Just recently, Darwin lobbyist Eugenie Scott was referred to as Darwin’s golden retriever. In a similar vein, Richard Dawkins is styled Darwin’s Rottweiler.
Yes, yes, it’s true, Thomas Henry Huxley was known as Darwin’s bulldog, for his dogged defense of his patron’s views. But Huxley was socially far inferior to Darwin in a sharply class-based society, so it made intuitive sense that his inferiority be emphasized.
So what’s with this modern penchant for self-abasement?
Better to be Darwin’s dog than a traditional human being with a mind and soul? Well, they said it of themselves or their friends said it of them. I didn’t.
In general, I can’t pretend to understand the ridiculous hagiography of the ol’ Brit toff Darwin, but go here, here, and here for some fun reads in the new “Darwin” religion, that is catching on with the public like mustard ice cream.
T.H. Huxley was of course a raving atheist. His son, Leonard Huxley became the head of RPA (Rationalist Press Association), which is an atheist book publishing firm dedicated to defaming Christianity and promoting Darwin and Haeckel’s works. Lots of famous evolutionists were involved with RPA. Now, Leonard Huxley’s son was Julian Huxley, the arch-eugenist anti-christian architect of the modern Culture of Death. That’s quite a Huxley legacy. Granpa TH Huxley had a thing against the Salvation Army too. He spend loads of ink slandering them.
More info here:
RPA
Evolutionists and Eugenics
By the way, it seems that Eugenie Scott is a member of the American Eugenics Society.
Nice try there, Vlad. The “American Eugenics Society” no longer exists. In 1972 it was re-named to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, and if you notice, Scott is listed on that page you linked as having joined in 1974. It’s currently in the process of being renamed yet again, this time Society of Biodemography and Social Biology. The name change should sufficiently clue you into the fact that promoting (or even discussing eugenics) is no longer its purpose. I’m afraid the reality is far duller and less sensational than you’d probably like:
I suspect you already knew all this already, though.
BTW, I can’t actually verify that Scott is currently a member of the SSSB, nor can I verify that she ever was, for that matter. The only other reference to this besides the page you linked was some guy posting on another forum as “Ethan Clive Osgoode”, who also happens to run the site you’ve linked to above. So, which do you prefer: “Vladimir” or “Ethan”? Because over on Telic Thoughts, your name links to Ethan’s page over at FreeRepublic.
Apropos of nothing, isn’t Google just the best?
H’mm:
NWE on Eugenics, which may help explain some of the why of a switch from “bulldogs” to “golden retrievers”:
So, the question is, whether the leopard changes its spots, or simply finds a new camouflage.
GEM of TKI
I notice evolutionists love the ‘bulldog’ thing.
It justifys a passion that allows malice to be used against the good guys.
I welcome the attention as a YEC guy to this Scott women. It means that its recognized there is a problem with creationism. We are a threat and growing. They are right.
Power to her fame.
In fact now or in the past the discussions of origins and origins in public institutions has been a elite game.
The more the press gives attention to Scott the more it makes it public and a public interest.
Creationism in any forms does well in the public and will do very well if we can reach the public.
Ms Scott where should creationists send our contributions to you?
KF @ 5:
Is “the leopard” supposed to be anyone or any group in particular? Or is this just idle speculation?
She’s director of the NCSE. BTW, she not really into the bulldog thing. Hence her joke that she’s “Darwin’s Golden Retriever”.
“Darwin’s bulldog” was an epithet meaning that he tenaciously defended Darwin. People have been using dog-nicknames for these sorts of things for ever. For example, in UFC many fighters are called “The Pitbull” to indicate fierceness.
Scott’s and Dawkin’s new epithets are simply meant to be humorous references to Huxley’s epithet, no more. That is really all that is meant, O’Leary’s somewhat insulting insinuations notwithstanding.
BTW, I have noticed that O’Leary does a lot of insinuating and suggesting. I have not yet seen her make many actual claims and arguments, though. Why is that?
We might infer from the OP and some of the comments here that the author of the OP and others do not own pets. If they did, they would know that, far from being treated as inferior and akin to servants or slaves, dogs and cats are regarded as well-favored and much-loved companions.
We should also note that it is one version of Christian belief that holds that the natural world has been provided by God for us to exploit as we choose. This allows for animals to be treated as no better than rocks or plants since they are held to have no souls.
As for “Darwin’s bulldog” we should remember that, according to the Bible, one man was so in thrall to his God that he was prepared to sacrifice his child as proof of his devotion to this “all-loving” God and that he was led to believe that this God would look upon him with favor for so doing.
Vladimir Krondan @ 1
As most here know, T H Huxley is credited with coining the word ‘agnostic’ because he wanted a label for beliefs which were neither theistic nor atheist.
Vladimir, what’s a “raving atheist”? Are you a “raving christian”?
dbthomas wrote:
Good of you to explain that the SSSE is just another name for the American Eugenics Society.
dbthomas wrote:
If the Nazi party renamed itself, would you sign up?
Seversky said:
The word “atheist” in those days (today too, actually) carried with it heavy negative connotations: much like the terms ‘public defacator’ or ‘eater of babies’ and such do. So atheists are forever inventing sexier labels for themselves.
Vlad, or, er, Ethan:
a. I already linked to that page, remember? It doesn’t help your case. But, um, alright: you’re welcome? Oh, and it’s SSSB. Not ‘E’.
b. Read for comprehension. It has nothing to do with eugenics anymore. Follow that other link I kindly provided to the SSSB’s website. It’s really rather boring. Tell you what though: you go ahead and comb through all the various articles published in its journal over the years, and get back to us if you discover evidence of a lurking eugenic conspiracy. Mere mentions of the word don’t count, mind you. We’ll need some actual evidence of eugenics advocacy, preferably within the last decade or so. OK?
Ah, so, the AES was actually the NSDAP? Or were you just going for guilt-by-association? Yeah, it used to be a pro-eugenics society (so did the USA-at-large, for that matter). And? Germany used to be the Third Reich. And half of it used to be East Germany. None of those things are true anymore, though, now are they?
Also, you’ve failed to prove Scott is a member. You just have some website that says she is based on some nebulous ‘Osborne list’. Where is this list? Oooh, oooh, lemme guess: it’s like all secret and conspiratorial and stuff? Do you think maybe they were involved in 9/11 too? I smell a Pulitzer!
dbthomas says,
The page says “American Eugenics Society” and lists the presidents from 1922 until today. But you say the society ceased to exist in 1972.
Who is “us”? The papers are much like the papers published by AES members before 1972. What do you think should be found there? Rants about the Jews?
I asked a simple question: “If the Nazi party renamed itself, would you sign up?” Now, any normal person would just say no, but for some reason you embarked on this fine whitewash of the AES. And, in the process slandering the majority of americans back then. Yeah, the majority of americans were eugenists, according to you. I guess that’s why Osborn told the rest of the AES members to stop using the ‘e’ word, because the public (the majority of americans) couldn’t stand it.
Keep digging yourself deeper. Your performance is not uninstructive, though. We (people of sense) are supposed to believe that the American Eugenics Society de-nazified itself somehow and suddenly became a respectable organization. What did they do? Kick out all the eugenists? That would mean they kicked out all their members. Did they apologize for foisting eugenics on the public? Did they apologize for all the white-supremicist neo-nazis in their society? Did they recognize their misdeeds and fraudulent science? Well, no. But they are good guys now, we’re supposed to take your word for it.
In a way it’s understandable why evolutionists have to doggedly defend and whitewash this organisation, when you consider how many prominent evolutionists are on the membership list. But really, do you have to slander the “majority of americans” in the process and drag them down to the level of the eugenists?
O’Leary writes:
Speaking of ridiculous hagiographies of Darwin, perhaps the most ridiculous (and therefore the best) is an early one by Haeckel disciple V. Robinson:
Darwin, Saint of Science