The Origin of Species

On a lighter note: according to Wikipedia's front page, today is the 147th anniversary of the first publishing of Darwin's The Origin of Species. One trivium that I didn't know is that the book sold out the very first day; the booksellers oversubscribed to the first printing.Although someone has already disagreed with me on this point, I fully agree with the following: It can be slow going at times, being a very minutely detailed list of the evidence of Darwin's theories, but I managed it when I was still in high school.For those who don't want to spring for a paper edition (shame on you!), it is available on-line.

And most people do not know that it took Darwin 13 months and 10 days to write the atheist bible known as the Origin of Species.The best place to access the complete works of Darwin is here:Darwin Onlinehttp://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&...Ray

somehow i doubt you've read the book, ray. the implication of your phrase here, a philosophical moratroium on deity, it certainly is not. if you had called the god delusion that, i might be inclined to agree, except for the fact that it is not accepted widely enough to compare to the bible.Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tag

---

All atheists rabidly support natural selection, Darwinism and ToE.Dawkins (1986): "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."Ray

cart before the horse. it's rather hard to believe in supernatural creationism if you don't believe in the supernatural. that said, THERE are atheists who do not follow darwin. think raeliens. like i said, you're thinking of dawkins. darwin did not make a philosophical argument -- dawkins did, and based it on darwin. there's a difference between citing a source in an argument, and the source itself.

---

Eliminate the word "quite" and I will agree with it.I thought the reasoning was brilliant, yet easily understood. I was inspired to awe by his wide range of knowledge on flora & fauna.It was difficult for me to read, but very, very pleasant and satisfying. No anti-evolutionist should be allowed to argue against evolution without reading it, because it does a better job than any current author (uh, that I know of, of course) of showing the reasoning that led to discovering evolution.

Yes, i suppose atheist's tend to embrace rational explanations and reject superstitious bronze age explanation for how the world works.

Maybe JAD should talk to him.