Talk:Darwin Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was born on the same day as Darwin and it is my belief that this contributes to support for a celebrationof February 12. I think I read this somewhere once but I don't know where.Notjim 22:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google icon

If you know of any Darwin fans who can draw, could you please forward the following URL to them?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cpurrin1/82591845/

Thank you very much.

-Colin Purrington

[edit] Can someone review?

I don't have the time or skill to edit this page myself, but the Wiki entries regarding Darwin keep attributing the theory of evolution to him. While his work directly resulted in that theory, he never put it forth himself. He made observations and postulations about natural selection, but was not publicly the first person to come up with Evolution by natural selection. I read a few books on Darwin and it seems very clear this was the case. Apparently he was heavily involved with the Church and did not want to extrapolate his natural selection model to say that it produced humans and other organisms. There are a few good experts on Darwin out there and I hope one of them sees this post and takes it upon themselves to edit the entry.

````Matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.54.189 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Please cite any books you've read or at least read the Wikipedia article on Darwin. The fact is that English/British society was "heavily involved with 'the Church'and not Darwin himself. Look up Publication of Darwin's Theory. and Alfred Russel Wallace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.235.189 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 February 2007) (UTC).

[edit] Neutrality

The entire article sounds like it was written by a person or people slanted tremendously in favor of the celebration of Darwin Day. Phrases like "rocked the very foundation of our knowledge base" don't belong in an encyclopedia article, and there definitely needs to be some mention of critical response (which definitely exists). æ² ✆ 2007‑02‑12t21:39z

I disagree. The phrase you used as an example is objectively true. Practically every field of scientific study was radically changed by the scientific theory of evolution, and it had huge philosophical implications. So yes, it DID rock the very foundation of our knowledge base. Personally I think the article needs some wikifying and if there is a critical response, it should be included. However, I think that what is already written is not "slanted tremendously in favor of the celebration of Darwin Day."--TheAlphaWolf 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the former argument. Some of the lines seem to have a point of view, though sometimes they are very discreet. Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC):

"The objectives are to educate the public about Charles Darwin's contributions and the mechanism of natural selection as well as to defend science against the creationist (later renamed Intelligent Design) movement..." I also agree with the first argument. For all the criticisms of religion in the article, it treats Darwin as if he were a god! --Chuckos 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)