How did he avoid persecution by the church

unlike Galileo

how was he able to get by?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander#Origin_of_humankind
bonhams.com/press_release/19945/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

cause he was english

What church?

He was a devout Christian

>The proposal that one type of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[36] Such proposals survived into Roman times. The poet and philosopher Lucretius followed Empedocles in his masterwork De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things)

He wasn't even the first to come up with the concept of evolution, like with nearly every scientific investigation, the Greeks proposed it 2500 years before Darwin.

Second, the investigation into categorising species into phylogeny and including man in it goes back to Linnaeus who was the first to do serious work on categorising homo sapiens relation to apes. The Scholastic idea of pangenesis was pretty much dead by then. Darwin wasn't really as revolutionary of a theorist, he was a revolutionary scientist however due to his empirical research, but even his ideas of human evolution already existed before him in Pierre Louis Maupertuis (who doesn't get nearly as much of a recognition) and of course Lamarq. Darwin is a classic example of empirical research re-defining pre-established theories or categories but not the concepts themselves. (See Thomas Kuhn)

The Anglo science community due the prevalence of the Anglo-saxon world at the time did much to promote Darwin alone and obscure the names of other scientists, in a typical triumphalist fashion (which they still do today in the philosophy of science) they promote empiricism alone and not the theory behind it.

this

he didn't tell the religious and political authorities to go fuck themselves to nearly the same degree Galileo did.

By living in the 19th century.

He wasn't. He turned agnostic when his daughters died.

Stop using agnostic that way.
You can be an agnostic christian.

You can't be agnostic and devout tho

He wasn't really Christian either. He wasn't opposed to the religion but he stopped attending church service.

Because the Anglo masterrace does not allow Catholicuck ideas hindering scientific progress

Kys

Because, unlike Galileo, he didn't call the Pope a nigger directly to his face.

If Galileo's treatment only was about him being disrespectful the Church wouldn't have banned the theory.

because protestants don't mind heresy, they promoted it instead

>Using wikipedia to prove your point

Retard

>the Church wouldn't have banned the theory.
Galileo tried to prove heliocentrism with inflated pamphlets and direct personal attacks. As many people can note the cardinals who debated with him were better investigators and more educated in these matters than him.
Galileo's work is what we call protopolemist that became so common in the 18th century
John Calvin for instance was heavily against Copernicus and all these matters must be taken into account.
Recent historians use this period as an example of "Church x Scientists" when in fact there are political power involved among many other important political and non-political implications.

The Papacy was not as influential in the 19th century as they were during the 16th century.

Other than bitch, the Anglican church can't do anything.

he would've been under the jurisdiction of the anglican church, which was way less strict than the RCC. plus around his time the church would've had less influence over politics and information.

Anyone who thinks that you can be an agnostic Christian is a retard, I agree

Except you can though

Not an argument

>Anaximander
Oh, so that's where that faggot on Veeky Forums got the name from

He didn't live in Italy in the 16th century?

He was an Anglo

Because

a - The scientific community had already established the basis of what Darwin's theory of evolution would be. What Darwin did wasn't controversial at all, it simply was the most complete work regarding evolution until then.

b - He lived on a time when the different Churches didn't have the same amount of power the Catholic church had in Galileo's time. Also, muh freedom of speech of UK.

c - "On the origin of species" wasn't the Darwin's book which caused social controversy back then, it was "the descent of man", which dealt with issues as sexuality and women's role on society (besides evolution).

The spanish inquisition did not expect him

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander#Origin_of_humankind

Anaximander kinda sorta had an idea of it, but like everyone else got a lot of shit wrong. I know it's trendy to bash major theorists of an idea to prove they didn't come up with a particular idea (very little in science is thought up ex nihilo, I'm not sure why people consider the revelation that a theorist was influenced by early thinkers to be such a startling revelation) but Darwin was exceptional for giving evolution a firm scientific backing and closing some major gaps in the theory that allowed it to seriously enter the stage as a credible theory.

Because he lived in the 19th century not the Renaissance

FUCK religioin

...

k

*burp* GOD ISNT REAL MORTY

Dear Sir,
I am sorry to have to
inform you that I do
not believe in the Bible
as a divine revelation
& therefore not in Jesus
Christ as the son of God.
Yours faithfully
Ch. Darwin

bonhams.com/press_release/19945/

> >The proposal that one type of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[36] Such proposals survived into Roman times. The poet and philosopher Lucretius followed Empedocles in his masterwork De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things)
Christcucks ruining humanity's progress again

from what I know, he didn't question the church's power back then

>you can believe that Christ is the son of God without believing God exists