How many evolutionists have actually read a book by Darwin?

Question

Theists of all denominations fastidiously study their sacred texts, how many evolutionists have actually waded through Darwins' Origin of Species with the same vigour?

Answer 1

i haven't cause every time i open it it just seems sorta, 1800ish and not in a dickens way

i enjoy museums that show the fossils

i suppose i should read a darwin

i have other stuff on evolution from this century and last, not 1800s

Answer 2

Ah but to answer the question regarding evolution you have to first read both books in a festidious manner; I personally have not read much of the bible, I have read Darwins Origin of Species therefore I can only remark on what I have been taught!!!

However, how many people that study scared texts can tell me that such thing as time, fossils, and geology are wrong without first understanding the subject? You do not need to ready Darwin to get the appreciation of evolution, just understand how the earth works. I think im pretty well qualified to make an educated opinion regarding evolution, are you?

Answer 3

Not an evolutionist, but I accept evolution as the best supported explanation for speciation.

Never read Darwin's Origin of Species, and I don't need to. I have read hundreds of more recent publications about evolution, genetic mutation, and natural selection however.

What is your point? Ohh, let me guess. You are one of those morons that think a scientific theory is a religious discipline.

I guess that also makes me a gravitationalist and a sun-centricist.

Which is too bad, since I never read Newton's books on Gravity, nor Kepplers papers proving his formulas on planetary orbits.

Answer 4

Anyone of reasonably sound mind who read the Origin of Species would recognise it as being largely correct. The evidence for common descent, as presented in Darwin's work, is indisputable. I have read it, and I challenge anyone to make a substantive rebuttal of his work. No-one ever has thus far, and I doubt anyone ever will. Since the publication of that book, vastly more evidence is available and it all supports Darwin's premise that all living organisms are related by common descent. Them's the facts, like it or not.

Addendum: The answer above me, from Dannie002, is of course a flat-out lie. The fact that people feel they have to tell lies in order to try and discredit evolution is an indication of the fact that they know it's true.

What Charles Darwin actually wrote was:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

In other words the above poster has misquoted and taken out of context a piece of text which (of course) supports evolution rather than creationist nonsense. Not only that, but we know that the eye has evolved not once but many times independently, which only goes to show that evolution, far from being absurd, is inevitable.

Willful ignorance and dishonesty seem to be the core values of creationism...

Answer 5

Darwin is not relevant to the study of evolution, just as the Wright Bros. are not relevant to aeronautics. They are both pioneers who would hardly recognize the fields which they inspired.

Evolution does not depend on anything that Darwin theorized; they were only theories. Theories are made to be proven or disproven; they are not sacrosanct. Much of what Darwin said has been proven not to be true, however, it was done by proving what is true. And what is thought to be true today, may one day be proven otherwise. Such is the nature of science.

And, no, I haven't read Darwin, I have studied more recent work.

Answer 6

See, the element is, Darwin grew to become into only featuring an thought. of direction he won't be in a position to show how guy originated. yet he can propose theories on it. only like Christianity. What different data do you have that God created guy. using fact the bible, which grew to become into written sigificantly after guy's creation, says so? you would be wanting greater data than that. And to be honest, Darwin did grant adequate quantities of information. What did the bible grant? Cryptic lines that could be interpreted in any variety of tactics? you would be wanting greater data than that. have self belief in technology, not some thing somebody wrote down 1000's of years in the previous to describe some thing that extreme thinking can now clarify.

Answer 7

Science is not like religion, it is not based upon personal opinion, authority or inspiration. A historian of science tracing the changes in thought regarding evolution would definitely need to do so. A biologist needs to read what has been learned since then. I would be very concerned if there were a biology program teaching it for reasons other than history of thought any more than an economist should be reading Adam Smith.

Answer 8

Darwin's Theory was based on his reading of the Hindu beliefs. he just fell short of understanding and stopped at the apes period but nevertheless you will find that in many of his writings there is a tone of some human respect for life in his searches. Amidst his findings he did not to insult the creationist the way his believers are doing.

Answer 9

Never read Newton's Principia for calculus either. Prof. Bix was just fine.

For the Bible or the Constitution, better read the words because so many people think they say something they don't. For evolution, though, maybe you should pick up a more recent book with some genetics added.

Answer 10

I have read Darwin and all the mythologies of the world. I have a specialty masters in fairy tale literature and I still believe that there is a more powerful spirit than our own that began this big bang world. We are not alone and it is ignorant to think otherwise. Still in the Judea Christian bible in Genesis, there is a passage that discusses the Gods finding the women of the earth pleasing (gee wouldn't you say that meant they had sex with them?) Does that mean that perhaps there is a mixture of creationism with evolution? Hmmmm, just pondering.