Was Charles Darwin a Racist ?

[Developereo]

I guess you are telling the same thing, any direct observation is a fact. We are of course assuming that observer is neutral and the experiment is repeatable without any error creeping in.

Yeah, I guess.

Facts can change if we get more accurate way to observe, but mostly they will remain same.

This is one of those 'unprovable axioms' I mentioned above. One of the basic assumptions in science is that if we repeat the same experiment tomorrow halfway across the planet -- or universe -- it will have the same results (assuming external influences are not a factor).

 

[Comet]

Well it appears as if Darwin, or for that matter, evolutionists are racist in a sense that they believe that some races are inferior to others.

 

[desioptimist]

Yeah, I guess.



This is one of those 'unprovable axioms' I mentioned above. One of the basic assumptions in science is that if we repeat the same experiment tomorrow halfway across the planet -- or universe -- it will have the same results (assuming external influences are not a factor).

Now that we have lot agreed upon, can you tell me those absolute facts that religion can deal with and science cant.
Give an example of absolute fact please.(post 128)

 

[Developereo]

Now that we have lot agreed upon, can you tell me those absolute facts that religion can deal with and science cant.
Give an example of absolute fact please.(post 128)

That will probably derail the thread. All I meant was that only religion and philosophy claim to provide absolute truths like 'there is a God'. They don't provide proof. You either believe it or you don't and, if you do, you don't ask for proof.

 

[Vinod2070]

Actually, none of the organized religions can stand the test of what is already well known by observation.

If there is a divine being, a know it all, none of the existing organized religion has got the essence of him/her.

 

[desioptimist]

That will probably derail the thread. All I meant was that only religion and philosophy claim to provide absolute truths like 'there is a God'. They don't provide proof. You either believe it or you don't and, if you do, you don't ask for proof.

Well then carry on with "your" absolute truth.

All I wanted to say that, there is lot of confusion among people especially about evolution being only a theory. Hence the need to tell the difference between meaning of theory in science and meaning of theory in general English language.

 

[modern_newton]

y

Now that we have lot agreed upon, can you tell me those absolute facts that religion can deal with and science cant.
Give an example of absolute fact please.(post 128)

Where science stop there religion start. science is limited in its knowledge. many things are still unknown for science. science rely on senses of scientists which may cheat him. our eyes can not see all colours which exist. our ears can hear only limited sound frequency.our brain is also finite and limited. can science grasp concept of infinity? never if i ask you to count from 0 to infinity it will be useless for you to start counting because you will never reach at end so its stupid to ask science or use science to prove the existence of infinite creator.

 

[airuah]

this is a funny thread ,,,,,darwin was a genious who came up with the "orign of species"...and instead of learning and discussing about it we have people who are interested in judjing the man if he was a racist?.....


with regars to the post above "mordern Newton"....its funny that you have Newton as your name and you support religion.......
here is my belief.......science strives to explain everything....while religion tries to cover up facts till science catches up with an explanation.....
we have a lot of examples in history where there are so many beliefs broken by science.....sorry if i offend anyone here ....do you still believe that god created the universe in 7 days? or due you think that the big bang theory is more appropriate?due you still ADAM AND EVE? or the scientific explanation of higher organisms developing slowly over billions of years from a simple unicellular organism?

p.s i believe in God...no matter how he is worshipped....but i DONT believe that GOD HAS AN INFLUENCE IN DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES OF HUMANS....what ever we do today is responsible for events taking place tomorrow....GOD does not control it nor does he wish to...

 

[modern_newton]

with regars to the post above "mordern Newton"....its funny that you have Newton as your name and you support religion.......
here is my belief.......science strives to explain everything....while religion tries to cover up facts till science catches up with an explanation

its you who is trying to be funny by saying that scientist cannot follow religous beliefs. so einstein was funny when he said science without religion is lame. you are also ignorant if you think science is not compatiable with religion. i dont believe in creation of universe in 7 Days or earth is flat because i am not christian but i dont know a single fact of science which contradict with islamic belief

 

[Masterchief]

its worthless to ponder whether he was racist its worthless to ponder over this issue, he is a dead man.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Can't refute Darwin't theory of evolution? Can't prove there are flying angels?

Lets character assassinate Darwin. Easy.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Peoples who are involved in science vs religion kind of debate. They both try to convince each other that their view is the right view, by assuming that the other side has the same judgment criteria as their side does. With that assumption the debate between them cannot possibly reach any conclusion. The fact of the matter is that religion and science each have a different set of criteria of judging what is "real" in the world. Simply put, science demands physical EVIDENCE in order to state that something exists. Religion on the other hand is actually based on the LACK OF EVIDENCE. That's what faith is all about: To believe in something simply because you FEEL that it is true, NOT because you have evidence that it is. In fact, the foundation of faith is based on the lack of evidence.

If faith required evidence then it wouldn't be called faith, it would be called "observation". So how can a debate between science, which fundamentally requires evidence, and religion, which fundamentally does not, lead anywhere if one of the sides does not realize and respect that each "field" reaches the same destination but from a completely different road?

So science and religion should stop arguing against each other, start respecting each other and realize that they are both equally valuable in our world for quite different reasons

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Can't prove there are flying angels?

If science cannot prove angles that don't necessarily mean angels don't exist
There are still many things which science will try to prove in future but they are existing althought not discovered yet

 

[notsuperstitious]

If science cannot prove angles that don't necessarily mean angels don't exist
There are still many things which science will try to prove in future but they are existing althought not discovered yet

Hey, science does not claim angels exist. The proof of burden is on those who claim they do.

Although a theory to begin with, evolution has been studied with an open mind by thousands and we debate still. But looks like that debate is being lost by those who believe but won't bother to prove angels exist, hence a character attack on the proponent of the theory.

Nothing surprising, thats how the angel and magic cults have operated historically, assassinations of various kinds, very useful tool in their labs

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Hey, science does not claim angels exist. The proof of burden is on those who claim they do.

if you read my previous post i said that science cannot prove existence of super natural concept like God, angels, hell, heaven etc. It is beyond the realm of science to explain these concepts. You did not understood what i said in previous post. It is stupid to expect science to prove beliefs lol. Do you know the difference between belief and science? If your beliefs get proven then they are not beliefs but formula or facts or scientific theories. I said many things are still unknown for science but they exist. Or you think that science have known/discovered all the truths and absolute knowledge about everything. Do you believe science has its limitations?