Does knowing Charles Darwin married his first cousin change your opinion of his theories on evolution?

I don't think it changes what he discovered and the observations he made. Sure everybody has some sort of agenda but he always remained quite objective while citing observations he made in his journeys. I fail to see how him marrying his first cousin in anyway denounce his theories? Maybe it wasn't the wisest choice to choose a spouse to reproduce with for the most optimal offspring, via "natural selection," but it doesn't change his theories.

And the New Testament was authored by PEOPLE, most notably, Saint Paul of Tarsus. It was also co-authored by the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul was only 5 years old when Jesus was crucified, so all his writings were done much later in life and after Jesus's mortal life. Moreover, Paul's ideas through his letters were written after Paul fell off a horse on his way to persecute Christians. Can we say there could have possibly been a head injury? I'm just throwing that out there since you are trying to discount Darwin based on his choice in marriage of his cousin. I might also note that they lived in the country and they were of high society, so Darwin had very little options back then. So, although the Old Testament may have some more alleged direct links to a higher being, the New Testament was written by people - who also had agendas - in a time when EVERYONE was pushing an agenda. I am not trying to put down Christianity in anyway, I even went to Catholic school, but that is the story I learned about who wrote the Bible, so unless you learned a different story?...

Learning more about an author can change my opinion of his/her work. Might be a positive or negative change. Knowing more means better being able to evaluate the work against the rest of the field of knowledge. Knowing about Darwin's wife didn't change my opinions much. Learning she was his first cousin twice over (thru two different lines of descent, so even closer genetically than a first cousin) made me raise my eyebrows. But further reading revealed that CD was very aware of the dangers of cousin marriages. This informed and helped reinforce the energy he devoted to his studies of inheritance. Have to disagree/severely qualify the statement "if it is in a book then it must be true". A lot of lightweight authors manage to get crappy theories and ideas into print. Acceptance comes thru the societal workings of expert opinions, debate, consensus. Yes, consensus can be wrong at some points in the process, but over the long run the truest, most accurate ideas win out. Darwin's ideas gained acceptance from the majority of naturalists in Britain in just a few years because his theory was so carefully worked out, and explained so much. (About geographic distribution of species, similarities of species from different eras, relatedness of species, etc.) It has been examined, challenged, and re-examined for 150 years, gaining many additions and improvements. Genetics and DNA have been great advancements. Yes, the academic world contains agendas and biases - but the reason science is admired by many is that it is ultimately self-correcting. The theory of continental drift was considered to be fringe for quite a while, but is now proved and accepted. As a Big Idea, Darwin's theory was and is right.

"Does knowing Charles Darwin married his first cousin change your opinion of his theories on evolution?" No, not really. I don't believe thosse theories, anyway. Marrying his cousin, though, is not big deal to me. It has happened many times in history. But to me, evolution has never been proven (if it has been, where were the headlines?). Evolutionary scientists have expressed their doubts about the theory in evolutionary journals--course these are kept quiet.

"nothing that you could say about God that would change his mind about the contents of the Bible. I'm wondering if the same is true for evolutionist." It is true that many believers in Christianity or in evolution seem to be "locked in" to their beliefs. But that is not true of all of them, on either side of the issues.

"One thing both have in common is reverence for the printed word; that is, if it is in a book then it must be true!" No, you are generalizing about people--that's the basis for ethinic prejudice--not everyone mindlessly accepts as true anything printed.

"It is established fact that History is written by the victors and their agendas are always glorified as being righteous." I really don't get your point in that statement. Are you seeking to imply that the Bible is proven by certain victories? If so, which? Why not fulfilled prophecies like Jesus predicting before His death that Jerusalem would be overrun (by the Romans), which occurred about 40 years (+ or -) later? And MANY more.

I believe a lot of books, including some science books--again, not all--have agendas in them and biases. Some Christian publications do too. People pushing their causes often bend and misrepresent the truth.

Why would a Scientist's personal life interfere with his data on the Galapagos? Perhaps you should tell us why you think it's appropriate to discount the Science because of marriage to a cousin (which was very common back in that day.) Otherwise, this is a religious rant posted in psychology. Do you want to know your personality disorder?

It doesn't matter what religion you are. All the texts of the written words are someones interpretation of someones Else's interpenetration handed down for many, many generations.

Over and over again. Changed with every written interpretation.

I find it ironical that whatever religion -- it really does not sound that much different.

My faith is based on the fact, that the similarity's are most likely the truth.

We worship the same God, but know him by different names.

No, why would it? And the Bible is only written by God if you believe in God. To me, it was written by men. And, if you look at the early Christian struggles over what should be included in the Bible, it is even more clear that it was written and assembled by men.

How many people on ANSWER answer questions as honestly as they feel possible, but in reality could, would, or never have followed their own advice? Would that fact invalidate their anwers? Just askN.