For those presenting things that you claim 'Darwin said' or 'Darwin meant'...

[tas8831]

Here is a searchable database of all (as far as I can tell) of Darwin's published works.

Next time you start a thread or post a comment in which you are presenting something you've read on a creationist website purporting to explain Darwin's position on something, check it out. Fact-check your creationist sources instead of just blindly accepting their claim.

 

[F1fan]

It's funny when creationists cite Darwin with some intention of trying to discredit modern science and the theory of evolution because Darwin only introduced the notion of change to science, and didn't write some final manifesto about the matter. Darwin published in 1865, that is over 150 years ago. A lot of time has passed. Darwin got a lot of things wrong, which is typical in science. That science acknowledges Darwin got things wrong is what makes science credible, as it self-corrects, and becomes more accurate and precise over time.

Religion only changes if the social and political pressure demands it, not because it aims to present a more accurate view on things. And even at that religious divide and carry numerous versions of the "truth". Christianity includes both YEC creationists and people who accept evidence and abiogenesis. So even Christianity has no unity on what it is supposed to mean.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here is a searchable database of all (as far as I can tell) of Darwin's published works.

Next time you start a thread or post a comment in which you are presenting something you've read on a creationist website purporting to explain Darwin's position on something, check it out. Fact-check your creationist sources instead of just blindly accepting their claim.

I'm sure that you understand that creationist apologists have a different agenda, methods, and values than academia. The agenda of the former is to promote the religion, not to be correct or generate sound conclusions. The values of apologists are that what ever promotes that agenda is good, what is sometimes cynically called lying for Jesus. And the methods include backloading faith-based assumptions with specious arguments created after the fact to make it appear that the faith-based belief is derived from reason applied to evidence, however much the evidence is massaged and however fallacious the reasoning.

Those things just don't matter to the apologist. Quoting Darwin accurately doesn't matter. Attributing unflattering qualities about him in an effort to undermine his credibility, such as him being racist, supporting eugenics, and having a deathbed conversion to theism are apologetic methods that illustrate the values brought to this enterprise:

• "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

So while your effort is commendable, I'm sure you recognize that if a creation apologist has any interest in your link, it is not to discover what Darwin actually thought, but to quote mine it if possible to use to derogate Darwin. That's the agenda - undermine the science by undermining the scientist because he disagrees with creationist dogma in the hope of that promoting creationism and theism.

Any, thanks. Link bookmarked.

 

[The Hammer]

Here is a searchable database of all (as far as I can tell) of Darwin's published works.

Next time you start a thread or post a comment in which you are presenting something you've read on a creationist website purporting to explain Darwin's position on something, check it out. Fact-check your creationist sources instead of just blindly accepting their claim.

Maybe a mod can sticky/pin this

 

[Kooky]

One thing worth pointing out is that Darwin's works are not a sacred text for people who believe in evolution. Most scientists living today couldn't give a flying figleaf about what the man said - what matters is whether his theories and scientific claims hold up to modern evidence and modern advancements in genetics, palaeontology etc.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm sure that you understand that creationist apologists have a different agenda, methods, and values than academia. The agenda of the former is to promote the religion, not to be correct or generate sound conclusions. The values of apologists are that what ever promotes that agenda is good, what is sometimes cynically called lying for Jesus. And the methods include backloading faith-based assumptions with specious arguments created after the fact to make it appear that the faith-based belief is derived from reason applied to evidence, however much the evidence is massaged and however fallacious the reasoning.

Those things just don't matter to the apologist. Quoting Darwin accurately doesn't matter. Attributing unflattering qualities about him in an effort to undermine his credibility, such as him being racist, supporting eugenics, and having a deathbed conversion to theism are apologetic methods that illustrate the values brought to this enterprise:

• "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

So while your effort is commendable, I'm sure you recognize that if a creation apologist has any interest in your link, it is not to discover what Darwin actually thought, but to quote mine it if possible to use to derogate Darwin. That's the agenda - undermine the science by undermining the scientist because he disagrees with creationist dogma in the hope of that promoting creationism and theism.

Any, thanks. Link bookmarked.

There are ex-creationists. Doesn't that show that at least some creationists are willing to change their mind?

 

[tas8831]

I'm sure that you understand that creationist apologists have a different agenda, methods, and values than academia. The agenda of the former is to promote the religion, not to be correct or generate sound conclusions. The values of apologists are that what ever promotes that agenda is good, what is sometimes cynically called lying for Jesus. And the methods include backloading faith-based assumptions with specious arguments created after the fact to make it appear that the faith-based belief is derived from reason applied to evidence, however much the evidence is massaged and however fallacious the reasoning.

Those things just don't matter to the apologist. Quoting Darwin accurately doesn't matter. Attributing unflattering qualities about him in an effort to undermine his credibility, such as him being racist, supporting eugenics, and having a deathbed conversion to theism are apologetic methods that illustrate the values brought to this enterprise:

• "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

So while your effort is commendable, I'm sure you recognize that if a creation apologist has any interest in your link, it is not to discover what Darwin actually thought, but to quote mine it if possible to use to derogate Darwin. That's the agenda - undermine the science by undermining the scientist because he disagrees with creationist dogma in the hope of that promoting creationism and theism.

Any, thanks. Link bookmarked.

All true.
My hidden agenda was to provide the scientifically-literate with a tool to fact-check creationists and to let creationists know that we can expose their dishonesty. I surely do not expect the typical creationist to use this site, except perhaps in a desperate attempt to find some phrase that they can take out of context to try to attack Darwin, since in their view attacking the person is the same as attacking evolution.

 

[tas8831]

One thing worth pointing out is that Darwin's works are not a sacred text for people who believe in evolution. Most scientists living today couldn't give a flying figleaf about what the man said - what matters is whether his theories and scientific claims hold up to modern evidence and modern advancements in genetics, palaeontology etc.

True. You know that, I know that, m\ost sensible, rational, honest people know that.
Creationists and, in my experience, conservative-types in general seem to have a tendency/desire to personify things they do not like. I suppose it is easier to attack a person than it is to address the actual issues.

 

[tas8831]

There are ex-creationists. Doesn't that show that at least some creationists are willing to change their mind?

1 in a thousand?

I've been active on forums like this for over 20 years. In all that time, I am aware of... 2... creationists that were de-converted. Well, 1 really - the other disappeared from the old Internet Infidels forums after announcing that he was going to take some time off to think about his position, and then he never came back (as far as I know).

So, sure, it is possible, but the trends would seem to indicate 'don't get your hopes up'.

 

[ppp]

It's funny when creationists cite Darwin with some intention of trying to discredit modern science and the theory of evolution because Darwin only introduced the notion of change to science, and didn't write some final manifesto about the matter. Darwin published in 1865, that is over 150 years ago. A lot of time has passed. Darwin got a lot of things wrong, which is typical in science. That science acknowledges Darwin got things wrong is what makes science credible, as it self-corrects, and becomes more accurate and precise over time.

Religion only changes if the social and political pressure demands it, not because it aims to present a more accurate view on things. And even at that religious divide and carry numerous versions of the "truth". Christianity includes both YEC creationists and people who accept evidence and abiogenesis. So even Christianity has no unity on what it is supposed to mean.

Creationists see Darwin as some sort of analog for a Jesus. As though he is some sort of prophet who, if they can discredit in anyway, that evolution will crumble. They don't get that Darwin could be a jerk, or a fraud, or even turn out to be fictional and it would not change the theory of evolution at all. They just cannot comprehend that the ToE is founded on the facts of the world, not the man.

 

[F1fan]

Creationists see Darwin as some sort of analog for a Jesus. As though he is some sort of prophet who, if they can discredit in anyway, that evolution will crumble. They don't get that Darwin could be a jerk, or a fraud, or even turn out to be fictional and it would not change the theory of evolution at all. They just cannot comprehend that the ToE is founded on the facts of the world, not the man.

The causal creationist consumer is certainly reading about these ideas and tactics. The people of AiG and the Discovery Institute spend their time coming up with this propaganda and not doing science. My suspicion is this crap has two different audiences, one being those lightly educated in science, and the other being the manipulated believer. In debates those with some education in science may not understand the fraud being presented by creationists with bogus science-like fraud to be used in debate. As for duped believers it is clever for AiG to frame Darwin as a Jesus type character or a prophet since the believer will look to these models of literature and belief as compelling. Of course once it's introduced in open debate these poor fools get slaughtered and are left wounded and licking wounds (of their ego). Too bad Jesus can't save them from that.

Creationism is deliberate fraud and these organizations are really fighting over the souls and wills of the confused and desperate believer. All science and education can do is present valid forms of knowledge. If the believer is attracted to the cult of creationism then their intellectual soul is lost to the hell of ignorance.