I've read his primary works The voyage of the Beagle and The origin of Species
>>17041609faggot
>>17041621kys nigger
>>17041622no u
>>17041609He was not nearly as original as claimed. His work did not originate from observations on the HMS Beagle in the Galapagos. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had his own theories of evolution based on pagan philosophy.One of the big deficiencies of modern science is an absolute refusal to acknowledge the religious/philosophical underpinnings and implications of their theories.
>>17041609He did a science once. Also fucked his cousin.>>17041793>One of the big deficiencies of modern science is an absolute refusal to acknowledge the religious/philosophical underpinnings and implications of their theories.Because they're irrelevant. That's not a deficiency, it's by design. Conflating scientific findings with the philosophy of those that made them is literally a genetic fallacy.
>>17041890>Because they're irrelevant. That's not a deficiency, it's by design. Conflating scientific findings with the philosophy of those that made them is literally a genetic fallacy.I disagree. People have the right to know if your study of the miraculous health benefits of chocolate was funded by Hershey's. When the shoe is on the other foot no one hesitates to say, "wait a minute, isn't your study of creationism funded by and required to adhere to the dogmas of your religion?"A person's conflicts of interests do not necessarily falsify their findings... but there isn't a single journal anywhere in the world that considers it ethical to conceal them.Darwin concealed his conflicts of interest... namely that he was funded and promoted by a devil-worship cult (freemasons) dedicated to the destruction of Christianity.Its only a genetic fallacy if I claim that it falsifies Darwins theory (it does not). Revealing bias and conflict of interest is appropriate, concealing it puts a black mark on the research.The original question was not, "what do you think of evolution?" it was "what do you think of Charles Darwin the man?" and, I think he was an unethical cousin fucker that ultimately held back the study of biology by suppressing Fr. Gregor Mendel's thoroughly proven work on genetics. Darwin was a piece of shit.
>>17041793>One of the big deficiencies of modern science is an absolute refusal to acknowledge the religious/philosophical underpinnings and implications of their theories.Is that you, aethertard?
>>17041945What the fuck are you even talking about you stupid piece of shit?
>>17041939>Darwin concealed his conflicts of interest... namely that he was funded and promoted by a devil-worship cult (freemasons) dedicated to the destruction of ChristianityThank you for announcing your schizophrenia. I appreciate you letting me know in advance that I should disregard everything you say
>>17041939>The original question was not, "what do you think of evolution?" it was "what do you think of Charles Darwin the man?"Yes. And it's perfectly valid to not like Darwin for whatever reason you wish.The problem is you tried to pivot that into a claim about a supposed "deficiency of modern science." Unelss you can demonstrate how Darwin's personal spiritual beliefs impacted his methodology or biased his findings, then there is no conflict of interest to report.
>>17041609I have no opinion on the person but obsessing over him is a super efficient tell that you can discard whoever drones on about him as an NPC.It's either christofascists trying to recruit people with unhinged creationist gobbledigook or normie science "enthusiasts" who watch too much popsci garbage. Neither have anything of worth to say.
>>17042074>Unelss you can demonstrate how Darwin's personal spiritual beliefs impacted his methodology or biased his findings, then there is no conflict of interest to report.NTA but you're retarded if you can't see how the unfalsifiable metaphysical idea of Darwinism -- that being all of nature is a mechanical struggle for limited resources -- is a trick utilized by the eugenicist british ruling class to cement their right to rule.
>>17042956Evolution is bulk behavior that emerges statistically, the idea that it necessitates a single individual to do nothing but struggle for resources is the type of reasoning that you would pull out to decry thermodynamics as a [babble]-ist ploy to [fan fiction], had you the same magical thinking about molecules as you do about humans, other animals, plants, fungi and primitive organisms. Of course, the entire thread is self-discrediting from the start, given the premise hinges on people being willing to debate your ilk on the grounds of 1800s science, because that is the upper limit of what a humanities major can keep up with.
>>17043048>the idea that it necessitates a single individual to do nothing but struggle for resources is the type of reasoning that you would pull out to decry thermodynamics as a [babble]-ist ploy to [fan fiction], had you the same magical thinking about molecules as you do about humans, other animals, plants, fungi and primitive organisms.This string of word salad is the best thing Darwinists can come up with? Sad.
>>17043049are the "Darwinists" in the room with us, Anon? Do you really think modern evolutionary theory has not progressed since the 1800s?
>>17043050This thread is about Charles Darwin, cretin.
>>17043052see above>Of course, the entire thread is self-discrediting from the start, given the premise hinges on people being willing to debate your ilk on the grounds of 1800s science, because that is the upper limit of what a humanities major can keep up with.I should add "it is also a thinly veiled Christofascist thread", but that goes without saying
>>17043053I don't care Christianity makes you dilate. I'm saying there's a very obvious reason Darwin is pushed more than his peer Albert Russel Wallace.
>>17043054*AlfredIt's late.
>>17043054>I don't care Christianity makes you dilatechristcuck located
>>17043056>immediate trooncase replylol/sci/ posters are pathetic sissies.
>>17043054>dilateyou couldn't help but expose your fetish. I heard piercings are really in fashion among debatecucks, especially in the neck area. You should try it!I am sure you deeply care about that Alber- I mean, Alfred's theory, and surely have a cohesive picture incorporating modern fidings, and not just more crypto creationist schizophrenia? >>>/pol/
>>17043065You are seething.>I am sure you deeply care about that Alber- I mean, Alfred's theory>he made... LE TYPO
>>17043054>there's a very obvious reason Darwin is pushed more than his peer Albert Russel Wallace.And that very obvious reason is the fact that Darwin wrote the book and the HMS Beagle voyage makes for a much more interesting story than Wallace's sedentary pontificating. Not everything's a conspiracy. In fact, most things aren't.
>>17043093>And that very obvious reason is the fact that Darwin wrote the book and the HMS Beagle voyage makes for a much more interesting story than Wallace's sedentary pontificating.The actual reason is largely class-based, which should be obvious due to the fact that Darwin's own recommendations to the Royals failed to grant Wallace the commendations he deserved, but I'm sure sensationalism goes a very long way in immortalizing your name, yes.>Not everything's a conspiracy. In fact, most things aren't.Stating that Darwin being spiritually closer to the zeitgeist of the British elite, thus largely owing Darwin's rise to prominence is not a "conspiracy". It's funny how myopically naive this board is about how politics shapes science and vice versa, though. Do you think humans are just mechanistic robots that operate on the assumption that science is *literally* linear, and not subject to the scrutiny of mainstream cultural beliefs?
>>17043095Wallace received a Crown Pension and several medals for his contributions. He was well recognized for his work at the time and you are simply incorrect about the things you are claiming.It was only later that Darwin became the sole focus in education because it's easier to teach children a simple and exciting narrative about a guy going on an adventure and writing a book about it.
>>17043095all this babble without a single verifiable claim about the actual science or empirical evidence, what modern findings are in greater agreement with him?
>>17043095It is much bigger than that. We have to evolve beyond the chains and dogma of reality. Transcending the possible is the realm of science. A belief in mundane political expediency can't ground the conditionals for a better tomorrow. If you don't think a castrated furry getting ass fucked is synonymous with woman, then you should keep your mouth shut about the science. There is no room for bigotry veiled in concern trolling or scapegoating "the oppressors."
Evolution is for the goyim to believe in.
>>17043163t. the exact kind of person making (and getting BTFO'd) threads like >>17042309, then seething when the vast bulk of people make fun of you
>>17043096>Wallace received a Crown Pension and several medals for his contributions. Yet Wallace never really enjoyed the prestige granted to him from being a part of the so-called elite scientific class like Darwin now, did he? >He was well recognized for his work at the time and you are simply incorrect about the things you are claiming.He remained poor and ostracized by the scientific community if Darwin didn't set up a pension for him, dishonest lying rat.>It was only later that Darwin became the sole focus in education because it's easier to teach children a simple and exciting narrative about a guy going on an adventure and writing a book about it.>who's naturalistic philosophy also happened to align perfectly with the elitist materialist reductionist casteUh huh.>>17043119Mendelian genetics proved Wallace to be more correct than Darwin.
>>17043189>Yet Wallace never really enjoyed the prestige granted to him from being a part of the so-called elite scientific class like Darwin now, did he?What does that even mean to you?
Freemason.
>>17041609Based. No historical figure inspires so much seething as he does with religious fundamentalists
