Culture Darwinism Education Ethics Intelligent Design Racism

Fancy that! An edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species with a worldview guide

Spread the love

A friend writes to draw our attention to this: Canon Press has published “Origin of Species” with a worldview guide: On the Origin of Species (Worldview Edition) Paperback – December 6, 2019 by Charles Darwin (Author), Gordon Wilson (Contributor) You can scroll through the worldview introduction here.

But what a good idea! Instead of getting shouted down by Darwinians, anxious to impose the “red in tooth and claw” on school curricula, perhaps we should long ago have adopted the practice of simply providing editions of Darwin’s works, detailing the worldview that lies behind this stuff. Accept or reject it, the worldview goes along with the package.

Instead, so many well-meaning religious people attempted to combat the worldview clown car of “theistic evolution,” as if the clown car makes any difference when so many people are fleeing those theistic evolution churches anyway.

Ah! Another friend has also kindly written to say that it is even more urgent that someone provide such a worldview guide for Darwin’s abjectly racist Descent of Man.

Indeed. It would be a relief, after all these years of Darwinians shouting everyone down by declaring that Darwin was anti-slavery… as if there were not perfectly good racist and imperialist arguments against slavery!:

Racists, imperialists, and class snobs have often been among those who see that slavery corrupts a society. For example, young aristocrats can force themselves on slave girls and produce children that they do nothing to raise. Their bad example trickles through the society, making it difficult for clergy to inculcate a sense of responsibility in the aristocrats’ social inferiors. We need no highly developed sense of social justice to observe the fact that it would be better for all concerned if there were no slave girls anyhow.

See also: H. G. Wells: Popularizing Darwin, Racism, And Mayhem – The History You Never Learned In School

11 Replies to “Fancy that! An edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species with a worldview guide

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    “perhaps we should long ago have adopted the practice of simply providing editions of Darwin’s works, detailing the worldview that lies behind this stuff”

    From personal experience, looking back at the educational institutions I attended, I can’t do anything but conclude that they ran a cover racket for Evolutionism throughout all those years. Never as much as single questioning peep from teachers about any of it and all the talking points were faithfully regurgitated.

    Admittedly, I was just an ignorant kid at the time. Why would I even think to doubt any of it? Why would someone push a big lie on me?

    But… that’s how this game works. Don’t underestimate people’s capacity for exploiting one another.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    john_a_designer says:

    According to Gordon Wilson:

    Here’s where we can agree with Darwin’s low-level variation (what some call microevolution). When he was talking about man producing a vast array of distinct breeds we can give him a hearty “amen.” When he discusses nature (via natural selection acting on variation) producing a variety of species descending from common ancestor, all having essentially the same characteristics– again a hearty “amen” to that…

    The crucial question we must ask when assessing Darwin’s bigger claim is this: Can species evolve new anatomy (body plans, organs, etc.) To this question, the answer is an emphatic no. No one (past, present, or future) has a valid excuse in believing Darwin’s claims when they extend to this level (often called macroevolution).

    It sounds like he’s either an ID’ist or a creationist. How did he get invited to contribute to this book? Who is the publisher? I don’t mean what is their name; I mean where are they coming from?

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I think he’s writing for a Christian audience.

  4. 4
    Latemarch says:

    SA:
    Yep, definitely a YEC.
    The Christians have no fear of incorporating Darwin into the curriculum as long as it’s put into the correct context of what it can and cannot explain.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    john a designer:

    It sounds like he’s either an ID’ist or a creationist.

    Or a person who understands the evidence and the science. After “Why is a Fly Bot a Horse?” was published, the author, geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, was branded a Creationist. And yet he was an evolutionary biologist exposing the facts pertaining to evolutionism. The facts that say it is complete nonsense with respect to creating the diversity of life.

  6. 6

    .
    Completely and Utterly Off Topic:

    For any Canadians in the audience, sad to hear today of the passing of one of your most famous unknown sons, Neil Peart at age 67.

    It is a well-known fact (almost celebrated) that Neil Peart’s rock band was not everyone’s “cup of tea”, but it is also known that everyone who witnessed Neil play percussion stood back and gasped at the talent.. After 41 years and 37 gold and platinum albums, they must have been doing something right. Stereos in the 1970’s could not be turned up loud enough.

    He was the very best of the very best and outplayed all those that inspired him. RIP Neil Peart

  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    off topic:

    i recently came across this MAINSTREAM-SCIENCE!! article, it is from 2007


    CHALLENGING DARWIN’S THEORY OF SEXUAL SELECTION

    ““May a biologist in these polarized times dare suggest that Darwin is a bit wrong about anything ? Even worse, does a biologist risk insult, ridicule, anger, and intimidation to suggest that Darwin is incorrect on a big issue ? We have a test case before us. Darwin appears completely mistaken in his theory of sex roles, a subject called the ‘theory of sexual selection’.””

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20028107?seq=1

  8. 8
    PavelU says:

    Here’s a paper that shows that natural science is the answer to all the questions:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000115

  9. 9
    Truthfreedom says:

    @8 PavelU: ‘Here’s a paper that shows that natural science is the answer to all the questions’.

    Oh my… More Atheist SUPERSTITION! Were not you the ‘enlightened’ ones?

    “The SPECTER of Scientism”:

    ‘One pathology characterstic of much post-Enlightenment reasoning is often called “scientism”: treating the scientific method as the only way of knowing anything and everything’.

    ‘On the everyday level, scientism appears whenever the language of science is invoked as a trump-card in debate. When someone responds to an argument with “The science says … ” he is often implying that the natural sciences provide the only real standard of objectivity, making the scientist a quasi-religious authority to whom all must defer …’

    ‘Scientism’s Achilles’ heel is that it is based on what philosophers call a self-refuting premise. The truth of the claim “No claims are true unless they can be proved scientifically” cannot itself be proved scientifically. You need to deploy other forms of reasoning to make such arguments. But these are forms of reasoning that scientism considers unreasonable’.

    https://acton.org/pub/commentary/2019/09/18/specter-scientism

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    PavelU, That is the second time you referenced the same paper that does not even come close to substantiating your claim for it. For crying put loud, they are ‘offering prizes’.

    1. Introduction
    First, a few words about the Millennium Prize that was established by London Clay. It was established in 2000 by the Clay Mathematics Institute with a fund of $7 million for seven unsolved problems, $1 million going to anyone who solved any of these seven problems. For the history of the prize, see [http://www.claymath.org/millennium/]. Since then, only one problem has been solved. It was by the Russian mathematician, Grigori Perelman, who solved the Poincare conjecture and was awarded the prize in 2010, but refused to accept it.

  11. 11
    Truthfreedom says:

    Maybe some ‘illusory’ scientist has been granted the prize and it is not known?

    Having in mind that ‘people’ are ‘illusions’ and ‘do not exist’.

    Oh wait…

Leave a Reply