I was directed to a video the other day that shows Kirk Cameron talking about how he and his business partner have written a new 50 page introduction to Charles Darwin's scientific book, "On the Origin of Species". They have printed out thousands of these now tampered books and are going to pass them out free to college campuses nation wide in November. The problem I have with the introduction is that it introduces creationism. Even if I believed creationism to be true, which I don't, it seems pointless to pick a book about the evolution of man and other species to counteract the origin of the universe. If anyone has ever read this book, you would know that it doesn't delve into the creation of the universe one iota. So, my question is this, do you think it's OK to alter a book that has been a foundation for evolutionary biology for the past 150 years. If you think it's a good idea, let us know why you think they picked a book that has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. Have they not read the book? Or is it merely because the book is now public domain and it was the only well known science journal that they could use? Personally, if I wanted to debate creationism in the format they are using, I would have picked a well known book about cosmology. Here is the link to the video, if you haven't seen it yet. Any debate about this video is welcome.
I don't think that such an introduction should be in such a book. As you said, they should've picked a well-known book about cosmology.
On the origin of species is about evolution, and evolution alone. Whatever happened prior to some primordial soup on a young earth is just not relevant for this. You wouldn't explain all about how man discovered fire in a book about industrial engineering, would you?
Whatever happened prior to some primordial soup on a young earth is just not relevant for this.
Exactly.
There is much more debate if the video is watched such as them making claims that Albert Einstein believed in creationism. Einstein was agnostic. In addition, and I quote, "Adolf Hitler's undeniable connection with the theory" ... what the heck is that suppose to mean? Darwin's supposed "disdain for women" and his supposed "racism". I could go on, but please watch the video and let me know what you think.
What the hell you can't take someone elses book and just add to it like its your own
Well, the problem here is that that book is now public domain, which means they can add to it. I'm not sure of the legalities of altering the actual contents (which they didn't do), but I know, that once a piece becomes public domain, it can be added to. It's still a travesty.
How can Kirk Cameron say "the opposing and correct view" when he is also theorising his opinion? Sounds like another form of brain-washing. My ideals are correct because I believe them. I don't think so. If you listened to the video you will hear a prejudice point of view backed up with, not historical points of view, but his own point of view. How a man lives or thinks does not combine into the equation when scientific knowledge is the basis.
this is an important thing to the science of evolution, as it is the precursor to perhaps finding out how bacterium evolved.
Darwin did wonder how we all got on this planet, and how it all started, and ESPECIALLY what the common ancestor was, as he was riddled by that when he made tree-diagrams for other scientists about evolution.
now, i do not think that 50 pages is a decent amount, it should definitely be less than that, but it is an important part of evolution and a former quest from Darwin's mind.
it's an important part of evolution because it's the start of life, it's the beginning of evolution.
also, when Darwin was trying to convince his Christian/Catholic colleges, he eventually came up with a tree, including all life forms (it may have been just animals, but same difference) and he had the theory that we all came from a common ancestor. it was basically a large-scale model of finches, which were a small part of the tree.
Darwin's evidence in the Origin of Species and the fact that he didn't brush evolution off as "god's will", fueled lots of gathering of evidence, and fueled us to find the common ancestor.
Kirk Cameron is Christian, which is why he tried to involve Creationism in the mix of the pages.
Darwin's document should be left alone, and given only for learning and for research, and screwing with it is just sullying his good work. Involving Creationism and other crap is just going to foul it even more.
Sooner or later, this is going to turn into a law, and this is just hurting this process. Whether this is or is not Cameron's intention, no one knows, but keep your hands off antique documents.
also, Evolution is a Law now. According to my Evol Biology class, at least. because there's no evidence against it and (literally) tons of evidence for it.
well, according to science, it's a Law. and, there's some scientists that combine the evolution with their religion, and brush off the falsities as us not knowing as much back then.
(which is a lot better than the "god wanted us to discover science" crap)
It isn't a law, neither is gravity, it's never been proven and therefore can't be shone to be universal. It's a not a law, a pretty alright theory but not a law.
