2007-03-16 12:16:07 · 39 answers · asked by fiddich59 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
He was a scientist and an excellent one at that.
He also was a very unorganized writer though.
2007-03-16 12:21:36 · answer #1 · answered by gruz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm an agnostic and I regard Darwin only as a source of information. I do not now and may never understand enough to be able to translate that information into meaning and then into understanding. I do not assume that Darwin was right and nor do I assume that Darwin was wrong. I will only go so far as to tentatively suggest that his observations fit in reasonably well with the small amount of understanding that I already possess.
2007-03-16 12:23:24 · answer #2 · answered by Dharma Nature 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Atheists don't believe in gods. I know that might be a hard concept for you to understand, especially if you need a god for some reason, but we don't believe in ANY gods, and we don't make our own gods or prophets.
Darwin was a scientist who had a good idea. That doesn't mean anything else he ever did was necessarily right, just that he had a good idea.
2007-03-16 12:23:29 · answer #3 · answered by eri 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just a scientist, and a naturalist. Our we seeing the world through our Christian lens again? Not every person is either a prophet, a teacher or a follower, there are lots of other things to be.
2007-03-16 12:20:10 · answer #4 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Prophet is a religious title, its a word made up by religious people to give their cult leaders a name. Sir Charles Darwin was a man, and moreover, a scientist.
2007-03-16 12:19:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
read about him. He wasn't just brilliant- but incredibly hard working. What he went through to prepare for that famous journey and how fastidious he was about examining, preparing and retaining specimens is just incredible. The guy earned his fame.
He found a flower on the Galapagos who's nectar was down a three foot long tube and surmised that there must be a moth with a three foot long proboscis. the moth was discovered 100 years later (or thereabouts).
2007-03-16 12:27:01 · answer #6 · answered by Morey000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither, he was a scientist.
Why do people think that everyone else SOMEHOW has to view the world through the same lens as them - with preachers, and holy books and prophets and whatnot? That's half of what we reject. It must seem strange to you, but that's how it is.
2007-03-16 12:20:54 · answer #7 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A scientist, such a thing as a prophet does not exist in the real world.
2007-03-16 14:00:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Darwin was simply a scientist. One of many through the years who've contributed to the knowledge of mankind.
It's spelled "atheist".
2007-03-16 12:22:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A scientist. Nothing more, nothing less.
Atheists have no religion; a prophet is a religious figure. So they really can't have prophets.
2007-03-16 12:23:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As an atheist, I view Darwin as the supreme being who created the universe and everything in it. He will judge all of mankind when the Final Judgement occurs and will send people to Extinctoville if they were bad where they will have their hineys bitten by T-Rexes for eternity.
2007-03-16 12:20:19 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋