“Making a Monkey out of Darwin,” by Patrick Buchanan

_{William Dembski

June 30, 2009

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s nice to see people like Pat Buchanan feeling more at ease about going after Darwin. In citing Eugene Windchy’s THE END OF DARWINISM, Buchanan writes:

Darwin … lied in “The Origin of Species” about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

SOURCE: worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102589

Comments

"do you have a problem with CreationWiki, The Encyclopedia of Creation Science, classifying Thaxton as a creationist?" I know nothing about the site and care little for creation science but I find many of the YEC's here very polite and nice people even if I disagree with their science beliefs rather strongly. I believe their overall belief system makes them rather nice people. I find the anti ID people generally disagreeable people who are not interested in a honest discussion and who seem to be driven by a compulsion to put pro ID people down. I often said that I found only one anti ID person I respect in the four years since I have been commenting here. Until the term creationist is defined it is a meaningless concept and one should not use it. Then after it is defined then it may be irrelevant to use it anyway. If one is discussing science especially origin of life and evolution, then one should deal with the science and not peripheral ideology. I could argue that atheists should also be dismissed from the origin of life and evolution debates because their ideology requires certain answers to scientific questions in order to support their world view. Thus, how could you trust them since ideology is driving their beliefs on these topics.jerry_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"Lewontin has done more to dispel the “science” of racial difference than almost anybody else (certainly more than anybody in ID). It’s shameful that you would try to tar him with the racist label just because he supports evolution." I'm not tarring anyone. I'm sure he's not a racist, but the findings are what they are. Since they show a uniqueness, which is a division, between the Aboriginals and the rest of us, that is a racial distinction, and thus racist. The opposite of racism would be total equality, no difference. But this measurement of a man, is modern day phrenology, which was, you remember, a scientific measurement too. The only difference is the phrenology of olden times was outside the body.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Although I think "Quantitative measurements won’t do it" should be the slogan of ID in general, alas, Clive, quantitative measurements are required in science. If scientists want to dispel the idea of race as a scientific truth, they might want to do it by science: and quantitative measurements are necessary. The measurements are what they are. They aren't racist. It's the conclusion drawn from them that's racist (or not). You mentioned The Bell Curve, which we agree was racist. Now, it used a lot of disputable numbers, but even the good numbers on race show significant racial disparities in (for example) scores on standardized tests. The racist is the person who uses observations to support racist ideas. The racist would be the person who took the nonracist sentence "Only the Australian Aborigines appear as a unique group" (from a particular population genetics perspective) and drew the racist conclusion "the Australian Aborigines are a unique group." Not only does Lewontin not draw such a conclusion, every component of his article and everything else he has written suggest that he would not say that. Lewontin has done more to dispel the "science" of racial difference than almost anybody else (certainly more than anybody in ID). It's shameful that you would try to tar him with the racist label just because he supports evolution.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, I think you're a decent enough fellow too, on occasion, and there are times that you disappoint me with your sarcasm and mockery. There's a lot I won't say, and plenty of levels too low, but this is not one of them. Determining things like Lewontin is trying to determine is a modern day phrenology, and the results can be whatever you want them to be, depending on how you interpret the info. In this case, the same measurement that ascribes no racial differences among most races, excludes the Aboriginals. I'm just being consistent with the measurement. Anything that describes things on the bodily level is bound to separate into races if one wants to see it that way, even on a genetic level as Lewontin shows, which is why I prefer a qualitative measurement, like the soul endowed by their Creator, (which cannot be a quantitative measurement), to dispel the notion of race. Quantitative measurements won't do it.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Clive, sometimes I think that, though wrong, you're a decent enough fellow. And then sometimes, like now, I think there's nothing you won't say and no level too low.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver, I'm not taking anyone's words out of context, everything I've said was in context. The paper, though it tries to dispel racism, actually gives ground to it. It's a modern day phrenology.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Umm, yeah, kinda, how about a little context?
Sauce for the goose, Clive. That's what I was asking for. I agree that context is important for Psalm 137; you seem to think it doesn't matter a whit for Lewontin. There is nothing in the Lewontin essay that can justify your reading of it as racist. That a particular population group happens to have relatively stable characteristics due to its isolation from other populations, and that chose characteristics fit the superficiail differences some assign to "race," is all.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Clive, You realize that was a trap, right? DON'T TAKE PEOPLE'S WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT is the lesson, and this applies equally to the Bible as well as Darwin, Lewontin, etc.SingBlueSilver_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"Claim: The Psalms are sadistic and advocate child murder. Evidence: Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock! Need I say more?" Umm, yeah, kinda, how about a little context? The Psalmist is referring to the Babylonians, who were cruel to the Israelis. It's more of a crying out about some future people that will overtake Babylon. It was an eye for an eye time, in the OT, prior to the "turn the other cheek" message in the NT dispensation of Grace. It's interesting that you would not provide the real context. There is also a philosophical difficulty arguing against God in this way, because you have to assume God before you can vilify Him, but by assuming Him, you are assuming that He made all standards, and you're assuming His standard of goodness by which you condemn Him, but if you agree with His standard of goodness, (and you must if you use it) then you really agree with the standard of goodness and cannot really condemn Him. You can't have it both ways, you cannot on one hand condemn and on the other say that there is no God, or that He should be condemned. But I suspect you give a some vagaries about how your own belief doesn't require standards, about how you don't really know anything about God, etc. All slippery items so you cannot be pinned down.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Claim: The Psalms are sadistic and advocate child murder. Evidence:
Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!
Need I say more?David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

It's not "that simple." I think you're being willfully obtuse to make a point, or maybe to bait people. African-Americans are much more likely, as a group, to have the sickle cell gene than white Americans. Is it racist to notice that? What if Australian aborigines had a significantly higher suceptibility to a disease than all other population groups? Would it be racist to point that out? Would it damage their "soul"? Lewontin is not saying any people groups are qualitatively or even signficantly different than others. Lewontin doesn't even use the term "race" except to critise it. He is talking about population groups.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Jerry, do you have a problem with CreationWiki, The Encyclopedia of Creation Science, classifying Thaxton as a creationist? Here is how they describe the site:
Welcome to the CreationWiki CreationWiki is a free encyclopedia of apologetics by an international team of missionaries. Creationists are encouraged to get involved with the development of this ever-growing resource (4,411 articles).
He is listed in the category "Creationist" and also in the sub-category "Creation Scientist", as are both Dean Kenyon and William Dembski.dbthomas_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Excession, Thanks for your advice. But I won’t stop. now. or later. Evolution is a comparative endeavor, it compares things with each other to see the similarity and thus calls them things like species, and it compares them among themselves to call them different things, thus the evidence for an evolution. This comparison is, by itself, a measure of similarities and differences. Within the differences, among things mostly similar, you have supposed evolution, and that evolution is the emphasis on their differences, and those differences apply to what we call races, in which case the Aboriginals are “unique” in the respect that their race is different from all the other races, thus we have racism. It’s quite simple really.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Mr JTaylor, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. How is this racist? In the same way that it is religious. In the same way that gravity is racist. In the same way that gravity is religious. In the same way that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Even in an echo chamber the sound of one hand clapping is not applause.Nakashima_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Clive, Yes it is so surprisingly simple so I'm surprised that you are having such a hard time understanding. I could try and draw an inference from this about your ability to understand things, or perhaps that you have an ulterior motive and are deliberately trying to deceive ... but I won't, I think the onlookers will be able to judge. I'll repeat this question which you carefully avoided:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. How is this racist?
If I take what you wrote above literally then any difference can be used to define race so therefore if you have different colored eyes than me then you are of a different race. What is the solution to this - pretend that everyone has the same colored eyes, or that eye color doesn't exist? As has already been pointed out, these scientists you hate so vehemently were explicitly opposed to classifying different humans as different races because the small differences that were commonly used to classify race are an irrelevance. And yet you persist, modifying your myth of evolutions racism so that now you must regard ANY attempt to differentiate between different groups of people, for whatever purpose, as racist. I'm struggling to find the words, I'll repeat what David has already: you’re so off-base that you’re “not even wrong".Excession_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

David, Oh I read it, and I read how he brushes aside the implications of the Aboriginals, because they don't fit his ultimate purpose of dispelling race. But the matter can be seen plain enough. By whatever measure he uses to cluster or not cluster races, he is bound by that same measurement, and if it shows a real difference, as it does with the Aboriginals, then he has racism inherent in the measurement. By what is being used to bring together races, also shows how far apart they are. Then it is a question of what difference equates to any real difference between races, and I say that any difference does, for it is trying to measure a man by his body, and any difference can be used to show racial differences, whereas trying to show the equality of a man by his soul, you get no differences, and thus no racism.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Need I say more?
Yeah, kinda.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Clive, where in the world did you get your ideas? You couldn't have gotten it from reading the essay. Again, the conclusion:
If it were admitted that the category of “race” is a purely social construct, however, it would have a weakened legitimacy. Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary. (Emphasis added)
David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"Only the Australian Aborigines appear as a unique group." Need I say more?Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"He’s saying that none of the supposed measures mean anything." Then what measure does he use to mean that there are no races? If his measurements mean nothing, then he cannot say that his measurements mean similarity or non-race.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

My goodness you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Lewontin does not make a classification "dividing Aboriginals and man." Here's the whole paragraph:
Third, a small number of genetic traits, such as skin color, hair form, nose shape (traits for which the genes have not actually been identified) and a relatively few proteins like the Rh blood type, vary together so that many populations with very dark skin color will also have dark tightly curled hair, broad noses and a high frequency of the Rh blood type R0. Those who, like Leroi, argue for the objective reality of racial divisions claim that when such covariation is taken into account, clear-cut racial divisions will appear and that these divisions will correspond largely to the classical division of the world into Whites, Blacks, Yellows, Reds and Browns. It is indeed possible to combine the information from covarying traits into weighted averages that take account of the traits' covariation (technically known as "principal components" of variation). When this has been done, however, the results have not borne out the claims for racial divisions. The geographical maps of principal component values constructed by Cavalli, Menozzi and Piazza in their famous The History and Geography of Human Genes show continuous variation over the whole world with no sharp boundaries and with no greater similarity occurring between Western and Eastern Europeans than between Europeans and Africans! Thus, the classically defined races do not appear from an unprejudiced description of human variation. Only the Australian Aborigines appear as a unique group.
Third of what? Third of the "four facts about human variation upon which there is universal agreement." These are: 1. "the human species as a whole has immense genetic variation from individual to individual." 2. "by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese." 3. "a small number of genetic traits, such as skin color, hair form, nose shape (traits for which the genes have not actually been identified) and a relatively few proteins like the Rh blood type, vary together so that many populations with very dark skin color will also have dark tightly curled hair, broad noses and a high frequency of the Rh blood type R0." 4. "these differences are in the process of breaking down because of the very large amount of migration and intergroup mating that was always true episodically in the history of the human species but is now more widespread than ever." If you think that's racist, I'll have to go back to my earlier language as a valid inference.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"He’s not saying that there is just Aborigines and everybody else. He’s saying that none of the supposed measures mean anything." If I'm not even wrong, then you're not even right. And Lewontin is saying that the Aboriginals are unique to the rest of mankind. Make a paper hat or a ship out of his paper, but you can't make it say anything different. The mere classification dividing Aboriginals and man is racism.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Wow, you're so off-base that you're "not even wrong," as Wolfgang Pauli used to say. Lewontin is saying that even on superficial differences such as skin color and hair form, there is no such thing as race. He's not saying that there is just Aborigines and everybody else. He's saying that none of the supposed measures mean anything.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"It does not mean either “more evolved” or “less evolved.” It means that by a certian socially constructed measure using population genetics, you look at population genetics, the only group that appears to have covariation in “a small number of genetic traits, such as skin color, hair form, nose shape” is Australian aborigines. That makes sense, given their isolation from the population of the rest of the world for a long time until recently." It means a difference, and the mere difference is racism, because it classifies them differently among the rest of us. That's racism, the opposite of racism being that all men are equal, which this paper doesn't show.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Excession, Thanks for your advice. But I won't stop. now. or later. Evolution is a comparative endeavor, it compares things with each other to see the similarity and thus calls them things like species, and it compares them among themselves to call them different things, thus the evidence for an evolution. This comparison is, by itself, a measure of similarities and differences. Within the differences, among things mostly similar, you have supposed evolution, and that evolution is the emphasis on their differences, and those differences apply to what we call races, in which case the Aboriginals are "unique" in the respect that their race is different from all the other races, thus we have racism. It's quite simple really.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Wow. Given Kenyon's affidavit, it sure was insulting to call him a creationist. I find this especially interesting:
Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form
Reminds me of something from Pandas:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact.
ID would seem to be subsumed under creationism according to Kenyon. In fact, he writes,
It is not only my professional opinion but that of many leading evolutionist scientists, at present and in the past, that creation-science and evolution are the sole scientific alternative scientific explanations, although each includes a variety of approaches.[Emphasis added]
This, by the way, was filed September 17, 1984, so must have been written after Kenyon had written the forward to TMLO, which was published in 1984.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Clive: "Read Lewontin’s paper on race. The aboriginals are markedly different from all other races on the planet, meaning they are less evolved, and therefore inferior, and therefore that position is racist, empirically racist, much like The Bell Curve was." Do you have another example? This one isn't holding up very well at all.JTaylor_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Jerry @30:
Whenever an anti ID person wants to criticize ID the sprinkling of the term “creationist” is not far behind. Just look at the Wikipedia excerpts for Charles Thaxton and Dean Kenyon.
Yes, "creationist" is often used an insult, but it also has a purely descriptive sense as well. You have to look at the context to see if it actually goes to the point of an argument, if it is merely being stated as a biographical fact, or if it's being deployed as a slur. In the case of the Wikipedia entries, it's biographical fact, not a value-judgment. Certainly, some people will take that fact and judge Thaxton and Kenyon by it, but so what? Because, depending on who's doing the judging, they could quite easily decide that being a "creationist" is a point in either man's favor. In other words, "creationist" is not universally or inherently a pejorative term. For instance, once upon a time Kenyon submitted an affidavit in Edwards v.Aguillard in which he defined some terms:
D. Definitions of Creation-Science and Evolution. 9. Definitions of Creation-Science and Evolution. Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. Evolution-science is equivalent to evolution. Evolution is generally understood by scientists (although some would disagree) to include biological evolution (or organic evolution) from simple life to all plants and animals, biochemical evolution (or chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution of the first life), and cosmic evolution (including stellar evolution) (of the universe). Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts. The subject of origins is a part of evolution, and the origin of the first life and tre-origin of the universe are generally regarded by the scientific community as part of evolution. 10. Sole Alternative to Scientific Explanations. It is not only my professional opinion but that of many leading evolutionist scientists, at present and in the past, that creation-science and evolution are the sole scientific alternative scientific explanations, although each includes a variety of approaches. Either plants and animals evolved from one or more initial living forms (biological evolution), or they were created (biological creation). Either the first life evolved from nonliving molecules (biochemical evolution), or it was created (biochemical creation). Either the universe evolved from the big bang or other initial state (cosmic evolution), or it was created (cosmic creation). Although some individuals hold to "theistic evolution" and other viewpoints, either these viewpoints are approaches under evolution or creation-science or they combine elements of evolution with elements of creation-science.
Now how, I ask you, do you think he described those scientists who favored "creation-science"? If you said "creationist", then you'd be entirely right:
2. Creationist Scientists and Scientific Data. Although students generally hear only one side on the origins question, increasing numbers of scientists are now abandoning evolution for a new scientific version of creationism. Creationist scientists now number in the hundreds, possibly in the thousands, in the States and in other countries. This extraordinary development, I believe, has resulted largely from analysis of new scientific data not available to Darwin (or to his followers until relatively recently), especially chemical information bearing on the origin of first life and paleontological and other information bearing on biological origins. In sum, biological creation is scientific, and in fact is scientifically stronger than biological evolution.
I'll refrain from commenting on the accuracy of all that, and instead simply note that he also used "creationism" as a synonym for "creation-science" in there. Also note that under his definition ID would be called "creation-science" and thus "creationist". You'd have to ask him whether he still prefers to define things that way. I will say that many people, both creationists and non-creationists, do use more or less the same criteria that Kenyon did at that time.dbthomas_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

They are either more evolved or less evolved, either way you have racism.
No. Part of the brilliance of Darwinian evolution is that it tossed out the scala naturae. Australian aborigines have been evolving for exactly the same amount of time as every other group of humans (or other organisms) you care to name.
He does say that the Aboriginals are a “unique group”. Please tell me what he really means by that.
You can read it for yourself. He means that, according to The History and Geography of Human Genes:
...principal components...show continuous variation over the whole world. with no sharp boundaries and with no greater similarity [within "races"] than [between "races"], [with the exception of Australian Aborigines].
Your argument is ridiculous. Lewontin, probably more than any other biologist of the century, was one to argue that the very concept of human "races" is deeply flawed. His claims for such date back about 40 years.Tajimas D_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

"I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the 'Beagle,' with the many little traits of character, showing how similar their minds were to ours, and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." - Descent of Man "This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shows that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." - Descent of Man "...there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races." - Descent of Man "Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter." - Voyage of the Beagle "I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed." - Letter to Thomas Higginson 1873 Clearly the words of a vicious, VICIOUS racist.SingBlueSilver_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply