• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On the Origin of Species voted most influential academic book in history

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
On the Origin of Species voted most influential academic book in history | Books | The Guardian

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been voted the most influential academic book ever written, hailed as “the supreme demonstration of why academic books matter” and “a book which has changed the way we think about everything”. After a list of the top 20 academic books was pulled together by expert academic booksellers, librarians and publishers to mark the inaugural Academic Book Week, the public was asked to vote on what they believed to be the most influential. With titles in the running including A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft, George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, Darwin’s explanation of his theory of evolution was the public’s overwhelming favourite, with 26% of the vote, said organisers.
 
Anomalism said:
On the Origin of Species voted most influential academic book in history | Books | The Guardian

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been voted the most influential academic book ever written, hailed as “the supreme demonstration of why academic books matter” and “a book which has changed the way we think about everything”. After a list of the top 20 academic books was pulled together by expert academic booksellers, librarians and publishers to mark the inaugural Academic Book Week, the public was asked to vote on what they believed to be the most influential. With titles in the running including A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft, George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, Darwin’s explanation of his theory of evolution was the public’s overwhelming favourite, with 26% of the vote, said organisers.
Click to expand...

It definitely was an important new concept and the book was convincing. I do not think, however, that most of the controversy is justified and believe that people like Dawkins far over interpret its meaning.
 
joG said:
It definitely was an important new concept and the book was convincing.
I do not think, however, that most of the controversy is justified and believe that people like Dawkins far over interpret its meaning.
Click to expand...
"..People like Dawkins far over-interpret it's meaning."?
How so?
"It's meaning" is simple and Profound.
I think you're just taking a wrong-headed and Vague shot at Dawkins and "militant atheism."
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
"..People like Dawkins far over-interpret it's meaning."?
How so?
"It's meaning" is simple and Profound.
I think you're just taking a wrong-headed and Vague shot at Dawkins and "militant atheism."
Click to expand...

Oh. There can be no question that natural selection is a major force that has determined what we are. But it is totally irrelevant to questions of any but the more simple religious beliefs.
 
joG said:
Oh. There can be no question that natural selection is a major force that has determined what we are.
But it is totally irrelevant to questions of any but the more simple religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
What? Huh?
1. How did Dawkins et al "overinterpret it"? (already whiffed)
2. Evolution is "totally Irrelevant" to any questions but those with simple religious beliefs?
 
Last edited:
How is Nineteen Eighty Four an academic book?

That's a novel, one of the most out of place things I've ever seen.
 
mbig said:
What? Huh?
1. How did Dawkins et al "overinterpret it"? (already whiffed)
2. Evolution is "totally Irrelevant" to any questions but those with simple religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

A few years back I read a book by Dawkins that repeatedly said in as many words that evolution disproved God. Now, I suspect that he probably is not as stupid, as such statements would indicate, but it is certainly an over-interpretation of the science.

I do not understand your question 2.
 
joG said:
A few years back I read a book by Dawkins that repeatedly said in as many words that evolution disproved God. Now, I suspect that he probably is not as stupid, as such statements would indicate, but it is certainly an over-interpretation of the science.
I do not understand your question 2.
Click to expand...
Evolution Does disprove god if you believe in Young Earth Creationism.
(other sciences also disprove YEC)
Evolution also disproves god if you believe in all but 'original spark' creationism, as evolution is the way All life has progressed/descended with modification from one cell forward.

You are perfectly welcome to believe in god for other miracles, just not ones that contradict evo.
You really need to revisit Dawkins who actually likes the Bible culturally speaking/as literature.
Of course, one Can believe, ie, god created man 'in his image' less than 10,000 yrs ago, and there'd be plenty of Ignorants in that camp.
Gallup tells us app 40+%.
Thus, several of the wacky GOP candidates.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Evolution Does disprove god if you believe in Young Earth Creationism.
(other sciences also disprove YEC)
Evolution also disproves god if you believe in all but 'original spark' creationism, as evolution is the way All life has progressed/descended with modification from one cell forward.

You are perfectly welcome to believe in god for other miracles, just not ones that contradict evo.
You really need to revisit Dawkins who actually likes the Bible culturally speaking/as literature.
Of course, one Can believe, ie, god created man 'in his image' less than 10,000 yrs ago, and there'd be plenty of Ignorants in that camp.
Gallup tells us app 40+%.
Thus, several of the wacky GOP candidates.
Click to expand...

If you believe that nothing of the communication from the Great Creator to simplistic organisms got lost in translation and can show that the Creator does not have some purpose in mind that makes this little deception pleasing to Him and disprove uncounted other explanations that would escape such primitive brains as ours? Then you would certainly have a good point.

That does not mean that you have to vote for someone that says that evolution did not happen, if you do not want to.
 
joG said:
If you believe that nothing of the communication from the Great Creator to simplistic organisms got lost in translation and can show that the Creator does not have some purpose in mind that makes this little deception pleasing to Him and disprove uncounted other explanations that would escape such primitive brains as ours? Then you would certainly have a good point.
Click to expand...
What?
Finally you drag 'god' outa the closet. Obviously in your previous posts.
There is NO Evidence of any "Great Creator", much less he has any "communication from" him, purpose, or design.
This is abject voodoo, and adds nothing to Darwin/Evo, just your personal mythology.
It does explain your weird take on Dawkins/evo tho.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
What?
Finally you drag 'god' outa the closet. Obviously in your previous posts.
There is NO Evidence of any "Great Creator", much less he has any "communication from" him, purpose, or design.
This is abject voodoo, and adds nothing to Darwin/Evo, just your personal mythology.
It does explain your weird take on Dawkins/evo tho.
Click to expand...

Closet? You think He is gay?
 
joG said:
Closet? You think He is gay?
Click to expand...
Goofy and necessarily Non-responsive.
I suggested 'god' was in YOUR closet/the reason for your unconvinced opinions on evo.

Since, AGAIN, there is NO evidence of any 'god', or Your 'Great Creator' ("communicating" no less), I hardly would charactereize 'his' sexuality.. or anything.
Your reply was NON-Responsive, NONsense.. like all you have made here.
 
Last edited:
Van Basten said:
How is Nineteen Eighty Four an academic book?

That's a novel, one of the most out of place things I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
Indeed, when I read the OP I first thought, "Ok, they've been given a very limited range of books to choose from." A list was pre-selected.
Kinda like "Natural Selection by giving a choice of only the right books".

I looked at the list. First problem, which of these books have I read, let alone even heard about.

The top 20
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell
On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
Orientalism by Edward Said
Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The Complete Works by William Shakespeare
The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer
The Making of the English Working Class by EP Thompson
The Meaning of Relativity by Albert Einstein
The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli
The Republic by Plato
The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine
The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
The Uses of Literacy by Richard Hoggart
The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
Ways of Seeing by John Berger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom