l. You have to accept the reality of both the good and bad to have an accurate reading of history.

If you could take the man Out of History and sit him down with you today, you are correct.

But he’s a part of history. His ideas influenced others, for better (Watson/Crick) or for worse (social Darwinism, etc).

Many good fruits were borne of Darwin’s ideas, but many bad fruits as well. You have to accept the reality of both the good and bad to have an accurate reading of history.

 

Within the scientific community, yes.
But that’s just one single community out of a large system of communities of humans on this planet.

 

To you, yes. But there’s more to the world than just science. The man influenced much more than a limited sphere of the sciences. Even within the sciences, his ideas have been lifted and applied to unrelated areas in the sciences, for better and for worse.

 

I’m a huge fan of science. When ideas stay within their proper realm, it’s great. I was just watching a video on Standard Model – a talk given by the marvelous John Ellis just last night and today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjR80peV9Os – and his attitude is proper, I believe.

He’s not a fan of the anthropic principle NOR multiverse theories BECAUSE they cause scientists to stray too far away from what’s necessary to conquer what we know.

Stick with the experimental data. Work the theories deeper into what we already know.

Same holds true with Darwinism and the like.

Staying WITHIN the boundaries of the field is critical to ensure progress within the field.

That doesn’t mean one can’t draw parallels and make analogies based on it for interest’s sake (Dawkin’s Meme for example) – but it’s purely a curiousity. He’s not a sociologist. Not that he can’t shed light on sociology; just as some ideas from physics can certainly enlighten other fields.

But drawing analogies – forming metaphors can be very dangerous if over-applied or misapplied.

English Common Law itself is Christian in origin.

Modern Science is Christian in origin, particularly the segmentation of the Sciences into knowledge silos. They are a direct product of medieval Western Christian Scholastic movement.

 

Look at the common arguments you see:

a) Christianity is bad because of what the people who followed in the name of Christianity did.

b) Darwinism is bad because of what the people who followed in the name of Darwinism did.

You must accept both as valid if you are going to accept one as valid, or invalidate both.

 

Ok, can you see what you did there?

In a) lifting individual lines is ok.

in b) lifting individual lines was not ok. The whole theory or nothing.

Scriptures read OUTSIDE of the context of a particular religious body are out of context.

To me, in the case of Christiandom, the debatable point would be between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism, depending on your view of history.

Pre-Great Schism, they were one body. There were ALSO bodies split off during the Ecumenical councils as well, but they’re all very close to ‘original’.

But post Protestantism, they are the equivalent of taking Darwin and getting “social Darwinism” – a misreading of texts.

That is the only way I can see a fair comparison between the two.

 

I hereby invalidate all post Reformation bodies as being considered Christian.

It is only POST Luther than Scripture was “open to interpretation”, before that, there was an Orthodoxy, JUST LIKE THERE IS in Sciences today.

=—

My my. Ate Dawkin’s cookies I see. The fragmentation is due to the fact of having BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME, duh.

What’s the history of the modern scientific movement? 300 yrs perhaps? 350? Little skipping stones back to Ancient greece without continuity? Please.

—-

I’d go with Plato for that. No Platonic Realm, no ideals, no space to have all the perfected geometries, or mathematics, or gods to live in tongue emoticon

 

 

people forget what schools the Arabs went to. The Byzantine schools.

The two cultures mixed, shared architecture, learning, etc.

One modern myth is that somehow ancient Greek stuff was ‘lost’.

But it was never lost. It was taught continually both to the Greeks AND to the Arabs.

Constantiple was a mixing pot of cultures for a thousand years. Sure, it had crap period; the two hundred years before it fell resulted in many Greeks fleeting to Italy to form schools and educate the Italians on the ‘lost knowledge’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 − = two

Leave a Reply