It's been on my mind how people treat Marxism as the personal opinions of one man, but accept Darwinism as a proven science. Well, it's really only libs who do this. Probably because they don't know what Marxism is and can't criticize it meaningfully.
That's my only thought lol
Easier for them to handwave away/discredit when they can paint it as the output of one crazy [to them] man.
Yeah I've seen people try to dismiss socialism by psychoanalyzing Marx or examining his finances. The consequences of naming things after people, I guess.
Historically great leap forward, like Newton for physics, even if the theory was further improved and clarified. It's not the fault of Darwin (I think), but his work was used later by social Darwinists, like Herbert Spencer.
Did good work with evolution.
Became incredibly cringe when he started talking anthropology.
Outdated and incomplete. Modern Synthesis theory is the prevalent theory for evolution.
It is a strange reaction, keeping in mind that Modern Synthesis Theory takes a great amount of influence from Darwinism (thus why sometimes it is also called Neo-Darwinism). Of course Darwinism as it was concieved originally is now obsolete, but one would think it would be seen as an important step forward in the development of the theory of the evolution of species rather than painted negatively due to its age.
"Outdated" really? That's bizarre to say when Modern Synthesis theory is built upon Darwin's work to an extreme degree.
That's like mocking Isaac Newton and saying his work in physics is "outdated and incomplete", because he didn't know about Special Relativity.
I feel like a total fraud when talking about the philosophical stuff, but couldn't the theory of evolution be thought of as "proof" almost or supportive of the idea of dialectics? I mean that alone makes me respect Darwin's contributions more, but I could be totally off-base here.
Engels himself makes this argument, so no, I don't think you're very far off base here.
Nah, its a pretty solid comparison. Both processes are iterative, after each iteration new information is created/discovered which is used in the next iteration, both processes work because they accept that a thing happening right now was caused by a long series of previous actions and that the thing happening right now did not spontaneously occur.
He was a great scientist for his time but like others in this thread have pointed out his work is somewhat incomplete and has been evolved (pun not intended) by other scientists throughout the past couple of centuries. It's not really his fault though given humanity's lack of understanding of its own biology back then, and he was undeniably an influential figure within the studying of human evolution
One of the greatest scientists along with Newton, Einstein and Tesla.
Good dude, thankful to him for being one of the first to research evolution
Phylum feast: Good idea. Probably not a popular opinion with my vegan comrades though.
One of the greatest biologist ... Lol what is there to think about? Newton, Eisenstein, Maxwell , there were pioneers of humanity.
