Better Scientist: Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin?

Started another thread to discus this topic, but sadly it got deleted. I will post the gist of it in the following paragraph since this thread is the one that got me wondering on the matter.

Why do people leave out Darwin's teachings women and negroes being inferior to white men? I'm not talking about inferior in terms of social classes. I mean inferior from a strictly biological perspective. This was one of his main teachings tied directly into his theory of evolution and natural selection. Of course people can draw their own conclusions on what social implications Darwin's teachings have, and I think it's rather obvious what the logical conclusion is. However, I'm just wondering why it isn't brought up along with everything else. The reason I ask is because Darwin is being touted as one of the best scientists ever, but for some reason people gloss over these parts of his research.

The above paragraph was directed at more of a "Why isn't this being taught in schools?" standpoint. I'm sure many of you will see no problem with these parts of Darwin's research. I don't either. So is this just accepted as being obvious and that is why it never gets brought up?

I learned an interesting fact some months back. About 10 years before Newton published his break though theories another scientist (I forget his name) discovered that light had a finite speed. Moreover, he found that out because he observed that a moon took more time to go around Jupiter than it did other times. Granted, in Newton's time there hadn't been much time to digest the ramifications of what it all meant. But as I see it, the potential was there in Newton's time to discover what Einstein would discover about 250 years later. Namely good evidence existed in the 17th century that time was not absolute.

I know its ridiculous to criticize Newton over this. Its like saying a miler in the 1930s could have run sub 4 minutes if they had applied their training the right way. Apparently Newton had problems ever accepting that space was not absolute even though his own theory told him that.

Still, its something you could hold against Newton.

troof wrote:

Why do people leave out Darwin's teachings [about] [1] women and [2] negroes being inferior to white men? I'm not talking about inferior in terms of social classes. I mean inferior from a strictly biological perspective. This was one of his main teachings tied directly into his theory of evolution and natural selection.

Please cite any of his actual writings in support of either of those propositions.

And here's my own question:

Why do people think that trolling is funny?

Exactly! Libs are so hypocritical when it comes to the evolution topic or really any topic. They just pick and choose what to believe. They take the parts of evidence they like and ignore the parts that don't support their world view.

But, I don't need these types of arguments or to point out crap science to tell me evolution is a crock! It's all right there in the Bible--the Word of God. Look it up, Genesis, Psalms, Jeremiah, Isiah, and Galatians all talk about Gods creation of man. This is FACT.

I am so sick of Libs and their evolution crap. Plus, all their hogwash about accepting the gay "lifestyle" (see Leviticus which is clear on that topic) and how Islam is a peaceful religion. Please! They need to read the Good Book. All the answers are in the Christian Bible for all to see!

And before someone quotes the passages from the Bible below in a weak and feeble attempt to show Christianity's hypocrisy about violence and abortion....

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

Exodus 32:27-29

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.

Hosea 13:16

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " … He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.

1 Samuel 15:3,8

....remember these are all from the OLD TESTAMENT and us God fearing 'Murican Christians only believe in the NEW TESTAMENT...oh wait.....

leaning tower of pizza wrote:

I think its safe to say that either ones accomplishments would have been accomplished by other people eventually but that said, i think it takes a more intuitive mind to create calculus than to hypothesize the theory of evolution. The theory is actually quite simple and easy to understand, it just took some cleverness and some observations to arrive at the conclusion. Calculus is not simple though, many people are not even capable of passing an intro course

What's the point of saying "if they hadn't done it someone else would've?" That's not really relevant to this discussion. Both of these men were brilliant in their own way and came up with concepts that no one had previously. It's a toss up in my book. Someone else mentioned Tesla, he definitely belongs in the conversation. Most of the people on here dismissing Darwin are doing so out of political and/ or religious biases, which have no relevance in this discussion. Darwin and his ideas changed the world and have been proven to be correct more often then not.

1:40 wrote:

David Rudisha.

^This. He's brilliant!!!!

tstrru wrote:

troof wrote:

Why do people leave out Darwin's teachings [about] [1] women and [2] negroes being inferior to white men? I'm not talking about inferior in terms of social classes. I mean inferior from a strictly biological perspective. This was one of his main teachings tied directly into his theory of evolution and natural selection.

Please cite any of his actual writings in support of either of those propositions.

And here's my own question:

Why do people think that trolling is funny?

Yes, troof please provide proof to back up your claims.

Trolling is often funny though, just not troof' style of trolling.

E = mc^2 + G =m1 m2/r^2 wrote:

It is interesting to note that Isaac Newton was a homosexual.

Is this true? Is there actual historical documentation of this? I think Alan Turing belongs in this conversation and he was a known pillow biter.

1000 wrote:

Charles Darwin was a highly intelligent human being, but Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest genius the human race ever produced.

Isaac Newton is a genius among geniuses.

He made numerous original discoveries in mathematics and physics.

Individuals that make original discoveries in mathematics or physics are intellectually in a different league to anyone else.

Why do think physics / math discoveries >>> all others? Please explain.

DWIGHT SCHRUTE wrote:

Oh, I see. So the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics only applies in some situations, mainly those that conveniently do not contradict the THEORY of evolution?

I'm just glad LRC is here as such a valid source of scientific knowledge..

Huh, yeah I guess you're right "scientists" apply their own laws selectively depending on the situation. I wonder if any other group of people might do this when involved in public discourse about various topics.

if troof provide proof wrote:

tstrru wrote:

Please cite any of his actual writings in support of either of those propositions.

And here's my own question:

Why do people think that trolling is funny?

Yes, troof please provide proof to back up your claims.

Trolling is often funny though, just not troof' style of trolling.

Here is a good place to start.

Of his books, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" is probably most related to this subject.

I'm not trolling, I'm just asking why this never gets brought up especially when talks of him being one of the best scientists ever are being had. I'm not saying he was racist/sexist or whatever. I'll let you decide if he was. He saw these as facts and reported them. It is foolish to deny that these were his views. Perhaps you were just unaware and now feel hurt after praising him so much?

newton jr. wrote:

Newton, by a landslide if we're talking about influence and impact on humanity.

Among biologists, Darwin probably takes a back seat to no one but Pasteur.

Among the many great scientists, it is often said that Tesla may have been the most intelligent.

In terms of impact equivalent to that of Newton, can't overlook the super-geniuses Galileo and Aristotle.

Well said.

ryan foreman wrote:

I learned an interesting fact some months back. About 10 years before Newton published his break though theories another scientist (I forget his name) discovered that light had a finite speed. Moreover, he found that out because he observed that a moon took more time to go around Jupiter than it did other times. Granted, in Newton's time there hadn't been much time to digest the ramifications of what it all meant. But as I see it, the potential was there in Newton's time to discover what Einstein would discover about 250 years later. Namely good evidence existed in the 17th century that time was not absolute.

Newton was one of the supporters of Rømer's calculation of the speed of light, but it would take a lot more than that to come up with Special Relativity. The important part about the speed of light in SR is not that it's finite, it's that it is the same in all inertial reference frames (roughly speaking, if you aren't accelerating) and that this speed is the limiting speed in the universe.

Pot meet kettle wrote:

DWIGHT SCHRUTE wrote:

Oh, I see. So the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics only applies in some situations, mainly those that conveniently do not contradict the THEORY of evolution?

I'm just glad LRC is here as such a valid source of scientific knowledge..

Huh, yeah I guess you're right "scientists" apply their own laws selectively depending on the situation. I wonder if any other group of people might do this when involved in public discourse about various topics.

What? I am not following what you're talking about. Please post in English from now on. Thanks.

DWIGHT SCHRUTE wrote:

how do you reconcile your 'support' for evolution in light of the laws it contradicts, i.e. 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Is that supposed to be amusing? Or are you really that ignorant?

If If wrote:

DWIGHT SCHRUTE wrote:

how do you reconcile your 'support' for evolution in light of the laws it contradicts, i.e. 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Is that supposed to be amusing? Or are you really that ignorant?

No he's quite serious. Check out his other posts. This a common argument made be creationists who generally do not understand science vey well.

Ok. Thanks.

Agree. These "someone else would've come up with that eventually" arguements are week.

Ross Tucker wins.