Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: A few inaccuracies

"I maybe should have been more clear when I mentioned evolution, I was referring to the Darwinian concept of natural selection
Without going into semantics, the word evolution had a very different meaning before time of Darwin and Huxley."

I knew which definition you were referring to.


"Newton,
Pascal,
Da Vinci,
Francis Bacon,
Herchel

All died before Darwin was born"

That's true, but they were all creationists, as can be found in their writings. All had a belief in God. All could have been atheists if they so chose to be, but they went the other way. And just as importantly, these men are scientists.

"Lord Kelvin was opposed to Darwin's theory because his (Kelvin's) own calculated age of the earth(quite young) did not fit with Darwin's theory's need for a much older earth. Thus he was not opposed to the theory, but only how it interferred with his own theory."

You can't have it both ways. William Thompson was opposed to Darwin't theories, this is certifiable and information supporting his stance is easily obtainable. I on the other hand have not suggested that Thompson was a creationist. I assert that he was a scientist.

"Lord Kelvin's calculation of earths age by cooling didn't take in to account radioactivity as it hadn't been discovered, and has since been debunked"

This does not lessen his stature as a scientist.

"However in the times of many of the people you mention, and some whom I have had time to check, Darwin ideas were not known, or the word evolution was associated with a very different concept.
So you need to be careful of your history of science before you start putting words into the mouths of Pascal,da Vinci and Newton...."

Your point only serves to illustrate that these men were not evolutionists. However, there to devotion to a personal God is documentable and cannot be denied. To suggest that because they were not introduced to Darwin's particular brand of the origin of the species cannot suggest, at least succesfully that they would have chosen a different path in their scientific approach.


"Mendel was an ordained priest, 13 years younger than Darwin, and a nervous one at that. He was unlikely to openly support a revolutionary idea, which at the time was not popular with the Church."

This severely discounts Mendel's work in Genetics. He was obviously opposed to Darwins theories because, like William Thompson, his own work was taking him in another direction. The fact that Mendel was ordained a priest in 1847 and eventually elected abbot of his monastery in 1868 concludes beyond doubt that he believed in a creator. Just as important, his stature as a scientist is assured.

The statement by the other poster that "no scientist opposes evolution" is in fact wrong. Your innuendo that some of these scientists discussed here would have lead them to a different conclusion about the origin of the species is a presumption that cannot be proved.

I on the other hand would no more argue that a scientist who believes in a creator can become an atheist than I would a scientist who is an avowed atheist eventually believing in a creator. I have no doubt that this possibility not only exists, but has in fact happened.

To suggest that Mendel may have caved into Church pressure is fine so long as you also suggest the probability that scientists today who believe in creation face an uphill battle with the current scientific community.

That's fair, isn't it?

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]