The Genius of Charles Darwin or was he?

Is he or isn’t he?

You may agree with the above statement on the genius of Darwin but can you tell me if you can understand simple inquiry on how to make your own judgment and come to your own conclusions on the things that are marketed daily against you.

We all live in the world where we compete against each other for your and my attention ,so with the limited time you have to make choices on what to take and what to ignore, this will determine the final outcome of your world view and life choices.

Can we trust media?

Who says that media today is unbiased and free? Often you hear free thinkers despair over the never ending accusations that we are continually fed lies and manipulated to conform to the acceptable standards which are set up for us to assimilate by those who consider themselves higher power.

Should we be paranoid?

One can become paranoid at the prospect of not knowing of who and what to believe and this is why we buy our Sunday papers to get informed and learn from those who will tell us what to think and how to absorb this critical information in the correct way. Often bombarded by the mass of consistent messages we crumble and succumb to the pressure not to be ostracized as the ignoramus or worse still be called a fundamentalist believer. It is a volume rather than quality of information and unfortunately this is all it takes to accomplish total conversion from the agnostic to the born again evolutionist.

Some things just stay Dogma

Nobody should ever dare challenge or even propose alternative option to this sacred cow or they will be crucified by the scientific community. Sounds familiar? That is because this is not the first time this has happened. But who is to be blames is it those who provide the faulty information or those who refuse to think for themselves and demand answers to their genuine questions.

Few years ago I was talking with one of the project managers who suggested to me that if you want people to start truly thinking for themselves and challenging established corporate culture we need to persist in asking question after question and he suggested that usually takes about 5 follow-up questions at which point you may notice that “established dogma” can be challenged.

This however is not possible and does not apply when considering theory of evolution i.e. in today’s “enlightened” scientific community this will be outright rejected or some would like us believe it. However if you are after statistics you will find that there is a small but significant proportion of the scientific community who continues to have grave concerns and reservation about this “history and humanity changing enlightenment” simply called the theory of evolution.

Main question stands, why are people so frightened to challenge this not provable theory, is it because if its teachings can not be proved to be true then we may have to consider other options too and their implications to the way we live today? And that frightens many people, who would rather like to continue this status quo unopposed as this will only bring more questions to which they may not have the “satisfactory” answers.

This teaching seams to continue on as usual, with very little tolerance for the “ignorant” and “ill prepared” and not to talk about “willfully blind” sub species called evangelical Christians who so inconveniently continue to point out at the faulty logic of many well established proponents of the theory of evolution.

It could be funny if it wasn’t desperately sad to observe eagerness of the evolution proselytes and see total disregard for critical thinking that is employed by the “world wise” and “well informed” journalist specialists who offer their views to readers in the same way that food is fed to babies and then carefully and skillfully pick up any dribble that is missed this is then scraped up of the “idiots” messy face and then force fed as not to miss any important point in making.

Should we accept things without questioning?

And here is my last question “what good is the information if we are going to simply swallow and allow others to force feed us their ideas without actually doing the “chewing” also known as analyzing?”

Now don’t get me wrong I don’t object to people sharing ideas or even having strong views which are contrary to my own and this is of course on any subject as long as they can show that they truly understand it and it’s not “faith” based argument.

In case you are wondering what on earth is he on about read the article below and make your own judgment on what is the point that the journalist James Walton is trying to make.

If you have had an opportunity to watch Richard Dawkins presenting this program you may be forgiven if you thought that the topic of the program was how to disprove creationism and Intelligent Design rather than promote “the Genius of Charles Darwin”. These tactics are well known and often used by those who know that if you are not well informed but may have questions this will do the trick and stop any further enquiry. However this serves well those who have so vigorously tried to put across competing theories as it shows not only the bias the proponents of this theory display but also their main objective is to disprove the existence of God and has very little to do with Scientific enquiry.

Those who are continually supporting this theory from within the Church are being reminded about the real reasons behind this theory and should therefore look at other competing options, making sure that they consider other viewpoints in order to help them understand this subject fully and not hide behind not knowing or preferring not to be called names and therefore avoid humiliation by the ignorant and bully tactics of those who would use every trick in the book in order to prove their point.

Kinds regard and think for yourself

Defend the word

By James Walton

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 05/08/2008

from www.telegraph.co.uk

In advance, The Genius of Charles Darwin (Channel 4) seemed to offer the rare and pleasing prospect of Richard Dawkins enthusing about somebody he likes rather than yet again laying into somebody he doesn’t (ie God).

The introduction to last night’s opening episode looked quite promising as well. Dawkins grew almost dewy-eyed as he piled up the superlatives and declared what an inspiration Darwin has been to him. Evolution by natural selection, we were told, is “perhaps the most powerful idea ever to occur to a human mind”. It’s also “nothing less than a complete explanation of the complexity and diversity of all life”.

But as it turned out, Dawkins couldn’t keep up this positive approach for long. Within 45 seconds, he’d already announced that the main aim of the series is “to persuade you that evolution offers a far richer and more spectacular view of life than any religious story” – with the last two words delivered, of course, in particularly withering tones. (“It’s one reason I don’t believe in God,” he added, somewhat unnecessarily.)

And so, by and large, the programme continued. On the one hand, we got a brilliant and heartfelt guide to how Darwin’s ideas developed. On the other, virtually every point was accompanied by a vigorous yet entirely predictable sideswipe at religious believers and their benighted ways. This only had the effect of constantly interrupting the interesting stuff. It was also like watching someone with a sort of anti-religious version of Tourette’s syndrome – and certainly confirmed that the downside of having an obsession is that you become a bit of a bore.

Maybe one problem is that because of his evangelical atheism, Dawkins has had to field so many objections from mad creationists that he’s forgotten how rare they are – at least in Britain. Either way, as he kept up his fierce arguments with people who weren’t there, you had to keep reminding yourself that far from being a matter of deep controversy, Darwin’s discoveries are so accepted here that the man is on every English tenner.

To be fair, Dawkins did manage to find a science class in a London school that seemed populated by an unusually religious bunch of teenagers. Faced with their belief in God as the source of life, he did his plucky best to remain twinklingly avuncular. Again, though, it was only a matter of time before he snapped – in this case by angrily lamenting their “lifetime of religious indoctrination”, and packing them off on a coach trip to look for fossils.

In fact, what these teenagers were doing in the programme at all never became clear. Luckily, once they’d been left on a beach looking rather bored, they did disappear from the screen for a while, leaving Dawkins free to get on with the story of Darwin.

In this, little was left to chance. (Darwin, Dawkins felt the need to remind us, lived “in the days before the internet”.) Occasionally too, there were possible elements of confusion. For most of the time, Dawkins emphasised that Darwin spent the 20 years between the voyage on the Beagle and the publication of On the Origin of Species painstakingly working out his ideas. Towards the end, we heard that Darwin had known the truth all along, but had decided not to publish because of the fuss it would cause. Nor was it easy to square Dawkins’s belief in the “beauty” of natural selection (the process itself rather than just the concept) with the enormous cruelty involved – which he described with some relish.

Nonetheless, by the end, the story of how the theory of evolution evolved had definitely been traced with impressive care, and neatly combined with the other great scientific advances of Darwin’s day – and of ours. (Dawkins was touchingly dismayed by the thought that Darwin didn’t live long enough to see his ideas vindicated by the discovery of DNA.) There were also several moments that lived up to those advance hopes for a less cross Dawkins than usual. The sight of him looking awestruck as he gazed at a first edition of On the Origin of Species was especially stirring. When he showed us some of Darwin’s own pigeon specimens from the 1850s, he duly handled them like holy relics.

And yet, all the time, those anti-religious outbursts just kept coming, with each glorious breakthrough in human understanding becoming another chance for Dawkins to say how rubbish religion is. As a true Darwinian disciple, he evidently felt obliged to admire everything about the man – which here included approving of the fact that Darwin was never “an aggressive polemicist”. Ironically, of course, this only goes to show that, like many a religious believer before him, Dawkins doesn’t always find it easy to live up to the ideals of his Master.

Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Evolution. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Genius of Charles Darwin or was he?

  1. Jeffe Gilla says:

    You all are like college kids arguing over where it all began. I personally have come to view you all as narcissistic, harranguers of each other. You don’t care about what you are defending or attacking, it is the act you enjoy. Give me a break. Go away.

    Oh, no response needed (that should set them off!).

  2. Thanks for your input, funny how you have your opinion formulated somehow I get the feeling you enjoyed it none the less otherwise you would not be reading it. This particular post was not about the debate it’s how people come to their conclusions and that is very important. I love reading about cocky proponents of anything it’s quite funny and amusing but like every other civilized person I would say if we are to have conversation (communicate rather than shout one another down) than both sides should talk. If you got confused by where I stand on this issue then may I suggest you check other posts on this blog that should help clarify my standpoint.

    By the way it’s always better to talk than fight, note that being patronizing and aggressive at the same time shows that it’s only objective is to cause the reaction to original action. May I suggest that if you are not interested in making an inquire you don’t do the search. I guess there must be some advantages to avoiding inquire I just prefer to both understand and question things that I’m interested in. But after all we live in a free country and we all need to make that decision on our own.

    On this blog, anyone who is prepared to stay civilized is more than welcomed to contribute to the debate, that’s why we do it. I will however continue to urge people to use their reasoning rather than their ability to repeat information which was passed their way. Remember you knowledge may not be impressive but your ability to judge information may still be up to the task, so don’t give up but use that which God give you.

    Regards

    Defend the Word

  3. dtbrents says:

    A good thought. I don’t think we can trust the media. I do use my ability to judge. I believe a lot of what Darwin taught is now being proven false. Doylene

  4. Thanks for your support Doylene, my main issue is that there are so many people who can’t see that even behind the words and pictures we see on our TV’s there are reporters with Views that are often included in their commentaries. Gone are the days when we use to just get information delivery and we were then given several options to choose from or at least try and understand reasons behind different worldviews. Uniformity and agreement is all that is demanded.

    Thanks again

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  5. Harry says:

    ‘I do use my ability to judge. I believe a lot of what Darwin taught is now being proven false.
    Doylene

    Just because you believe it doesn’t mean its true. Darwin’s theories are backed up by more than what a lot of Science can only dream about.

    None of evolutionary theory has ever been dis-proven, the same can not be said for a 6000 year old earth.

  6. Harry says:

    Not implying you believe in a 6000 year old earth, but evolution is by far the best explanation of the world around us.

    The mere fact that Darwin devoted his live to biological sciences and that he postulated something so ground shaking as evolution shows he was an incredibly curious person, not willing to just be spoon fed information. A LOT of fundamentalists of all faiths could learn from that way of thinking

  7. Thanks for your thoughts, however first let me point out that the starting point on this is to question the fundamentals themselves, I would be 100% correct in calling you scientific fundamentalist as that is where you come from and especially if one trusts science too much. And what I mean by that is that there are many scientist who would like to give you and I their philosophical outlook on world alongside their data that 9 times out of 10 has more than one way of being interpreted.

    It is a bit like some of the articles you read people will do anything to make us take their opinion as being the right scientific truth, just remember that very often (More often than not) there are number of scientists who will give opposing view points. You mentioned in an another place that you trust only “fully qualified” with real credentials scientists. What is it then that happens to all those sayings that are put forward by scientists who are Christians but have different view point? This is what I call subjective criticism, and believe me we can all be guilty of this same offense.

    We have no choice but to catch up and start understanding what this data means and stop simply passing this responsibility to someone else.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

Comments are closed.