Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Evolution: Inception, Deception and Corruption

Important: this is nothing more than my own personal anecdotal evaluation of evolution. It isn't from an informed or even particularly interested perspective. It isn't meant to be a technical oriented debate for which I am admittedly unprepared to engage in. You can't ask for anything more from me. It is what it is.

[b][c=A69800]I'M MAKING NO CLAIMS[/c][/b]

I offer only my uninformed opinion based upon personal experience and what little knowledge I've been presented with over time. For my own possible instruction through any correction in response. I'm pretty confident that no one here will agree with my conclusions.

Evolution is an ancient philosophy. Evolutionists are often surprised upon learning of Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle's primitive contributions. @newjaninev2 has mentioned, and I agree, that Darwin didn't "invent" evolution and there was something going on between the ancients and Darwin. What that is, I don't know, perhaps newjan can inform us.

From the ancient philosophical perspective I see evolution in its primitive rudimentary form, well, as purely philosophical. Epistemological.

Definitions are . . . .

Philosophy: the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.

Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

What I think happened is that with the first industrial revolution the aristocracy began rightfully to question the oppressive and repressive paradigm of theocracy.

Aristocracy: the highest class in certain societies, especially those holding hereditary titles or offices.

Theocracy: a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

Perhaps elite would be more accurate than aristocracy.

Elite: a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.

In short, power shifted from the priest to the intelligentsia.

Intelligentsia: intellectuals or highly educated people as a group, especially when regarded as possessing culture and political influence.

Even that is problematic because the intelligentsia had been the theocracy until their influence began to wane. So it was a class struggle.

Class: the system of ordering a society in which people are divided into sets based on perceived social or economic status.

The objective was to diminish God.

The advent of steam powered machines, though not incorporated on land in the UK, had a global impact on this alleged struggle in two ways that I can see. The obvious resulting mass migration introducing and popularizing alternative and/or atheistic belief systems and more interesting, the availability of exotic animals touring internationally, especially in the puritanical US.

It was common to cover even piano legs with clothing to maintain pure intentions. A favorite among the aforementioned exotic animals was the chimpanzee, who was dressed in human attire for comical and puritanical reasons.

They look so human. Darwin believed that monkeys, apes and humans must have a common ancestor because of our great similarities compared to other species.

The objective, or motive, if you like, for the struggle having been established all that was needed was to fill in the gaps, no pun intended.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DocSavage · M
[quote] But you aren't a scientist. Science is distorted by militant radical fundamentalist atheists in a religious fervor. That's what you are. So they can do away with God. That is what baffles me about them. If they don't want gods all they have to do is not have gods. They don't want anyone else to have gods. Because gods get in the way of their religion.[/quote]

Does anyone else here, enjoy the incredible hypocrisy.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@DocSavage Well, it’s certainly entertaining and amusing.

I’m left wondering how ‘I have no gods’ can be characterised as militant, radical, and fundamentalist. 😂
Really · 80-89, M
@DocSavage I don't see enough intelligible content to discern anything as coherent as hypocrisy.
redredred · M
@newjaninev2 You should come and join our No-Gods-Club. We need every Sunday morning and have a good rant about there being no god. We talk about the ten rules to be a good no-god person. You’re expected to wear your Sunday best too.

Btw, we take up a collection so bring a few bucks. Oh, and you might want to buy our book. It’s super old, 100% true and only $29.95.
@redredred I don't know who this was addressed to, but I never join groups, it leads to or facilitates group think. Plus, if I was ignorant enough to think there were no gods I wouldn't see the logic in objecting to them any more than I would Santa Claus, rotary engines or pitri dishes. Even if I personally had no gods. That would seem petty, hypocritical, xenophobic, ignorant and pointless to me.

On the other hand, so would objecting to a No-Gods-Club. You see what I did there? I took the sociopolitical bullshit out of my life and replaced it with a deep sigh of contentment. I freed myself from ideological fixations.
redredred · M
@AkioTsukino You should free yourself from the remaining mass of psychological defects apparent in virtually everything you write.
This message was deleted by its author.