Why Darwinism is a saner attitude...

[Estro Felino]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

 

[Nakosis]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

I don't know that Darwinism has an inherent mandate to improve. It is more an indication that we will change as a species. How we change may help us survive as a species or it may not. We will change, no guarantee this change will be "better".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It's useful for understanding what is and predicting what will be. It says nothing about what ought to be or what we ought to do. Don't impose your personal values on science.

 

[columbus]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Darwinism is a 19th century relic that has long been overshadowed by better science.
Darwinism is rather primitive and racist, and while it helped boost the scientific method, modern scientists don't much bother with it any more.
Tom

 

[Estro Felino]

Evolution is a scientific theory. It's useful for understanding what is and predicting what will be. It says nothing about what ought to be or what we ought to do. Don't impose your personal values on science.

Anthropology is much underestimated as science, for it is absolutely necessary to watch the human being from the outside to understand him.

 

[Jose Fly]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Well, if we're referring to evolution when we say "Darwinism", then yeah, it's much more sane due to the simple fact that we directly see populations evolve new traits, genetic sequences, and even species, whereas we never see supernatural beings creating anything.

 

[Twilight Hue]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Not only that, Darwinism gets refined over the years as science and technology advances , this as a result answers more questions and allows for adjustments to those new findings as well as new questions that may arise. Cladistics for example.

Christianity probably would be better off as a religion if it had changed and adjusted with the times. Stagnation can only take you so far before you realize one day , that the expiration date had let out long ago.

Unlike the theory of Darwinism, as with all the sciences , the ability to adjust with new information is a given .

Christianity cannot change and adjust because it's clearly not a science and any reasonable person will know that it cannot be compared in that way, as Christianity has a dogma steeped in mythology, and science , which isn't steeped in mythology doesn't, by which rather, is completely based on clear established fact by which various hypotheses and theories are presented.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anthropology is much underestimated as science, for it is absolutely necessary to watch the human being from the outside to understand him.

In and of itself, understanding how human beings are tells us nothing about how human beings ought to be.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

 

[Estro Felino]

In and of itself, understanding how human beings are tells us nothing about how human beings ought to be.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

You quote Hume.
I can speak of the Kantian imperative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You quote Hume.
I can speak of the Kantian imperative.

Is that what you call it?

 

[shunyadragon]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

I avoid the terms Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, because it encourages a personality cult, and is often used in the negative by Creationists. I prefer simply the 'Science of Evolution,' and the 'Science of Abiogenesis' for the science of origins of life. The terms 'Science of Evolution' and 'Science of Abiogenesis' won't be used by Creationists.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I don't know that Darwinism has an inherent mandate to improve. It is more an indication that we will change as a species. How we change may help us survive as a species or it may not. We will change, no guarantee this change will be "better".

Have you read his first book? Are you aware that he did not intend Evolution to attack Religion?

 

[Nakosis]

Have you read his first book? Are you aware that he did not intend Evolution to attack Religion?

Yes, I was aware of that.

 

[ChristineM]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Darwin (and others) made a good start to the science of evolution which has descovered much.

 

[leov]

...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Creationism is of two types Young Earth and Old Earth.

 

[ChristineM]

Creationism is of two types Young Earth and Old Earth.

And still dangerous

 

[leov]

And still dangerous

OEC is streamline theory,it explains beginning of inorganic and organic matter, life and consciousness, reason why we exist.

 

[Shad]

I don't know that Darwinism has an inherent mandate to improve. It is more an indication that we will change as a species. How we change may help us survive as a species or it may not. We will change, no guarantee this change will be "better".

Adapt is the word to use. Better requires context and a comparison which may be very limited in scope.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Darwinism is a 19th century relic that has long been overshadowed by better science.
Darwinism is rather primitive and racist, and while it helped boost the scientific method, modern scientists don't much bother with it any more.
Tom

It was rather racist even in the longer form of the title of the book

Darwin was an extension of the geology of Lyell which also had it's own flaws since slow and gradual explanations of geology are not not always the way to go

The assertion here is that evolution ex nihilo makes more sense than creation ex nihilo It doesn't

 

[columbus]

It was rather racist even in the longer form of the title of the book

Darwin was a European Christian from a top colonial power.
Of course he was racist. Almost all of them were.
Tom