Not that more proof is needed ...

[One Bad Pig]

When it comes to the metaphysical underpinnings of both sciences, there is not much difference.

Newton's metaphysics assumed an orderly universe created by God. Darwin's did not. That's sort of different.

When it comes to the conclusions drawn from both, there is not much difference. When it comes to the earth shattering consequences, it's a bit hard to say. Newton sure showed how to remove God from the equation and really launch modern science.

Not really. Newton was important, but modern science was launched rather earlier (Francis Bacon IIRC, though my memories are fuzzy on that count), and the intent of most early scientists had nothing to do with removing God.

But the measure of Darwin's impact is shown by how many people continue to loath him and his ideas.

No, it just means Darwin's ideas were rather more controversial.

When it comes to using their theories for ill, perhaps Newton has killed far more people than has Darwin. When it comes to personality, then you'd have to put Darwin well ahead of Newton in the context of niceness.

This is comparing two completely different theories. Darwin's has far fewer practical applications for killing people (I can't think of any off-hand, but perhaps you can enlighten me). And application of their theories has absolutely nothing to do with their personalities.

You usually make reasonable arguments, rwatts, but this is as absurd as anything I've seen here recently. I know Jorge isn't exactly a difficult opponent, but please don't let that drag you down below your usual standard.

[rogue06]

**************************************************

Here's one to ponder:

Which was a greater SCIENTIST, with more significant
contributions to PURE SCIENCE - I. Newton or C. Darwin?

Anyone aware of the vast output and quality of Newton's pure scientific work would have no choice but to vote for Newton. Yet, there is a frenzy for a Darwin Day but nowhere near that passion for a Newton Day.

Care to guess why? A few hints:

(1) The "day" has NOTHING to do with science and,
(2) "Darwin made it possible to be ..."

I'll kick that dog every time I see it, bar none!

Jorge

Interesting to note that Newton was accused of promoting atheism in several quarters back in his day, not to mention that he practiced what was considered a form of witchcraft for several years.

When Newton published his Laws of Gravity they were condemned as being anti-God and promoting atheism being considered "evil" by some pious Christians because it took from God the direct action on His works so constantly ascribed to Him in Scripture – like "hanging" the earth and "guiding" the sun, moon and stars – and exchanged the truth of God’s direct action on His works for the "lie" of mere material mechanism.

IOW, they accused Newton of substituting Gravity for God and astronomers were cautioned that they should look to the Bible and not the "Principia" before they aim their telescopes.

In 1724 John Hutchinson, professor at Cambridge, published his "Moses' Principia," a system of philosophy in which he sought to build up a complete physical system of the universe from the Bible. In this he assaulted the Newtonian theory as "atheistic," and led the way for similar attacks by such Church teachers as George Horne (a Vice-Chancellor of Oxford), Duncan Forbes (Lord President of the Scottish Sessions), and William Jones of Nayland ("who systematically picked apart Newton's concept of gravitational attraction in order to uphold his own insistence that such power could be exerted only by God"). In 1796, the Gentleman's Magazine noted that "Hutchinsonianism" (which claimed that Newton had reduced God to matter and rendered revelation superfluous) was "hourly gaining ground."

In Germany even Leibnitz attacked the Newtonian theory of gravitation on theological grounds, though he found some little consolation in thinking that it might be used to support the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation (and I wonder if some of his opposition was fueled by their fight over who came up with calculus).

The eminent Puritan theologian John Owens declared that Newton’s discoveries are, "built on fallible phenomena and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture." IIRC, John Wesley also expressed a distrust of Newton’s demonstrations.

Newton himself was concerned that his laws of motion would be used to devise anti-Scriptural theories concerning the origin of the Earth and Solar System – which is precisely what William Whiston, who succeeded Newton in the Lucasian chair at Cambridge, and others would do.

Supposedly Pierre-Simon de Laplace (mathematician and astronomer whose work was crucial to the development of mathematical astronomy and statistics though best known for his investigations into the stability of the solar system) while explaining Newton’s theory concerning the origin of the Solar System to Napoleon (a former pupil, and before he became Emperor) was asked by Napoleon about the role of God and replied, “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" ("I have no need for that hypothesis"). Even if this quote is apocryphal in nature it still betrays an attitude or at the very least a fear that it led to atheism.

As for witchcraft, Newton was deeply involved in alchemy for something like three decades which was punishable by death in many areas. And there is good reason to think that his belief in alchemy heavily influenced his scientific research. For example, much of his optical theories -- most notably his analysis and resynthesis of white light -- is indebted to corpuscular alchemy

Further, some scholars trace Newton’s theories on gravitation to alchemic views about subtle power pervading all of creation and being the key to the transformation of base metals into gold.

[Juvenal]

Newton's metaphysics assumed an orderly universe created by God. Darwin's did not.

I'd dispute that. Newton's God wasn't even able to keep the planets in their proper orbits. Darwin's set up the universe within enough inherent order to bring forth life itself, in all of its diversity.

In comparison, Newton's God was a cosmically inept bumbler.

[rwatts]

You usually make reasonable arguments, rwatts, but this is as absurd as anything I've seen here recently. I know Jorge isn't exactly a difficult opponent, but please don't let that drag you down below your usual standard.

Thank you OBP. However, you need to look at this in the context of me trying to have a friendly chat with Jorge.

Don't take it too seriously.

Some comments about our opening two sentences. I think that theologians had a real problem with Newton's action at a distance - they thought it was unGodly. And there is no reason why Darwin's metaphysic could not have incorporated (a) God who created an orderly universe.

[klaus54]

Newton's metaphysics assumed an orderly universe created by God. Darwin's did not. That's sort of different.
....

Why is natural selection working on genetic diversity to effect adaptation to ecological niches NOT part of an orderly universe?

Would you prefer a purely deterministic "clockwork universe" as per Newton? We know for sure that ain't right.

K54

[rwatts]

Why is natural selection working on genetic diversity to effect adaptation to ecological niches NOT part of an orderly universe?

Would you prefer a purely deterministic "clockwork universe" as per Newton? We know for sure that ain't right.

K54

Indeed.

As several articles I am reading re self-organisation argue, Newton's clockwork universe is mechanical and uninteresting. It's not a creative universe.

[klaus54]

Happy 206th Birthday, Abe and Chuck!

[nmanning]

you say that like its a bad thing.

whats wrong with a little healthy iconoclasm,

....its not like its going to hurt darwins feelings, the old coot's dead.

It is a bad thing when character assassination of a dead man replaces reasoned discourse and is presented as "evidence", as it so often is.

[nmanning]

I suspect it's less a case of this and more a case of having been privy to the events as they were happening.

Yes, I knew all about Fernandez' antics. However, one can read about them in many places. It is not a secret. It is even mentioned in the Amazon comments of the book he was part of inflicting upon the world, poor selling filth that it is.

[nmanning]

**************************************************

Here's one to ponder:

Which was a greater SCIENTIST, with more significant
contributions to PURE SCIENCE - I. Newton or C. Darwin?

Anyone aware of the vast output and quality of Newton's pure scientific work would have no choice but to vote for Newton. Yet, there is a frenzy for a Darwin Day but nowhere near that passion for a Newton Day.

Care to guess why? A few hints:

(1) The "day" has NOTHING to do with science and,
(2) "Darwin made it possible to be ..."

I'll kick that dog every time I see it, bar none!

Jorge

Of course you will.

That is in your nature - silly projective character assassinations are about all your side is worthy or producing these days.

[Jorge]

Interesting to note that Newton was accused of promoting atheism in several quarters back in his day, not to mention that he practiced what was considered a form of witchcraft for several years.

When Newton published his Laws of Gravity they were condemned as being anti-God and promoting atheism being considered "evil" by some pious Christians because it took from God the direct action on His works so constantly ascribed to Him in Scripture – like "hanging" the earth and "guiding" the sun, moon and stars – and exchanged the truth of God’s direct action on His works for the "lie" of mere material mechanism.

IOW, they accused Newton of substituting Gravity for God and astronomers were cautioned that they should look to the Bible and not the "Principia" before they aim their telescopes.

In 1724 John Hutchinson, professor at Cambridge, published his "Moses' Principia," a system of philosophy in which he sought to build up a complete physical system of the universe from the Bible. In this he assaulted the Newtonian theory as "atheistic," and led the way for similar attacks by such Church teachers as George Horne (a Vice-Chancellor of Oxford), Duncan Forbes (Lord President of the Scottish Sessions), and William Jones of Nayland ("who systematically picked apart Newton's concept of gravitational attraction in order to uphold his own insistence that such power could be exerted only by God"). In 1796, the Gentleman's Magazine noted that "Hutchinsonianism" (which claimed that Newton had reduced God to matter and rendered revelation superfluous) was "hourly gaining ground."

In Germany even Leibnitz attacked the Newtonian theory of gravitation on theological grounds, though he found some little consolation in thinking that it might be used to support the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation (and I wonder if some of his opposition was fueled by their fight over who came up with calculus).

The eminent Puritan theologian John Owens declared that Newton’s discoveries are, "built on fallible phenomena and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture." IIRC, John Wesley also expressed a distrust of Newton’s demonstrations.

Newton himself was concerned that his laws of motion would be used to devise anti-Scriptural theories concerning the origin of the Earth and Solar System – which is precisely what William Whiston, who succeeded Newton in the Lucasian chair at Cambridge, and others would do.

Supposedly Pierre-Simon de Laplace (mathematician and astronomer whose work was crucial to the development of mathematical astronomy and statistics though best known for his investigations into the stability of the solar system) while explaining Newton’s theory concerning the origin of the Solar System to Napoleon (a former pupil, and before he became Emperor) was asked by Napoleon about the role of God and replied, “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" ("I have no need for that hypothesis"). Even if this quote is apocryphal in nature it still betrays an attitude or at the very least a fear that it led to atheism.

As for witchcraft, Newton was deeply involved in alchemy for something like three decades which was punishable by death in many areas. And there is good reason to think that his belief in alchemy heavily influenced his scientific research. For example, much of his optical theories -- most notably his analysis and resynthesis of white light -- is indebted to corpuscular alchemy

Further, some scholars trace Newton’s theories on gravitation to alchemic views about subtle power pervading all of creation and being the key to the transformation of base metals into gold.

As you know from numerous past postings, I have long hypothesized that you are being paid by the word for promoting/defending Evolution and Naturalism. The above post is just further evidence for my hypothesis.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I know Jorge isn't exactly a difficult opponent, but please don't let that drag you down below your usual standard.

You nearly had me fall off my chair for the above howler, Bad Piggy.

I mean, "... below your usual standard".

Roland's "usual standard" is at Absolute Zero - how can he beat that?

You also say, "I know Jorge isn't exactly a difficult opponent ..."
Tell me, exactly how do YOU "know" that?
Is it because you focus on the sarcasm that I incessantly toss at these clowns?
Because you focus on the smilies and colors, instead of on the substantive points?

The few times that I've found a worthwhile engagement here on TWeb, I don't
recall you being around to contribute at all, let alone something of value.

So again, how is it that you "know" that I'm, by deduction, an "easy" opponent.
Inquiring minds want to know .................................................. ...............

Jorge

[Jorge]

Of course you will.

That is in your nature - silly projective character assassinations are about all your side is worthy or producing these days.

Very nice dodge (of the substance of my post), numnuts.

Right now you hold the top spot on the Dodge Master List.

Jorge

[rwatts]

Roland's "usual standard" is at Absolute Zero - how can he beat that?

Helloooooo Jorge,

The invitations are always open for you to explain why the papers I discuss here:-

Self organization

Testing Darwin on the origin of multicellularity

- are not about science.

But you are always silent, save for the occasional rant, after which you fall silent.

So pick yourself up off the floor and come in.

[Jorge]

Helloooooo Jorge,

The invitations are always open for you to explain why the papers I discuss here:-

Self organization

Testing Darwin on the origin of multicellularity

- are not about science.

But you are always silent, save for the occasional rant, after which you fall silent.

So pick yourself up off the floor and come in.

The first one is trivial and so it may be answered in one short sentence:
Self-ordering is not the same as Self-organizing.
As always, you people are clueless on the difference between the two.
And it is that cluelessness that doesn't allow you to see your error.

The second is for someone with no life. What I mean is, did you conveniently forget the number of times where I asked you to post S-H-O-R-T posts so that I wouldn't have to spend hours just reading them, only to find out that I had just wasted hours of my life reading rubbish?

Even so, the title alone pretty much tells us that we are about to hear a flock of Alice-in-Wonderland stories. What I mean is, seeing "Darwin" in the same sentence as "origin of multicellularity" immediately tells me that I'm about to encounter a sack full of just-so stories all based on the presupposed "fact" of Darwinian Evolution.

No thanks, I've far better things to do.

So, you see, I've addressed your solicitations albeit not with what you wanted to hear.
So sorry about that.

Jorge