-1How Did Darwinism Influence Theories of Race in the Nineteenth Century? Charles Darwin’s work and theories on evolution, most notably in his magnum opus On the Origin of the Species, had a profound effect on the scientific community during the nineteenth century. Darwin altered views on race in a variety of ways, some negative and some positive but he provided the first contentious argument to explain variety within human characteristics that is still maintained today. His theories of evolution were controversial and influenced the ideas of others that purposefully contradicted his own. Nott and Gliddon’s work for example specifically counters Darwin’s theories concerning race but we now know theirs to be fiction.1 The work of Sir Francis Galton, Herbert Spencer and Ernst Heackel was directly influenced by Darwin, hence a number of their theories are now referred to as Social Darwinism, though this has become a somewhat derogatory term.2 Theories descended from Darwinism such as eugenics, embryology and the “survival of the fittest” have been used both to support and dismiss racist principles, such as the justification of the slave trade.3 It must be acknowledged that Darwin’s influence transcended political and ethical arguments.
This is where scientists try to falsify existing theories, trying to find evidence that would disprove them. His theory provides evidence that nothing can ever be 100%, e.g. the big bang is a theory is accepted by everyone but there is much more that scientists dont know and more info is needed to be found therefore it could be false. It argues that there always can be more evidence for every theory that has ever been made and proven. It is snowballing; it builds on achievements of previous scientists.
To start off with, before anyone can pick a side they need background information. Unfortunately, with many of the debates today, in previous years people are uneducated about the topic in which they are arguing. Most people that strongly disagree with the theory of evolution are very closed minded and are not willing to accept or listen to any ideas that do not support their own. All of these people chooses to believe and accept their religion and god. Many of these people think that evolution disproves their religion and throws away their god and this is not true.
Articles Nazi Scientists and Ethics of Today The article Nazi Scientists and Ethics of Today is about hoe after the holocaust and the brutal experiments on Jews and gypsies. Scientists are trying to find ethical questions on Nazi data. Using the data of the Nazi's scientists might fine a way to change a baby's characteristics , although they are frightened people might abuse these new findings. The way how Nazi scientists and ethics of today are similar with The Strange Case of Mr. Hyde and Dr.Jekyll is the idea's and issues they both had. In the article they stated that they might be able to figure out a way to choose height, eye color, intelligence level and their athletic ability in their child.
So many questions in regards to the potential benefits of this research were left unanswered, and all I could focus on were the many, drastic and terrifying dangers that such breakthroughs in the fields could pose. By the time I had finished reading Bill Joy's article, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" I had made up my mind. Any further research in genetic engineering, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and robotics poses too great a threat to our environment, ourselves, and our world itself to be allowed to continue. I am not the only one concerned, Stephan Herrera, who wrote the article “Preparing the World for Synthetic Biology” states that there are legitimate concerns in regards to synthetic biology. (Herrera1).
Mayr (2000) begins by stating that many notions of biology in the last 150 years have been in opposition to popular belief. Those beliefs have ultimately been modified due almost entirely to the influential theories of Charles Darwin. Darwin’s first key influence, he claims, is the concept of evolution itself. At the time this notion was proposed, the majority of leading scientists and philosophers believed that the world as it existed now was the creation God, not the result of gradual natural forces. He goes on to say that branching evolution, a notion which suggests common decent, was also an alien concept at the time of proposition, as was the notion that evolution must be a gradual process with its fundamental mechanism being natural selection (Mayr, 2000).
* In 18th century, most of scientists still believed in the God who created the universe; however, they no longer believed in a personified God who actively involved in human life. * In 19th century, the conflict became the primary tone because the Creationism was severely shaken by the Cell theory, the Evolutionism, and the Law of Energy Conservation. * From 20th century to recent time, “Conflict, Independence, Dialogue and Integration”. Relationship in and after 20th century (“Fourfold Typology” mode) * Conflict: the traditional conflict has basically ended because of the developments of Catholic doctrines. The traditional conflict was replaced by a balance between Catholicism and natural science.
God is so beyond our ability to understand that the only way of seeing the reality of God is to continue saying what God is not, God is more than anything we can say of him. Plotinus, Moses Maimonides, Pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart support this view – for these philosophers the real God is beyond whatever we speak of as God. Human language causes confusion when it is used to talk about God, as a result we must speak of God only by saying what God is not. Human language is inadequate in describing God – we cannot talk about God. Recognising this reaffirms that God is more than we can ever imagine – he is ineffable, can never be described so we cannot say what they are not.
He meant that humans had advanced their understanding of the natural world enough to realize that the literal teachings of the religions that espoused God were not true. Religious doctrine surrounding the existence of an omnipotent god could no longer be taken literally. This left a huge problem for mankind, in terms of the source of their values. Although he did recognise that some of the greatest cultures of the world had been based on strong religion he simply felt that these now belonged in the past. The ‘death’ of God meant that people had to find a whole new way of understanding the world and a whole new base for ethics.
It has recently become common for religious groups to call for creationism (or ‘Intelligent Design’ as it is now called) to be recognised as having scientific support, but this is not as convincing as it seems. As the theory most supported by scientists, the onus of proof is on the creationists to show why a hundred years of solid science is now believed to be faulty. They have convincingly failed to do so. One of the fundamental flaws of creationism is that is begins with the assumption that a creator is responsible for life on earth, that the earth is