The Literature Network
Authors: 261
Books: 2,949
Poems & Short Stories: 3,992
Forum Members: 61,868
Forum Posts: 734,139
Subscribe for ad free access & additional features.
Teacher Accounts with student management and more.
Teacher Accounts with student management and more.
The Origin of Species
Fan of this book? Help us introduce it to others by writing a better introduction for it. It's quick and easy, click here.
Quizzes on The Origin of Species
No quizzes available to take yet.
Please submit a quiz here.
Recent Forum Posts on The Origin of Species
Post a New Comment/Question on The Origin of Species
| Art of Worldly Wisdom Daily In the 1600s, Balthasar Gracian, a jesuit priest wrote 300 aphorisms on living life called "The Art of Worldly Wisdom." Join our newsletter below and read them all, one at a time. |
Sonnet-a-Day Newsletter Shakespeare wrote over 150 sonnets! Join our Sonnet-A-Day Newsletter and read them all, one at a time. |
the two ideas can coexist
the theory of evolution is not contrary to religion. those who take the bible too literaly are bound to find more errors in these new science movements but if you approach the bible as you would the asope fables or such things and think of it as a morale guidline then you see they dont contridict. the fact of the matter is during dinosaur time humans did not exist. the fossils we have prove as much. no sign of human life were found until much later. i am a firm catholic but have no problem seeing the 2 coexist. we must have evolved. if not from primates from something else. we must learn to be more flexible and these brilliant ideas would come faster to us! another thought to concider is that while darwin was far ahead of his time he was wrong on many accounts and theories. the evolution theory happens to remain a theory. here is one of my most favored quotes of charles darwin in the origin of species: "when i view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled." i love the evolution theory and these types of debates. just thought id say what my opinion was and id love to have replies!:D
Posted By readinlots at Tue 11 Mar 2008, 9:19 PM in The Origin of Species || 6 Replies
Science vs. Religion Who wins? Maybe neither
A very intriguing subject, but Darwin probably didnt know what he was getting himself into. In fact, he probably just wrote stuff down to fool around with all of us. And Albert Einstein said: Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame. Or something like that.
Posted By HannibalBarca at Wed 11 Apr 2007, 6:51 PM in The Origin of Species || 11 Replies
No Subject
Darwin's theory was so picturesquly written in ORIGIN OF SPECIES that we still read it with great joy an energy.
Posted By Suman Chakraborty at Tue 24 May 2005, 5:07 PM in The Origin of Species || 0 Replies
tolerance
"Anonymous" here has asked for tolerance between creationists and evolutionists.
I think Anonymous's treatment of people's beliefs, though perhaps kind, is unfortunately naive. There isn't really room for all of us if what s/he means is we should accept that God and evolution are in this universe together. Many people, including many scientists, undoubtedly hold this view, but "Simon james" can't accept the compromise any better than "Jennifer" can. And they shouldn't, because too many crucial aspects of life are based on it. Is there a God who looks on abortion as murder? Do husbands have the divine right to lead their households? Should we elect a president who doesn't believe in God? These things are too important for Jennifer and Simon james to compromise. Someone who firmly believes that God created man in the image of Himself can't possibly accept that chimpanzees and humans once interbred, and someone who believes that unaided evolution is the only source of life in the universe can't possibly accept that any particular religious values are inherently "good" or mandatory.
By the way, I find it funny that Jennifer railed at Jesus-fish creationists even though Simon james never said he was a Christian, and then tolerant Anonymous railed at scientists even though Jennifer never even hinted she was a scientist. Why the crappy polemics?
And P.S.: Sadly, it does look like Simon james quoted out of context.
Posted By Colin at Thu 11 Sep 2003, 12:00 AM in The Origin of Species || 2 Replies
Evolution vs. Creation
Isn't it funny how he writes in chapter 14 "On the...view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan.."
Darwin, who gave root to these evolutionary theories which condradict the presence of God, actually backs him up! This is evdience that Darwin understood that what he wrote was ONLY a theory...
Posted By andrew at Fri 28 Feb 2003, 12:00 AM in The Origin of Species || 15 Replies
No Subject
For everyone: If you'd like the essential arguments without having to read the entire work, try Chapter 15.
For religious people making feeble attempts to discredit the theory of evolution: Congratulations on your "theory" victory! Yes, evolution is only a theory, and at the time of its introduction, Darwin had--relative to now--scant evidence to support it. But before rejoicing just yet, please bother to take into account the 144-years'-worth of spectacularly compelling evidence observed and recorded by hundreds of thousands of people since the theory's introduction. The merit of a theory, after all, is based not only on the evidence present at the time of its publication but on every piece of evidence found thereafter. If your religion is so unfortunate as to need the theory of evolution to be false, it's a wonder it survived the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Or did it?
Posted By Karen Oriole at Thu 28 Apr 2005, 9:54 AM in The Origin of Species || 2 Replies
No Subject
TOTAL DISHONESTY!!! (the comments, not the book itself)
Certain jesus-fish-toting creationists are trying to mislead people by quoting chapter 14 out of context. Please read the replies to their comments, or read chapter 14 and judge for yourself.
And hey--creationists! Thou shalt not bear false witness against a book just because it showeth that Genesis is a load of crap.
Posted By hazy at Fri 21 Jan 2005, 2:54 PM in The Origin of Species || 1 Reply
No Subject
I am 17 and I am reading Origin of the Species for school. Before I read it I was lead to understand that Darwin was pointing out all of the faults of the creation theory (which I believe to be true) and saying why by backing it up with his evolution theory. I may be mistaken but I saw only maybe two instances where Darwin said the Creation theory was false. Nowhere does he say he is trying to replace the Creation theory and I think he lacked the evidence the same as we lack the evidence to uphold the evolution theory today.
Before I read the book I believed in Creation and after reading the book he failed to even budge me off of my position although I admit he made some very good points. An example on why he failed to change my position is shown on Page 182 when Darwin discusses man and beauty, 'it ought to be shown that before man appeared, there was less beauty on the face of the earth' That to me is an odd statement wouldn't the world be more serene, beautiful and peaceful without all of man's inventions and our destructive habits?
Another point that raised my eyebrows and which I will focus a part of my essay on is in his chapter the Geological Record. Darwin's friend Sir Charles Lyell asserted that 1,000 feet of solid rock would be disintegrated over a course of 6 million years. I am not disputing how accurate or not this is, but how can you honestly figure out how long it took for a certain piece of land to erode. Lets say for example the beaches near my house erode 3 inches (of sand) a year on average. If a tsunami comes obviously a lot more sediment and rock will be eroded away. The Cliffs of Dover for example I believe a huge chunk of rock broke away from that. In no way in my opinion can you ACCURATELY find out how fast (or slow) water erodes rock. I could expand a lot more, but obviously you can see what i am getting at.
Joel
Posted By Alex Saturnino at Sat 21 Feb 2004, 12:00 AM in The Origin of Species || 6 Replies
Down to brass tacks
I'm curious as to how many people (especially those who so adamantly disagree with it) have come to even understand how evolution by natural selection even works. In The Origin of Species, Darwin lays the ground work quite well, but it has taken nigh 150 years for modern science, with its exponential accumulations of data and research techniques unheard of in the 19th century, to verify--with the certitude that one comes to expect from scientific inquiry--that Darwin's "Theory" is, indeed, a fact of nature.
It truly is odd how divisive this book and its subject have become. All one need do is imagine the equivalent reaction to, say, Newton's Principia, with one side bemoaing Newton's disregard for the scripture that is Aristotelean physics, the other side left baffled by such a tenacious grip on such an out-moded view of the universe.
Maybe one day the evolution nay-sayers will come to their senses, but seeing how convictions have a way of making even the most sensible of people blind to what's in front of their very faces, I don't see an epidemic of sense among the general populous any time soon. Maybe--if only maybe--more people could come to not only read Darwin in his own words, but really understand how evolution through natural selection even works, we might have a fighting chance. At that point they can choose to not accept Darwin's universe, but that doesn't make them any less subject to its rules. In the cold logic of natural selection: They can choose to adapt or die.
Posted By Animalmother at Tue 24 May 2005, 5:07 PM in The Origin of Species || 0 Replies