Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the face of systematic attempts to efface from public view, Darwin’s racism, a friend writes to offer quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man:

Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.

“The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

“The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used.”

[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn’t very difficult, with a bit of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art if they wanted to. Most human beings don’t even try to develop their sense of smell – we are mostly occupied with avoiding distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I don’t of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin’s idea here is basically wrong and best explained by racism. ]

“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. … In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasian races.

“It is an interesting fact that ancient races, in this and several other cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors.”

[From Denyse: The nice thing about teeth is that, if they give trouble, they can simply be pulled. I would be reluctant to found a big theory on the size or convenience of teeth, given that this  fact must have occurred to our ancestors many thousands of years ago.]

“It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.”
[From Denyse: Native North Americans often perished from human diseases to which they had not become immune in childhood. That is probably unrelated to the inability of anthropoid apes to stand cold climates.]

This includes the degraded morals of lower races:

“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind…. A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”

“As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity is an unknown virtue….. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, “Never, never trust an Indian.”

[From Denyse: If early modern Europeans in Canada had not trusted “Indians,” they would all have died off pretty quickly.]

“The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations. The greatest intemperance is no reproach with savages.”

“I have entered into the above details on the immorality of savages, because some authors have recently taken a high view of their moral nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to mistaken benevolence. These authors appear to rest their conclusion on savages possessing those virtues which are serviceable, or even necessary, for the existence of the family and of the tribe,–qualities which they undoubtedly do possess, and often in a high degree.”

[From Denyse: Charles Darwin, let me introduce you to Hollywood, before you say any more silly things about the supposed immorality of “savages.” ]

Making slavery understandable, though of course distasteful now:

“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

[From Denyse: Not really. In ancient times, slaves were typically unransomed captives in war, convicted criminals, or people who had fallen into irrecoverable debt. In Roman times, there would be nothing unusual about being a slave to someone of the same race as oneself. Slavery based on race alone was an early modern legal invention, aimed against blacks.]

Mass killings of savages is understandable as a type of species extinction:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

“The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known….When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race…. The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element in the success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared the inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be ridiculous.”

“[Flinders Island], situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and the natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly in health….With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the natives.” [–Obviously the problem was trying to civilize these barbarians!]

“Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes which differ in different places and at different times; it is the same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the higher animals.”

Of course the degradation extends to the intellectual:

“There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,–as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body …Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea.”

[From Denyse: I would imagine that the aborigines of South America felt some resentment over the loss of their continent to invaders from Europe … ]

” A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in progress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races.”

“So far as we are enabled to judge, although always liable to err on this head, none of the differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be excepted from this remark.”

And… drum roll.., the main conclusion:

“The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind-such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. … He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.”

[From Denyse: Sounds like a local rave to me. Not my ancestors (who were, as it happens, rigidly correct people, but my 2009 fellow Torontonians.)]

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from …[a] monkey, or from that old baboon… –as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

[From Denyse: Yuh, I know. I know women who have divorced guys like that too … but, when founding a theory in science, it strikes me that … ]

And let’s not forget sexism!

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

“The greater intellectual vigour and power of invention in man is probably due to natural selection, combined with the inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have succeeded best in defending and providing for themselves and for their wives and offspring.”

[From Denyse: Re women vs. men: Actually, if we leave Darwin’s obsession with natural selection out of the matter for a moment, we can come up with a simple explanation for the difference between men’s and women’s achievements. Men are far more likely to win Nobel Prizes than women – but also far more likely to sit on Death Row.

For most normal achievements, women will do as well as men, given a chance. Women do just as well as men at being, say, a family doctor, an accountant, a real estate agent, a high school teacher, etc.

It’s only in outstanding achievements – either for good OR for ill – that men tend to dominate. One way of seeing this is that the curve of women’s achievements fits inside the curve of men’s achievements, either way.

Natural selection does not explain this because most men who have outstanding achievements do not contribute a great deal to the gene pool as a consequence.

Either they produce few or no children, or their children do nothing outstanding. So Darwin did not really have a good explanation for this fact.

What should we do? Breeding of people and letting the weak die off:

“The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.”

“We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

[From Denyse: But how would anyone know who the “worst animals” are among people?]

Comments
kairosfocus @75
1] Is this a mere personal view or intended to be a scientific claim?
It appears to me that it was intended to be a scientific claim. Unfortunately, he was working with inaccurate data precisely because of his personal views. Essentially, given the evidence at his disposal in his day, the quoted text couldn't necessarily be shown to be false. However, it wasn't necessarily supported by the evidence, either. His mistake was to utilize his personal views as the "tie-breaker" to determine whether such a claim was warranted.
2] If your answer is “a personal view,” in light of the above context and highlighted points, on what grounds do you infer such?
I think it's pretty clear that he was working on the false assumption that different races were different species, and that this assumption was based in whole or in part on his own personal views. Unfortunately, these views were only reinforced by other naturalists of his day (e.g. "they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species").
3] A Gedanken experiment is an application of laws to imaginary situations not likely to be instantiated but “in principle” possible. Is the above a mere thought experiment, or is it an intended analysis of an observed reality, with predictions for the future that were expected to be confirmed — especially given what was happening to the aboriginal peoples of Australia and esp. Tasmania?
It appears from the text that it was intended to be the latter. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that "some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries" would be unlikely to be instantiated eventually. I certainly hope that you are not next going to claim that because this prediction has been invalidated, that therefore the entire theory of evolution is similarly invalidated. I would be sorely disappointed in you.
4] Further to all this, has RV + NS ever been reliably and directly observationally confirmed to originate (i) species and (ii) higher levels, especially (iii) at the level of novel body-plans?
I will admit that I've never looked too deeply into it. I suspect that it has not, since you seem quite certain in your incredulity, and I really have no reason to doubt that. At this point, it's a prediction that has been neither confirmed nor falsified, and so it's an open question. However, for me at least, there are enough independent lines of evidence supporting evolution to convince me that this, too, is likely to one day be observed. If any significant portion of the other lines evidence (even a significant minority) were convincingly shown to be false or misleading, then I would begin to question such a stance. Until then, I see no reason to do so.
5] If so, when, by whom, in what situation, as published where?
Again, I have no reason to doubt your apparent conviction that such observations are not to be found in current or past scientific literature.KRiS
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Mynym thanks for your answer. KRiS: Yours is? Why? Thanks GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Wow. Just…wow. If you ever become interested in thinking about what is true or seeking the truth then let me know. I'm not sure what "scientific thinking" is in your mind but if it has little to do with seeking the truth then I have little use for it. After all some people argue that "scientific thinking" shows that what we think we see and know is an illusion brought about by blind processes. As far as I'm concerned people who argue that they have a knowledge of sight and sentience based on ignorant and blind processes are like Holocaust deniers. They are always picking around the edges of knowledge in order to create ignorance with respect to things that we should already know and admit to.mynym
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Is this a mere personal view or intended to be a scientific claim? On Darwin's terms it is clearly intended to be a "scientific claim," one which he lamented based on the hypothetical vestiges of a "noble instinct" if I recall correctly. Unfortunately this type of reasoning allowed the Nazis to engage in "doubling" as well, as the historian Robert Lifton notes. So on the one hand they might feel terrible about what they did as private persons but given what was true biologically they could do away with whatever they knew as an individual to support extermination as a public citizen based on science. E.g.
For doctors there were the added components of omnipotent tendencies in medicine in general but most especially the vision of National Socialism as "nothing but applied biology" (see pages 129-31). ....doctors could buttress their omnipotence with those bizarre and compelling claims made in the name of biology, evolution, and healing. The Auschwitz self could feel itself to be tapping the power source of nature itself in becoming the engine of the Nazi movement, or nature's engine. That metaphor of "nature's engine" suggests the relationship of omnipotence to the apparently opposite feeling of powerlessness or impotence, of being no more than a tiny cog in someone else's machine. [...] Moreover the Auschwitz self quickly sought that stance of powerlessness.... This emotional and moral surrender to the environment had great psychological advantages. The Auschwitz self could feel: "I am not responsible for selections. I am not responsible for phenol injections. I am a victim of the environment no less than the inmates." (The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert J. Lifton :449-450)
It does not help that language is polluted by concepts like natural "selection" which attribute intelligence and knowledge to Nature. If you view your Self or sentience as an illusion brought about by natural selection then the "selection" of who dies and who lives has little to do with "you," it's simply the way that Nature is. Natural selection should have been called natural culling or natural preservation, yet it was not because Darwin was trying portray natural "selection" as a cause of creative/progressive forms of evolution instead of admitting that the only known cause for evolution of that sort is sight and intelligence, not blind processes.mynym
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Wow. Just...wow.KRiS
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Calling a thought experiment “imaginary evidence” displays a profound lack of understanding of even the most basic processes of scientific thinking. Sorry, I did not realize you were engaging in scientific thinking. I thought you were just thinking about what is true. As far as I go I'm just thinking about actual historical evidence, not "thought experiments" and so on. Did you put your thoughts in a test-tube and verify or falsify them scientifically? If I were to put my thoughts in a test-tube could I claim to be thinking scientifically too? Perhaps I do not understand the "basic processes" of scientific thinking, whatever they may be, but it seems to me that if a "thought experiment" is based on little more than "Well, I can think of it." then that is little different than "I can imagine it so. Just so." And that's the sort of imaginary evidence which permeates Darwinian reasoning in general. Again, what great physicist was also a serial killer in reality? I can think that it is possible to separate scientific knowledge from knowledge in general but that does not change the fact that there is no evidence that people generally do so or have done so. For example, did Newton's religious views on the intelligible structure and intelligent origins of his scientia/knowledge really have nothing to do with his "pure and objective" scientific theories? I think I can safely ignore your posts in the future. As far as "scientific thinking" goes consider this hypothesis or thought, the defense mechanism of a nerd tends to be charlatanism. Given that they don’t have much else to work with, they are forced to focus on intelligence and knowledge. So in a theoretical debate with science geeks this type of pattern might emerge every time they could not deal with a bit of evidence outside the scope of their microscope: “I’m feeling a bit scientific now! You don't know what I know but oh how I know it!” Etc. It wouldn't matter if they actually knew anything or not, they would claim knowledge. There actually is some evidence that science geeks of the sort that have issues with "Father God" want to crawl back into the womb of Mother Nature. Given the pattern of a smothering mother lurking in the background of many nerds if they seemed intent on clinging to their metaphoric Mommy Nature and sought connection to her to the point that they never seem to stop trying to suck at her teat, murmuring about science without demonstrating any specific knowledge might only be a symptom of neurosis. Imagine that!mynym
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
KRiS [Re mynym]: Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871, Ch 6 -- nb, NOT a private letter: __________ Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations [Random Variation, check], which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted [i.e. natural selection etc, check] in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence [Malthusian positive checks, check], and consequently to natural selection. [NS, explicit, check] He has given rise to many races ["preservation of favoured races . . . " check -- subtitle, Origin], some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species [origin of species, check] . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. ["Scientific" prediction per presumed acting laws, & subject to empirical test, check] At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [Note what he means by "races," in a SCIENTIFIC context . ..]] ____________ 1] Is this a mere personal view or intended to be a scientific claim? 2] If your answer is "a personal view," in light of the above context and highlighted points, on what grounds do you infer such? 3] A Gedankenexperiment is an application of laws to imaginary situations not likely to be instantiated but "in principle" possible. Is the above a mere thought experiment, or is it an intended analysis of an observed reality, with predictions for the future that were expected to be confirmed -- especially given what was happening to the aboriginal peoples of Australia and esp. Tasmania? 4] Further to all this, has RV + NS ever been reliably and directly observationally confirmed to originate (i) species and (ii) higher levels, especially (iii) at the level of novel body-plans? 5] If so, when, by whom, in what situation, as published where? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
mynym @71 Calling a thought experiment "imaginary evidence" displays a profound lack of understanding of even the most basic processes of scientific thinking. I think I can safely ignore your posts in the future.KRiS
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
PS: Allen, I see you have tried the [im-]moral equivalency card. Sorry --given that I put up substantiating evidence from relevant documents and history [including my national and family history] -- that comes across to me as a turnabout accusation, not a serious response. And, when I smell cover-up and turnabout, I think I have a right to ask even more serious questions, Allen. And, the ghost sitting by my right shoulder tells me I have a RIGHT to equally serious answers, Allen. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Allen Godwin is sometimes irrelevant to the point of being fallacy . . . My central concern is a lot more personal than that, I am afraid; though it is not part of YOUR history. It is part of not only my national history but my family's story, Allen. (Herr Schicklegruber is a footnote for me on this.) For, I bear the name of that relative unjustly hanged in J'ca under Eyre (who was extending the 'do nothing" policy that led to mass starvation when the potato blight hit, to J'ca as it faced drought and famine in the waning days of the US Civil War). So, let's connect some dots: 1 --> The issue of the Morant Bay uprising [consequential on a do-nothing Malthusian policy in a land of people not inclined to starve quietly . . . ] and its kangaroo court was headlined in the UK circa 1865/66, and led to Cockneys burning Eyre in effigy; then 2 --> 5 - 6 years later, lo and behold, I find a book in which one of the English elites, writing in the name of "science," speaks of Irish as inferior races doomed to Malthusian positive checks. And . . . 3 --> in close association with that, the book speaks of Negroes [etc down to great apes] being wiped out by more advanced "races," 4 --> that gets my attention, bigtime. 5 --> Notice, I then go to H G Wells [via Huxley, yes, that Huxley], to show that this sort of "scientific" thinking was by 1897 very pervasive. 6 --> That gets my eyes even more open. 7 --> And finally, I can read Mr Shchicklegruber for myself -- why not read that passage on Foxes and Geese, Cats and Mice, races, imagined results of mixing the races [we J'cans know better -- just check out Beijing 08 and all the way back to '52 with McKinley et al; or, beauty pageants, or cultural achievements, or a lot of other areas in which J'ca's stock has consistently out-punched its weight on the world stage . . . ] and survival of the fittest? 8 --> And the eugenicists [including founders of Planned Parenthood] etc, etc. sing a very similar song. And the ghost of my granny's great uncle sitting by my right shoulder -- hanged for speaking up for the oppressed and impoverished, Allen: for people who were suffering FAMINE Allen -- agrees with me. So, please, come better than that. The fact is, that "scientific" racism [and classism . . . ] was discredited AFTER the Holocaust, not before. I know this is painful reading [imagine how I feel, writing with a relative's ghost sitting by my right shoulder . . . ], but I am driven by the point that if we don't learn from a true and fair view of bitter history, we are doomed to repeat its worst chapters Sorry to have to address such painful reading, but I think we must; if we are to learn from a very, very bitter past, Allen. Please, let us learn, lest we repeat it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Allen, before you run off, can you address the question from 48: What new observations would be required to model how many advantageous mutations it would take for the original eukaryote to develop lungs, limb, spine etc. ?tribune7
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Kris said:It’s what’s known as a thought experiment, which is often used when reasoning to test the logical veracity of an idea. In this case, we’re testing the idea that a scientists personal views determines the truth or falsity of any theory that originated with that scientist. Given that it's a thought experiment which has nothing to do with the real world it's not much of a test for the fact/value split. If the only way that an apparently beautiful or useful idea can be supported is with imaginary evidence then it remains at the level of Darwinism. Presumably, you accept Newton’s theory of gravitation as essentially right (though incomplete, of course). Let us now assume only for the sake of argument that some long lost historical documents were discovered whose accuracy could be verified... But we don't have to assume or imagine anything, history shows that no great physicist was a serial killer or took part in the patterns typical to them as instead they seek the "Mind of God." If there was a great physicist who turned out to be a serial killer that would call into question his supposed knowledge/scientia because we already know that physicists understand beauty and use the elegance or beauty of a theory as part of the evidence that it is true. There is no "pure" form of science that exists sans sentience. If we assume that your idea is correct, logically you must then say that the theory of gravitation is no longer a valid theory. I'm not focusing on thought experiments which deal with imaginary evidence. If you could point out many great physicists who were serial killers or who matched that pattern (drowning puppies, etc.) then the idea that all truth is linked would be undermined. It's telling that apparently the only way you can find evidence supporting the fact/value split is by imagining some in thought experiments. Understand, we’re not saying that this has happened, or will happen, or is even remotely likely to happen. Exactly...so if I'm interested in what actually happens in the real world who should I talk to? ....generally indicates that the idea being tested (that a scientists personal views determines the truth or falsity of any theory that originated with that scientist) is itself wrong. So you've tested the idea that true knowledge is linked based on imaginary evidence and found that it may be wrong, yet on your own imaginary account your theory may have nothing to do with anything real? As compelling as the argument that a supposedly "pure" scientia/knowledge can be separated from sentience I think I'll reject your arguments until you provide something more substantive than imaginary evidence for them. For example, what great physicist was a serial killer or actually did enjoy drowning puppies and so on?mynym
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill [31]:
As to the origin of macroevolutionary transitions, I’ve listed one in this thread: serial endosymbiosis... Rather than consume a huge quantity of bandwidth listing off the various mechanisms by which macroevolutionary transitions have occurred, I recommend Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency; Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould
Why don't you just list them as terms, without descriptions - just the relatively viable and non-speculative ones, that shouldn't consume too much bandwidth and would be a great resource.JT
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Trib Second hit takes me to part of the passage in I had in mind. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
#61: I call Godwin's Law: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/godwins-darwin.htmlAllen_MacNeill
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Seversky, you are truly amazing. I warn you about going to anti-Catholic websites to obtain information about the Catholic Church, and the first thing you do is search out a “letter to the editor” authored by an anti-Catholic partisan as evidence of your position. I will simply provide enough information on one or two aspects and trust that the reader will understand your errors, which are many and multifaceted. In his overall analysis of morality in human relationships, Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all "rational creatures" are entitled to justice. In keeping with that principle, he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, "thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion." Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for "one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end." Aquinas differentiated between two forms of "subjection" or authority, just and unjust. The former exists when leaders work for the advantage and benefit of their subjects. The unjust form of subjection "is that of slavery, in which the ruler manages the subject for his own [the ruler's] advantage." Based on the immense authority vested in Aquinas by the Church, the official view came to be that slavery is sinful. So, yes, your source was dead wrong and was making things up as he goes along. Please make a note of that. You are undoubtedly unaware of the fact that Aquinas often provided arguments contrary to his own position in the beginning of his discourse in order to shoot them down later. Inasmuch as he was able to articulate these arguments even better than those who had misconceived them, badly educated professors often borrow them to support their misconceived positions without even bothering to read the refutation that follows. Please make a note of that. On the matter of papal teaching, the official pronouncements are equally consistent. Some popes were hypocrites as is the case for leaders in all institutions. That is why in 1488 Pope Innocent VIII violated his own Church’s teachings and accepted slaves. However, laxity must not be confused with doctrine. This same pope also fathered many children, but he did not retract the official doctrine that the clergy should be celibate. In similar fashion, his acceptance of a gift of slaves should not be confused with official Church teachings. These were enunciated often and explicitly as they became pertinent. During the 1430’s, Spanish leaders took control of the Canary Islands and began to enslave the native population. Pope Eugene IV issued a bull, Sicut dudum. He gave everyone involved fifteen days “to restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands…These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.” Pope Pius II and Pope Sixtus IV followed with additional bulls condemning enslavement. And so it goes. All the official teachings of the Church are anti-slavery---all of them. Please make a note of that.StephenB
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
KF, here's an interesting exercise: Go to this link of the Murphy translation of Mein Kampf and text search for "evolution". Don't use the quotes. Make sure you put a space before the "e".tribune7
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Seversky -- was not claiming that the Roman Catholic church has been a uniform supporter of slavery throughout its history. Here's what you have to remember: a concession is not the same thing as an endorsement. Slavery was a well-established fact of life at the time of Christ. It was a well-established fact of life at the time of Moses for that matter. Heck, at the time of Abraham. Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote a whole musical about a certain young son of Israel sold into slavery in Egypt. Is the story of Joseph an endorsement of slavery? I don't think so. So because, the Catholic Church had to recognize this reality does not mean it was endorsing it. With regard to the letter to the editor that you cite, I suspect it has serious distortions which would be rather time-consuming to fact check. But let's consider one thing with regard to the allowance to keep POWs as slaves. What if the the church forbid it? What would have happened to the POWs? Some of these arguments made about the Catholic Church and slavery are as annoying as those saying the U.S. Constitution established slavery. In no way it did. Like the church the Founding Fathers recognized a reality. Slavery had been well-established in the colonies by the British Crown. The fugitive slave clause was a concession. The three-fifths rule was aimed at weakening the power of the slave-holders. But there are those who insist that the Constitution is pro-slavery. Why? To correct history? No, they do so to weaken foundations, stir resentment and acquire power.tribune7
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
PS: In addressing slavery, one needs to reckon with not only the Catholic church but also, e.g. the Evangelicals [try William Wilberforce, Olaudah Equiano (former slave and author of An interestign narrative), Thomas Foxwell Buxton, William Knibb et al, and of course Deacon [and national hero of J'ca) "Daddy" Sam Sharpe, from my native land's history as then a part of the British empire], and their readings of texts such as:
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you - although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. [1 Cor 7:21 - 23.]; . . . . ,b>It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery . . . . You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself." If you keep biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. [Gal. 5:1, 13 - 15.] The law is good if one uses it properly . . . [it] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders [KJV: menstealers] and liars and perjurers - and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. [1 Tim 1:8 - 11, emphasis added] If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. [Deut. 24:7. Cf. Lev. 24:22: "You are to have the same law for the alien and the native born . . ."]
In short, while the passages have a main reference to spiritual freedom, and make precisely the "good advice in a bad situation recommendation" that SB points out, the Bible in the vernacular in the hands of the ordinary man was a significant force for liberation. One that, once the gospel was beginning to help democratise civilisation, helped spark, motivate and then guide to success, the antisalvery campaigns of the past few centuries. A true and fair view of the church on slavery will need to reckon with this too.kairosfocus
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
KRIS --I’m just curious as to what definition of religion you are using to characterize “Darwinism” as one. Maybe cult might be a better term. The Darwinist clings to a dogma, the claims of which can't be demonstrated, and attacks any and all who question it.tribune7
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Folks: Reality check -- Mrs O'Leary is right, dead right. It is time we came face to face with the fact and dealt with it. Doubt me? First, try Darwin's 1871 Descent of Man, Ch 6:
Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Indeed, the general discussion of Chs 5 - 7 is rather plain, and as a fellow descendant of the Irish as well, I join with Denyse in horror over the way Darwin so lightly dismissed the context of the Irish famines of the 1840's. (Not to mention that Governor Eyre's attitude in 1865 in Jamaica (my homeland) reflected the same pattern of thought, provoking the uprising of October that year. Jamaicans refused to starve to death quietly!) Observe, carefully: CD here viewed the matter as a question of straightforward out-workings of SCIENCE. And insofar as the 1865 J'ca uprising made headline news in London [Governor Eyre was burned in effigy by the Cockneys -- a fine tribute to the good sense of the common man!], I have to suspect that his remarks on Negroes being wiped out makes some very, very suggestive reading to me in a book penned a few years later in which he in effect dismisses the "irresponsible" Irish as causing their own plight. It gets worse. Fast forward to 1897, through Darwin's Bulldog to someone who studied under Huxley, H G Wells. let us read an excerpt from the opening words of his War of the Worlds, right at the beginning of Ch 1:
No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water . . . No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas. And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. Their world is far gone in its cooling and this world is still crowded with life, but crowded only with what they regard as inferior animals. To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them. And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?
Do you not see the thinly veiled warning in these words? or, their prophetic import in light of a certain Adolph Schicklegruber's My Struggle [Mein Kampf], esp Ch XI [I refuse to link, go google yourself and read . . .]? In short, it is fair (though obviously frequently most unwelcome, and even angrily dismissed)comment to observe: 1 --> That struggle for HUMAN existence in light of Malthusian population checks was seen as applying to races of man, was accepted as "science." By a certain Charles Robert Darwin, specifically. 2 --> This was interpreted in the context of "race"; that being applied to not only Australians and Negroes vs Caucasians, but across even the British peoples -- the "Saxons," the "Celts," and the "Scots." [Read; English, Irish, Scottish.] Again, by CRD. 3 --> The same CRD coolly projected that in the span of centuries to follow, the more advanced races would wipe out the less advanced human races and the more advanced apes. 4 --> A common thread in it, as H G Wells pointed out, was that dehumanising/ devaluing leads to the idea that one may wipe out so-called lesser breeds; all "scientifically" warranted by the ideas of natural selection. 5 --> In short, by late C19, the "scientific" rationale was there for social darwinism, eugenics and genocide; as was taken up by men who would carry it forth ruthlessly in the next century. And, CRD was one of the very first to advance that rationale, in the book in which he took the theses of origin and extended them to humanity. 6 --> And, let us never forget: such was not corrected until AFTER mass murders and horrible abuses in the name of scientific Eugenics. Decades of such horrors. 7 --> We may put on the other side of the balance sheet his humanitarianism, or his antislavery position, etc, but a true and fair view of the man and what he did and its consequences MUST not erase this side of his legacy. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
vjtorley @ 57
Does this sound like a slave-trader to you? I’ll let my readers decide.
No, I agree that does not sound like a slave-trader to me either. But let me refer you to the letter from The Observer quoted above in my reply to StephenB and ask you the same question: are all those examples factually incorrect or complete misrepresentations of what was intended?Seversky
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 39
Seversky @10: Let me make the point as clearly as possible: The Catholic Church has NEVER supported slavery in any way.
Googling further found this letter to The Observer newspaper.
In the fourth century, St. Augustine thought slavery could be beneficial to both slaves and masters; in 650 Pope Martin I forbade people to help slaves escape; in 1179 the Third Lateran Council decreed the enslavement of anyone helping the Saracens; in 1226 Pope Gregory IX incorporated slavery into the Corpus Iuris Canonici (Canon Law), where it remained until 1913; in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas considered slavery to be in accordance with natural law and a consequence of original sin; in 1454 Pope Nicholas V's bull Romanus Pontifex allowed the King of Portugal to enslave Saracens and pagans at war with Christians; in 1493, Pope Alexander VI gave the same right to the King of Spain in fighting native Americans; in 1548 Paul III allowed both clergy and laity to own slaves; in 1866 Pope Pius IX specifically declared that "slavery in itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. ... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given."
Are you saying that all the examples quoted here of apparent endorsement of slavery are factually incorrect or complete misrepresentations of the intent of the original authors?
More than any other institution, it was responsible for ENDING slavery. As you do your Googling, please discipline yourself in the fine art of uncovering responsible sources. The website that you allude to dispenses grossly inaccurate information conceived by an apparently disaffected Catholic who has some kind of ax to grind.
That your response to the factual claims on that website is an ad hominem attack on the authors is duly noted.
I am not going to take time out to list the multitude of papal documents on record that condemn slavery. Suffice it to say, I could fill page after page with them. A few references are as follows: Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741) condemned slavery and the slave trade. Some of these writings were aimed at the clergy, since the Church has always had traitors and corrupting influences in its ranks. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:
Thank you. Now let me make it as clear as I can that I was not claiming that the Roman Catholic church has been a uniform supporter of slavery throughout its history. As you show above, there is more than sufficient evidence that it has condemned and attempted to curb or ban various forms of slavery at different times. However, the vehemence of your and other responses to allegations that the Church had also acquiesced in, condoned or taken part in the trading of slaves is revealing. Perhaps you will now understand the feelings of those who believe that a theory in science stands or falls by its scientific merits not by the views of its author on unrelated matters, that a sustained attack on Darwin's views on race and sex in a attempt to tarnish his theory with guilt by association is nothing more than blatant argumentum ad hominem.
If you want to defend Darwin’s views on race then have at it, but please stop injecting multiple irrelevant themes and peddling erroneous information. The fact that you seriously entertain the notion that Charles Darwin was a greater defender of human dignity than the Catholic Church ought to end forever any hope you have of being taken seriously.
No one is defending Darwin's relatively mild racism or indulging in pointless comparisons between him and the Catholic Church as defenders of human dignity. What is being pointed out is that his racism, as seen from a 21st Century perspective, is irrelevant to the scientific merit of his 19th century theory of evolution. That is fair game for criticism on scientific grounds and you do not need my permission to "have at it".Seversky
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
uoflcard @55
Just a personal observation… I’ve only recently started to recognize the religion of Darwinism.
I'm just curious as to what definition of religion you are using to characterize "Darwinism" as one. Perhaps I am simply displaying my own lack of intelligence, but I can't think of any definition of religion that would include Darwinism, but would not include any of the other sciences (physics or chemistry for instance).KRiS
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
While we're on the subject of slavery... I couldn't find the word "slave" in a word search of Pope Gregory I's Pastoral Rule at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3601.htm , but I finally came across this passage in Book III, chapter 5:
Chapter 5 How servants and masters are to be admonished. (Admonition 6). Differently to be admonished are servants and masters. Servants, to wit, that they ever keep in view the humility of their condition; but masters, that they lose not recollection of their nature, in which they are constituted on an equality with servants. Servants are to be admonished that they despise not their masters, lest they offend God, if by behaving themselves proudly they gainsay His ordinance: masters, too, are to be admonished, that they are proud against God with respect to His gift, if they acknowledge not those whom they hold in subjection by reason of their condition to be their equals by reason of their community of nature. The former are to be admonished to know themselves to be servants of masters; the latter are to be admonished to acknowledge themselves to be fellow-servants of servants. For to those it is said, Servants, obey your masters according to the flesh (Colossians 3:22); and again, Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honour (1 Timothy 6:1); but to these it is said, And ye, masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that both their and your Master is in heaven (Ephesians 6:9).
Compare this with Seversky's quote, which I imagine he lifted from www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav4.htm:
Slaves should be told...not [to] despise their masters and recognize that they are only slaves.
I'll leave it to my readers to decide whether www.religioustolerance.org quoted Gregory I fairly or not. What about the other slander against Pope Gregory I?
595 CE: Pope Gregory dispatched a priest to Britain to purchase Pagan boys to work as slaves on church estates.
Some Web sites have compounded the slander, adding that these pagan boys had to be "attractive." Here are the facts, which the reader can check at http://www.summagallicana.it/lessico/g/Gregorio%20I%20-%20Gregorio%20Magno%20-%20Santo.htm :
The state in which Gregory became pope in 590 was a ruined one. The Lombards held the better part of Italy. Their predations had brought the economy to a standstill. They camped nearly at the gates of Rome. The city was packed with refugees from all walks of life, who lived in the streets and had few of the necessities of life. The seat of government was far from Rome in Constantinople, which appeared unable to undertake the relief of Italy. The pope had sent emissaries, including Gregory, asking for assistance, to no avail. In 590 Gregory could wait for Constantinople no longer. He organized the resources of the church into an administration for general relief. In doing so he evidenced a talent for and intuitive understanding of the principles of accounting, which was not to be invented for centuries. The church already had basic accounting documents: every expense was recorded in journals called regesta, "lists" of amounts, recipients and circumstances. Revenue was recorded in polyptici, "books." Many of these polyptici were ledgers recording the operating expenses of the church and the assets, the patrimonia. A central papal administration, the notarii, under a chief, the primicerius notariorum, kept the ledgers and issued brevia patrimonii, or lists of property for which each rector was responsible. Gregory began by aggressively requiring his churchmen to seek out and relieve needy persons and reprimanded them if they did not. In a letter to a subordinate in Sicily he wrote: "I asked you most of all to take care of the poor. And if you knew of people in poverty, you should have pointed them out ... I desire that you give the woman, Pateria, forty soldi for the childrens' shoes and forty bushels of grain ...." Soon he was replacing administrators who would not cooperate with those who would and at the same time adding more in a build-up to a great plan that he had in mind. He understood that expenses must be matched by income. To pay for his increased expenses he liquidated the investment property and paid the expenses in cash according to a budget recorded in the polyptici. The churchmen were paid four times a year and also personally given a golden coin for their trouble. Money, however, was no substitute for food in a city that was on the brink of famine. Even the wealthy were going hungry in their villas. The church now owned between 1300 and 1800 square miles of revenue-generating farmland divided into large sections called patrimonia. It produced goods of all kinds, which were sold, but Gregory intervened and had the goods shipped to Rome for distribution in the diaconia. He gave orders to step up production, set quotas and put an administrative structure in place to carry it out. At the bottom was the rusticus who produced the goods. Some rustici were or owned slaves. He turned over part of his produce to a conductor from whom he leased the land. The latter reported to an actionarius, the latter to a defensor and the latter to a rector. Grain, wine, cheese, meat, fish and oil began to arrive at Rome in large quantities, where it was given away for nothing as alms. Distributions to qualified persons were monthly. However, a certain proportion of the population lived in the streets or were too ill or infirm to pick up their monthly food supply. To them Gregory sent out a small army of charitable persons, mainly monks, every morning with prepared food. It is said that he would not dine until the indigent were fed. When he did dine he shared the family table, which he had saved (and which still exists), with 12 indigent guests. To the needy living in wealthy homes he sent meals he had cooked with his own hands as gifts to spare them the indignity of receiving charity. Hearing of the death of an indigent in a back room he was depressed for days, entertaining for a time the conceit that he had failed in his duty and was a murderer. These and other good deeds and charitable frame of mind completely won the hearts and minds of the Roman people. They now looked to the papacy for government, ignoring the rump state at Constantinople, which had only disrespect for Gregory, calling him a fool for his pacifist dealings with the Lombards. The office of urban prefect went without candidates. From the time of Gregory the Great to the rise of Italian nationalism the papacy was most influential in ruling Italy.
Does this sound like a slave-trader to you? I'll let my readers decide.vjtorley
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
I believe evolution happened. I don't believe it was because of random mutations and/or variation along with natural selection. Allen, you have asked for the empirical evidence to disprove neo-Darwinism. That's not the only thing that can refute it, IMO. Neo-Darwinism must be extrapolated, if true, would have to be extrapolated as a worldview to every area of our lives. But when that is done, it becomes completely unliveable. neuroscience says we aren't actually conscious, we don't actually make decisions, etc. Those aren't scientific facts based on empircal evidence, but just an extrapolation of neo-Darwinian evolution. "Well if Darwinism is true, then it must be like this. So this is how it is. Alert the press. Tell them Science has some interesting new extrapolations, errr, discoveries, about how our minds, errrr, brains work."uoflcard
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
Just a personal observation... I've only recently started to recognize the religion of Darwinism. Yes, I realize that there are many people who believe in God and in Darwinism (don't make "Darwinism" and "evolution" the same thing). But there are also many who have developed Darwinism into a full fledged religion. I found the Darwin worship of the last few days was shocking. Then after this post revealing Darwin's racism, the comments are flooded with devout defenses of the Man and his Word. It just proves that we were made to believe in something. That is to say, our inelegant "kluge" of a chemical computer has evolved to compute a belief in our origin.uoflcard
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill, Since you've invoked the Australian termite, I might throw in my hat ... In contrast to nearly all other insects, the front and back wings of the termite look totally alike, as I have experienced dealing with these things for many years. The exception is the species Mastotermes darwiniensis, aka "Darwin termite" (It's named after Darwin, the capital of the Northern Territory, which was named after some bloke named Charles Darwin. He did something or other of note ... or notoriety ...) Anyway, the anal lobe is similar to that seen on the cockroach and praying mantis. This is observed when their hind-wings are unfolded. Evolutionists were ecstatic when this was first observed near 110 years ago. The origin of the species, at least of this area, was now a truth ... The anal lobe was the proof!!!! Cockroaches were the termites forbears, they proclaimed. Thankfully, Australia still housed these relics of the past which could be observed. Evolution is true. OK, that's not all. Other features that evolutionists claimed that linked cockroaches to Mastotermes termites were: They had a more complex vein pattern in their wings, whilst other termites'wings were 'primitive'. This is, of course, using an evolutionary assumption! Termites have four tarsal segments in their feet, where cockroaches and Mastotermes have five tarsal segments. Mastotermes eggs are laid in two rows, similar to cockroaches, whereas termite lay their eggs in one row. If you are like Allen_MacNeill and invoke evolution then these features will be exactly what is required to say macroevolution is 'Truth'. Yet, from an ID perspective a common designer is as just as likely, even more so when further evidence is brought into the mix. Firstly, Mastotermes is far from being a primitive ancestor. The communities they build are among the most populous of the social termite species. An evolutionist may even indicate that this species might even be highly-evolved (!). Termites, and not cockroaches, shed their wings at their pre-formed breakage points. So do Mastotermes. The pre-formed breakage points also point, in my estimation, to something showing design. The mantis and cockroach anal lobe is folded up in a fan-like manner. Mastotermes bends over flat on the wing. This seems more to be looking for a link than finding one. But when Darwinism is floundering, any anal lobe similarity is proof ... But that's not all folks! Interestingly, a fossil in Dominican amber, allegedly 35 million years old, of a winged 'Mastotermes electrodominicus' is near identical as the ones found still living in Australia: The species has the same complicated wing-vein pattern; It has the five-segmented feet; It has those wonderful anal lobes! Mastotermes at its first 'evidentiary' appearance isn't any less 'evolved' than what you can find in the Australian 'Darwin termite'. Is there 'scientific' reason to consider that this termite has evolved at all, in a macro-sense, from cockroaches, Allen_MacNeill? BTW, the same amber also holds termite species that have 'modern' features, as evolutionist would tell us. So, again, what is the evidence that one type is the ancestor of the other? The link with cockroaches is more fanciful than evidential. Watchathink Allen?AussieID
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Tribune7 @ 36
Really? Which type of slavery would you consider to be “not bad”? The next time — assuming you are an American — you happen to see a group of people wearing blaze-orange vests picking up trash along the highway followed by a sheriff’s van, understand that what they are doing is without pay and under compulsion. I am fine with that :-)
In that particular case, so am I but it is not what is customarily thought of as slavery.Seversky
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill, I would avoid this sort of incendiary language if I were you. "So, you also clearly know virtually nothing about the history of biology either." "The fact that you didn’t recognize it as such indicates that you, too, know virtually nothing about evolutionary biology." "So, your lame attempt to invoke the standard “RM & NS” strawman argument....." Even if it's not incendiary to whomever it's directed, it is to me.Clive Hayden
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply