Darwins not alone in being attacked by Religion over his scientific ideas.

[MissCatholic]

The religious right of America has been assaulting the ideas of Charles Darwin. People are divided on its role in society. But this is not the only case that the religious right has attacked a great scientist. So i give you Isaac Newton - the man who ushered in the modern world with his three laws of motion, gravity, color theory, optics and so much more that affect our life today. And the church tried to destroy him during his life but like Darwin after it also.

In 1642, a mother gave birth to a premature boy who barely survived and he was called Isaac Newton. Newton is today regarded as the greatest sicientist ever to have lived.

At the age of 5, Isaac wanted to see a comet. But he didn't want to wait to see a comet so he decided to build a large kite and attach fireworks on the end to try and get a sense of what a comet looks like in the night sky. This was the beginning of the genius.

At the age of 7, a huge storm gave Newton another idea. Newton wanted to see what affect his jump had with the wind but also against it. He recorded his findings and discovered that mass has an affect on distance. Hence we have the term 'newton'. This was the first time that a person ever used numbers to test things and then use the numbers as proof.

At the age of 14, Newton was at school and he stood up and said 'Aristotle and Plato are my friends. But truth is a greater one'. Newton sat down and wrote 50 things that he wanted to research ranging from levity, geometry, gravity and density.

At the age of 18 the falling apple incident occured. But Newton had no numbers to prove his idea on gravitatonal forces so he wanted to get into optics.

Newton changed the way we see the stars today. Before we used to use lenses. Newton invented a 10 inch telescope using mirrors. This basic model is still used today.

But the religious right never took any notice of his works until he reached 20. When Newton stated that 'White light is not pure' through his work on refraction the whole of the religioius establishment condemned him as white light was the color of God. It is regarded today as one of the best speeches ever to be heard at Trinity College Cambridge.

Newton was outraged by the church and wrote a detailed account of all his works on Color theory thorugh refraction and his little tiny prism. The church still condemned him and claimed that Newton wa doing the devils work.

So Newton told the science community that they didnt deserve the chance to listen to his ideas. He then tried to prove that he was not the devil and examined the Bible for around 5 years. Newton believed that it was possibly that the Devil did exist in the 4th century through the texts of revelation but he had no real proof. Remember he believed numbers were the only sound way of proving things.

Newton was approached in 1664 after they discovered the distance of the moon from the earth. Newton could now do his work on gravity and show the world that he was not the devil but he was a genius.

Newton found a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force. His work on the tides and the distance from the moon gave him the evidence to prove his theory.
He also talked about the laws of motion, resistance, friction, acceleration. This one book created a science that we all do today - Physics.

BUT ---RELIGIOUS RIGHT READ THE BOOK AND SAID IT WAS THE DEVILS WORK -- After the attacks from the church, Newton said

' i leave you with ideas and i suspect you will try and destory them'

For centuries the religious right continued to attack Newtons work on color theory and the Universe just like Darwin is today.

NASA still use Newtons equations. Infact every person on the planet uses something that Newton calculated through his book.

Outraged by this, Newton never did another science expeirment and never did any work. He burnt all his manuscripts and we'll never know what else he would have discovered.

Religion is trying to destroy Charles Darwin.
They tried with Newton and they succeeded in destroying his life. He is one of the greats who flourished after his death. The religious right just have a problem with genius.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Out of interest, does anyone reckon that the other discover of evolution (the story behind all this is truely surreal, btw), Alfred Russel Wallace, would "sell" evolution better to a lot of people?
Certainly a more interesting person than Darwin

[KillerPollo]

The religious right of America has been assaulting the ideas of Charles Darwin. People are divided on its role in society. But this is not the only case that the religious right has attacked a great scientist. So i give you Isaac Newton - the man who ushered in the modern world with his three laws of motion, gravity, color theory, optics and so much more that affect our life today. And the church tried to destroy him during his life but like Darwin after it also.

In 1642, a mother gave birth to a premature boy who barely survived and he was called Isaac Newton. Newton is today regarded as the greatest sicientist ever to have lived.

At the age of 5, Isaac wanted to see a comet. But he didn't want to wait to see a comet so he decided to build a large kite and attach fireworks on the end to try and get a sense of what a comet looks like in the night sky. This was the beginning of the genius.

At the age of 7, a huge storm gave Newton another idea. Newton wanted to see what affect his jump had with the wind but also against it. He recorded his findings and discovered that mass has an affect on distance. Hence we have the term 'newton'. This was the first time that a person ever used numbers to test things and then use the numbers as proof.

At the age of 14, Newton was at school and he stood up and said 'Aristotle and Plato are my friends. But truth is a greater one'. Newton sat down and wrote 50 things that he wanted to research ranging from levity, geometry, gravity and density.

At the age of 18 the falling apple incident occured. But Newton had no numbers to prove his idea on gravitatonal forces so he wanted to get into optics.

Newton changed the way we see the stars today. Before we used to use lenses. Newton invented a 10 inch telescope using mirrors. This basic model is still used today.

But the religious right never took any notice of his works until he reached 20. When Newton stated that 'White light is not pure' through his work on refraction the whole of the religioius establishment condemned him as white light was the color of God. It is regarded today as one of the best speeches ever to be heard at Trinity College Cambridge.

Newton was outraged by the church and wrote a detailed account of all his works on Color theory thorugh refraction and his little tiny prism. The church still condemned him and claimed that Newton wa doing the devils work.

So Newton told the science community that they didnt deserve the chance to listen to his ideas. He then tried to prove that he was not the devil and examined the Bible for around 5 years. Newton believed that it was possibly that the Devil did exist in the 4th century through the texts of revelation but he had no real proof. Remember he believed numbers were the only sound way of proving things.

Newton was approached in 1664 after they discovered the distance of the moon from the earth. Newton could now do his work on gravity and show the world that he was not the devil but he was a genius.

Newton found a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force. His work on the tides and the distance from the moon gave him the evidence to prove his theory.
He also talked about the laws of motion, resistance, friction, acceleration. This one book created a science that we all do today - Physics.

BUT ---RELIGIOUS RIGHT READ THE BOOK AND SAID IT WAS THE DEVILS WORK -- After the attacks from the church, Newton said

' i leave you with ideas and i suspect you will try and destory them'

For centuries the religious right continued to attack Newtons work on color theory and the Universe just like Darwin is today.

NASA still use Newtons equations. Infact every person on the planet uses something that Newton calculated through his book.

Outraged by this, Newton never did another science expeirment and never did any work. He burnt all his manuscripts and we'll never know what else he would have discovered.

Religion is trying to destroy Charles Darwin.
They tried with Newton and they succeeded in destroying his life. He is one of the greats who flourished after his death. The religious right just have a problem with genius.

I believe I already talked about my opinion on the "religious right. They are lukewarm cowards who mold the bible into what they please and use it in a whorish manner.

[MissCatholic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe I already talked about my opinion on the "religious right. They are lukewarm cowards who mold the bible into what they please and use it in a whorish manner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well i think they just give religion a terrible name.

[Giant Saguaro]

My problem isn't with evolution per se, but rather natural selection. Evolution can often be presented in a way that assumes natural selection.

More often than not, religion shouldn't tell science that science is wrong like science shouldn't tell religion that religion is wrong. But we too often do this, both sides. It gets back to faith - some put their faith in science and others in their religious convictions.

[John Dibble]

My problem isn't with evolution per se, but rather natural selection. Evolution can often be presented in a way that assumes natural selection.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with natural selection?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The religious right of America has been assaulting the ideas of Charles Darwin. People are divided on its role in society. But this is not the only case that the religious right has attacked a great scientist. So i give you Isaac Newton...

Sorry, but I refuse to take responsibility for another person's mistakes, Christian or otherwise.

Drinking coffee is NOT against any biblical teaching, yet some legalistic Christians think so.  But that doesn't make me responsible for their beliefs, nor does their entanglement in legalism make me a legalist.

Anal/oral sex between a husband and a wife is also NOT against any biblical teaching, yet some legalistic Christians think so.  But that doesn't make me responsible for their beliefs, nor does their entanglement in legalism make me a legalist.

The theories of Isaac Newton are NOT against any biblical teaching, Darwin's are.  I am not opposed to Newton's theories, but I am opposed to Darwin's.

[Giant Saguaro]

My problem isn't with evolution per se, but rather natural selection. Evolution can often be presented in a way that assumes natural selection.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with natural selection?

Too much disagreement among biologists about how much it's assisting evolution, if at all. Basic evolution as understood today doesn't deny a Creator at all and personally, I don't have an issue with evolution.

Over the last several years it's been interesting as I keep an eye on the science section of the book store the number of books coming out that deal with the existance of a Creator and speculation about that, which I think is great. I mean we speculate about all sorts of things and just look for math to say how it *could have* happened. The Science of God or something like that was a title I saw and a good many others. I mean why not? It's a serious inquiry. So I think many libs are being a bit paranoid when they react so strongly against something like Intelligent Design - it's either opening the doors of the schools to the Pope or else it's just "pseudo science," neither of which are true at all.

[Emsworth]

My problem isn't with evolution per se, but rather natural selection. Evolution can often be presented in a way that assumes natural selection.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with natural selection?

Too much disagreement among biologists about how much it's assisting evolution, if at all.

Yes; when a scientist speaks of the "theory of evolution," he speaks of "evolution by natural selection." That evolution occurred is not in dispute among scientists, really; what is disputed (if anything) is evolution by natural selection.

[John Dibble]

My problem isn't with evolution per se, but rather natural selection. Evolution can often be presented in a way that assumes natural selection.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with natural selection?

Too much disagreement among biologists about how much it's assisting evolution, if at all.

Yes; when a scientist speaks of the "theory of evolution," he speaks of "evolution by natural selection." That evolution occurred is not in dispute among scientists, really; what is disputed (if anything) is evolution by natural selection.

The thing about natural selection is that it can't really create new traits - it brings good ones to the forefront and elimates bad ones, but you can't create something new with natural selection alone. Of course, natural selection is accelerated by isolating a group of animals, but that still won't create an all together new species. I think mutation is mainly what guides true evolution, and I'm sure natural selection does have an effect on the end result.

[Gabu]

My problem isn't with evolution per se, but rather natural selection. Evolution can often be presented in a way that assumes natural selection.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with natural selection?

Too much disagreement among biologists about how much it's assisting evolution, if at all.

Yes; when a scientist speaks of the "theory of evolution," he speaks of "evolution by natural selection." That evolution occurred is not in dispute among scientists, really; what is disputed (if anything) is evolution by natural selection.

The thing about natural selection is that it can't really create new traits - it brings good ones to the forefront and elimates bad ones, but you can't create something new with natural selection alone. Of course, natural selection is accelerated by isolating a group of animals, but that still won't create an all together new species. I think mutation is mainly what guides true evolution, and I'm sure natural selection does have an effect on the end result.

From what I understand, the theory is a two-step process: mutations occur, and then natural selection determines whether the mutuation was "good" or not.  If the mutation causes the creature to thrive and reproduce more than creatures without it, it will be propogated and will be entered into the gene pool.  If the mutation causes the creature to suffer and if it makes reproduction more difficult, then it will eventually be eliminated from the gene pool.  I don't think either step can really be pegged down to be less important than the other.

Of course, this assumes no outside interference, such as scientists unnaturally keeping someone alive.

[John Dibble]

Of course, this assumes no outside interference, such as scientists unnaturally keeping someone alive.

Actually, I think human society in general discourages natural selection - it's easy for humans to survive, and really we don't have any natural predators. Until some sort of forcing comes along, we're pretty much stuck where we are.

[Gabu]

Actually, I think human society in general discourages natural selection - it's easy for humans to survive, and really we don't have any natural predators. Until some sort of forcing comes along, we're pretty much stuck where we are.

Yes, I know, that's precisely why I made that comment.

[Erc]

And which is why, come the apocalypse (small 'a'), its us fat, overmedicated, socialized-healthcare Westerners who are going to be hardest hit when civilization comes crashing down--and it's the Africans and the Indians who will survive, not us.

[A18]

Thanks for contributing this really dumb topic to the forum. I really appreciate it.