We disagree on that... Physics depts all over the place are noting the 100th anniversary of his papers and all that. That's all Darwin Day is... more and more departments pay homage. Kind of silly really, I agree. As to why there isn't a "Mendel" day, as his discovery in many opinions is more import, who know? IMHO, as I said, it's because Darwin was British (the home of "science" at that time), and it's simply good olde fashion bias... both against a German, and a Catholic. :))
<<One could argue that religious objections to Darwin's theories or implications of it had a role in making Darwin "bigger" than warranted.>>
Agreed.
<Though Darwin had and still has his enthusiastic backers (Huxley and Haeckel etc, during his life, and figures like Dawkins and Dennett today) because they see Darwin as an important anti-religious figure>
I think Dawkins and Dennett are idiots and hurt science by straying from science in order to comment on religion. They'd be better off sticking to their knitting... many scientists agree, and they raise eyebrows all the time.
That said, back in the day of Darwin (H & H, etc) who can blame those who would use Darwin's theory against religion?? One can argue SCIENCE STARTED (club of London) because of repression of ideas by "the" church. Much of the beginning of science wasn't about "god or no god", in fact many were believers... it was about freedom to say and write what you wanted.
Historically speaking you can't get around the fact that "Religion" was the bad guy, and 'Science' the good guy when it came to search for the truth in societies as a whole. With that as a back drop, it's not surprising Dawkins type scientists are always looking for religious "boogymen".
<<see Dawkins claim Darwin made atheist intellectual fulfillment possible.>>
Dawkins is and idiot IMHO... but if that is true... so what? It's not Darwin's fault. Darwin is a very important scientist who brought forth the TRUTH about living creatures relative to what was the prominent belief at the time.
DAK |
