations with their own so as to feel strengthened in their own personal beliefs. This is mistaken and dishonest.
Having researched an author's self-proclaimed roots and foundations, it is quite interesting when someone praises their works and attempts to use their works to bash a particular philosophy that the author themselves maintained and cites as their inspiration.
You really have to just laugh and the absurdity of such mistakes which I do often. Interestingly, when you point this out and highlight the author's roots, you'll often note silence, a lack of responses, childlike questions from supposed intellects, or fits/tantrums/philosophical squirming as one fights the glaring contradiction that manifests within themselves.
It's quite the scene...