Darwinists, just divorce racism. Get back to me when you have filed, okay …

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 11, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Just up at an earlier post at Uncommon Descent (comments box):

“Since ID is not a religious program, but a scientific one, I fail to see why an ID proponent needs comment what a religious organization does or doesn’t do. Evolution is all about science (or so we’re told), as such its founder clearly held racists views drawn directly from the science. If you have a similar connection between racism and ID, we’re all ears.” – Donald McL

Thank you, Donald! that is precisely my point.

I certainly do not hold myself responsible for everything anyone has ever done in the name of religion, simply because I am a Catholic Christian.

I have also never held any individual Darwinist responsible for everything anyone has done in the name of Darwinism.

But I am – at best – surprised by the lack of interest of science societies in backing away from Darwin’s racism.

It would be EASY to do.

I do not want to quarrel uselessly about this. I am simply asking all members of societies that have made statements supporting Darwin vs. intelligent design to FOLLOW UP with a formal statement *divorcing* Darwin’s racism.

Just divorce Descent of Man now! Just DO it!

Don’t tell me that you individually disagree with it. That means nothing in the current climate.

Now, if the Darwinists do not do it, won’t we know something useful?

I think we will know something very useful indeed.

I will be VERY happy to publicise any upcoming divorces from The Descent of Man!

Darwinist, do you or don’t you divorce this book?

I hope and pray you do. Look, I have friends and in-laws from across the globe, from all races and nations under heaven.

I want to reach across the ideological divide and ask you to use the “year of Darwin” to finally divorce racism.

And if you don’t, we will know.

We will definitely all know whether you did or not.

And most of us will not listen to you in the slightest until you do.

Just do it, okay?

Comments

First, a comment about the Australian stuff. The great slaughters of the aborigines took place in the late eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, with the Tasmanian genocide effectively complete by the 1830s. The great enthusiasm of anatomists for body snatching of the various aboriginal people of the world began in the early nineteenth century and continued to the early twentieth. People can see all this as having a lot to do with a book published in 1871 if they want to, but I think that would be a rather strange interpretation. A comment on the original post that needs to be made, I think, is that its author is asking a very multi-racial, international 21st century body of people, "evolutionary biologists" to make some kind of gesture about 19th century misconceptions about race. I find that odd. But I think that all those interested in the question should perhaps read the book she's referring to, as it might give us some insight to what information the Victorians actually had to go on in relation to race as compared to us. Hindsight is easy!iconofid_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

The thread did not begin with a slanderous urban legend, and if such was introduced and exposed that's good, but it's false to suggest that was Denyse's original argument.Rude_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

#63 and #66: Yep, this thread is over. Having realized that the original argument is now dead meat, they've changed the subject. Move along, nothing to see here...Allen_MacNeill_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

"... innocent members of the scientific community ..." There you go again! Particular murders and dispicable acts need to be dealt with in a court of law, but as good liberals would we muzzle the historian who seeks "root causes"? On the other hand let us not suppose that religion itself is the answer—not even the gods are. A few years back when I was in Nara the story in the brochures was that Shintoism, which honored the gods, was not an ethical religion, and hence the introduction of Buddhism as here with the T?dai-ji (???). Thus the Japanese simultaneously adhere to two religions: Shinto for the gods and Buddhism for ethics. I have worked with people who have taught their religion by narrating the exploits of the gods, how that the gods introduced to the world murder and adultery and theft, and then they admonish the children, “Now let that be a lesson. Don’t do as the gods do!” But then think: how is that any different than the Greco-Roman religion or that of the Vikings? It is for this reason that the Bible is central to the rise of Western Civilization. Along that line some of you might be amused by this old article titled Return of the Gods.Rude_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank [59]
Clive at #57 I imagine you wrote this before reading the subsequent comments where Wieland and other evidence is discussed.
As I recall, Clive did post a reference to the same Wieland material on this thread earlier today. That post is now gone, and it's to Clive's credit that he vaporized it. (It doesn't look good for ID supporters to quote Creationist slanders.)Adel DiBagno_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

In #55 mullerpr wrote:
“Show us the alibi, because there is a prima facie case on the table. Be careful about the “client” you want to represent… It might turn out that you need to have a certain Darwin on the stand testifying about Descent of Man.”
CASE: People v. Charles Darwin et al JUDGE: Hon. Public O'Pinion, presiding PROSECUTOR: C. Haydon, DA, assisted by P. R. Muller (of the law firm of Haydon, Muller, and O'Leary) DEFENDANT: C. Darwin and un-named co-conspirators CHARGE: That the Defendant did knowingly, deliberately, and with malice aforethought incite and conspire with co-conspirators to murder two Australian Aborigines (unnamed) for the purpose of using their remains for scientific experiments and display PRINCIPLE WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION: P. Turnbull (at http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/turnbull.htm and http://www.griffith.edu.au/griffithreview/campaign/apo/apo_ed21/Turnbull_Ed21.pdf ) COUNCIL FOR THE DEFENSE: A. MacNeill, Esq. JUDGE PIONION: Gentlemen, if you please, your opening statements. C. HAYDON, DA: The prosecution will show that the defendant indirectly conspired with Darwinian scientists to cause the deliberate murder of two Australian Aborigines (unnamed) for the purpose of using their remains for scientific experiments and display. Furthermore, the prosecution will show that the defendant’s public statements on the subject of human evolution clearly support the allegation that the defendant did so as a result of his racist viewpoints about the victims, who the defendant clearly believed were a “lesser form of life” and therefore deserved nothing more than to be slaughtered as museum specimens. A. MACNEILL, CftD: The defense will show that 1) no such murder was committed, 2) that the defendant did not believe that Australian Aborigines (and, by extension, no other human “race”) were a “lesser form of life” and therefore deserved nothing more than to be slaughtered as museum specimens. Furthermore, the defense will show that the prosecution has brought charges against the defendant for spurious and defamatory purposes unrelated to the defendant’s scientific theories. JUDGE PIONION: The Prosecution may proceed. C. HAYDON, DA: Call P. Turnbull, chief witness for the prosecution. (Turnbull takes his place on the witness stand) C. HAYDON, DA: Mr. Turnbull, would you please tell the court what you discovered in the course of your studies concerning the charges against the defendant, Mr. Darwin? P. TURNBULL: “I could find no credible evidence that any would-be skeletal collector in Queensland frontier districts had been directly implicated in the killing of Aboriginal people for their remains.” [http://www.griffith.edu.au/griffithreview/campaign/apo/apo_ed21/Turnbull_Ed21.pdf] C. HAYDON, DA: But, Mr. Turnbull, didn’t you in your deposition quote a Mr. Busk to the effect that “A Gorilla or a Chimpanzee can be caught and sent alive to the Zoological Gardens, or killed and forwarded in a cask of rum to the British Museum, but loud would be the outcry were similar attempts made to promote the study of Anthropology”? [http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/turnbull.htm] A. MACNEILL, CftD: Objection, your honor. The witness’s testimony is hearsay. JUDGE PIONION: Objection sustained. You may proceed, Mr. Hayden. C. HAYDON, DA: Mr. Turnbull, did you in your deposition quote an un-named correspondent to the effect that ““To what strange uses are our noble primeval inhabitants to be devoted! At your prices I could have procured about œ2000 worth in the last six years. I shall start on the warpath again! Hope to succeed in slaughtering some stray skeleton”? [http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/turnbull.htm] A. MACNEILL, CftD: Objection again, your honor. This testimony is hearsay as well. C. HAYDON, DA: Mr. Turnbull, did you in your deposition quote another un-named correspondent to the effect that “The shooting season is over in Queensland and the ‘Black Game’ is protected now by more humane laws than formerly. So it is impossible to obtain reliable skulls & skeletons”? [http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/turnbull.htm] A. MACNEILL, CftD: Once again, I object, your honor. Like all of the testimony presented by the prosecution so far, this testimony is hearsay and has no place in a court of law. JUDGE PIONION: Objection sustained. Mr. Hayden, your principle witness has testified that the crime with which the defendant is charged did not, in fact, take place. Are you prepared to present evidence that it has? P.R. Muller, AssDA: But, your honor, there is a prima facie case on the table! JUDGE PIONION: Mr. Muller, there is no such thing. It appears to this court that the Prosecution has failed to present a case that an actus reus has even been committed, much less that they have presented a case of mens rea on the part of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is therefore the judgment of this court that this case be dismissed and that the defendant is absolved of all charges of directly or indirectly inciting the murder of anyone. Mr. Darwin, you are free to go. And Mr. Haydon and Mr. Murphy, you are hereby warned that any further attempts to bring charges of this nature against innocent members of the scientific community will be dealt with in the same fashion as this case has. You have been warned. POSTSCRIPT: Read this: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/creationist-hat.html#more And yes, the abbreviation DA does indeed stand for "Duck's Ass"Allen_MacNeill_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

OT...please someone tell me I'm just gullible and this is a joke... "In our evolutionary past, we gathered in caves with fires at the entrance. We repeat this in warm shopping centres where we can flit from store to store without braving the icy winds." ...wha?uoflcard_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

"They killed them because they didn’t conform to their plans, were intellectuals, were seen as potential rebels, all sorts of horrific reasons - but rarely because they were religious." What a pathetic comment. This is a new low in justification and puts color to every comment the originator makes or has made. We point out a couple hundred million killed and this is the response. You do not think the lack of any moral standard or religious morals might have had something to do with this. I would have attacked it on the numbers. It was my impression the number was about 100 million but then again that would not look good to be haggling over such a number. Does not make those goody goody atheists look so good. I would bet a lot of those eliminated especially in Russia, China and Vietnam had a religious orientation that would not have accepted the atheism of communism and thus had to be eliminated. But don't let a little issue let you in the way of wiping them out.jerry_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

In my opinion, O'Leary is not arguing that Darwin was a racist and therefore all evolutionists are racists. I think she is saying that the theory of evolution itself leads to racism if taken at face value. After all, many famous proponents of evolution including Nobel prize winners (e.g., Crick and Watson) have used their understanding of evolution to cast doubt on the equality of the races. This makes sense because evolution seems to argue for the superiority or inferiority of various species depending on their ability to compete for survival. As to the accusation that the Bible is racist, let me point out that Mosaic law forbade the children of Israel to mistreat foreigners. In fact, any foreigner who wanted to become an Israelite and accepted its laws and statutes was to be treated the same way as any direct descendent of Israel (Jacob). God even forbade the Israelites to harass the children of Ishmael, the son of Abraham (half brother of Jacob) and the ancestor of modern Arabs. There are many passages in the Bible where God showed favor to people or individuals of various races or ethnic backgrounds. As to the further accusation of genocide on the part of the God of the Bible, let me point out that God does not judge humans according to their racial/genetic lineage but according to their spirits. All spirits are bad (e.g., David was an adulterer and a murderer). So God does not judge according to one's righteousness or race. He must know something about the human spirit that we don't. As far as I know, spirits do not evolve over generations or change during the course of one's lifetime. They just are. Of course, my argument means nothing to materialists but it should ring a bell among Christians.Mapou_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Apply this to humans, and the logical inference is that some “races” are more along a continuum than others. Unless you want to define evolution as anything that ever does anything, you have to have an idea of a progression, as opposed to a digression, otherwise, if evolution is defined as the mere movement in any direction, nothing would stand to falsify it, except staying static, but nothing would stand to falsify the direction itself, and so it would become vacuous; it would be like congratulating yourself for reaching your destination, and defining your destination as the place that you’ve reached. I can’t understand a construction of evolution in that way.
It's no wonder you believe that Darwinism necessarily leads to racism and eugenics. You assume a priori that there is a goal or destination that evolution is leading toward, and that therefore some people or creatures (presumably humans of your own race, or possibly another race if you're a self hating whatever) are "closer" to this goal. Evolution has no goal. It has no direction except the immediate direction of survivability. This is why there is so much divergence into so many different classes and families and species of animals. Each population changes in whatever way is available to it at the moment, and this change is different for almost every creature depending on the environment in which it finds itself. Successful changes are those that allow survival. There is no better or worse, more or less evolved (in the sense that I explained before), or closer or farther from the "goal".
Evolution has to be directional, and if it is not directional by definition, I can’t see how it is an evolution.
The underlying assumption here is that if something moves in a given direction then it must be because it was supposed to move in that direction. The fact that evolution moves in any direction at all (and obviously it must because it is not static) gives plenty of opportunities for falsification without having to assume that the direction was somehow preordained or was somehow moving toward a specific goal. You can believe that that is the case if you want, but it is not a prediction of the theory of evolution so much as your own beliefs projecting themselves upon the theory.KRiS_Censored_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Clive at #57 I imagine you wrote this before reading the subsequent comments where Wieland and other evidence is discussed.Mark Frank_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Kris, "You highlight the exact problem when you say that. It is not at all reasonable to say that Darwinism says that some creatures are more or less evolved than any other. All living creatures (and races) are equally evolved since they have all survived to this day." You part company with everyone who talks about a higher or lower life forms in evolution, including Darwin himself. The definition of evolution changes as much as evolution it seems. Evolution, it seems to me, can only be discerned by comparison to others who are similar enough to be directly linked by comparison, and yet evolution is supposed to be evidential by concentrating on the differences by comparison. Apply this to humans, and the logical inference is that some "races" are more along a continuum than others. Unless you want to define evolution as anything that ever does anything, you have to have an idea of a progression, as opposed to a digression, otherwise, if evolution is defined as the mere movement in any direction, nothing would stand to falsify it, except staying static, but nothing would stand to falsify the direction itself, and so it would become vacuous; it would be like congratulating yourself for reaching your destination, and defining your destination as the place that you've reached. I can't understand a construction of evolution in that way. Please forgive me if I misunderstood your point. Evolution has to be directional, and if it is not directional by definition, I can't see how it is an evolution.Clive Hayden_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill does us a service if he dispels any aspect of these claims that are not true (if he actually can), because when the truth is on your side embracing exagerations and urban legends always weaken you. But one also wonders at the reluctance to see the straight line between Darwinism and the eugenics movement and the upsurge of racism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Yes, supporters of the biblical God do well to acknowledge evil committed in the name of that God. But in so doing let’s not acquiesce to the adversaries claim that that evil can be rightly justified by the Book. The point here is whether materialism and its attendant utilitarianism or Übermensch or nihilism has within itself the logical resources to avoid the next holocaust. That is not to say that we in our common humanity cannot revolt against such horror, it’s just that you cannot root that revolt in Darwinism.Rude_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

"We’ll grant you the witch-hunts, the Inquisition, and some of the Crusades, but beyond that, organized Christianity can’t really be blamed for the killing of innocents. No, you atheists have pretty much cornered the market on murder and mayhem, bearing responsibility for over 259 million deaths around the world. In fact, atheist governments, which are also largely Communist, have killed more people than all the wars of the past century." This is a bit of a digression but this comparison strikes me as unreasonable. The communist governments were atheist but with some far smaller exceptions they didn't kill people because they were religious. They killed them because they didn't conform to their plans, were intellectuals, were seen as potential rebels, all sorts of horrific reasons - but rarely because they were religious. Virtually all government in Europe from the Dark Ages until the end of the 18th Century was through Christian monarchs who considered themselves justified by the divine right of Kings. Are we to blame Christianity for everyone they killed? Of course not. And we should not blame atheism for everyone atheists have killed.Mark Frank_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Allen, Sorry to say but your attempt does not work. This is certainly not a complete case in a single reference. What would help you far better than attacking this reference is if you could bring us some references where a scholarly study show that the alleged events did not take place. Show us the alibi, because there is a prima facie case on the table. Be careful about the "client" you want to represent... It might turn out that you need to have a certain Darwin on the stand testifying about "Descent of Man".mullerpr_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

In #45 Stephen Morris claims that the article by Turnbull contains:
"Fairly compelling academic research into Darwinist-motivated killing of aborigines..."
Nothing in the article posted qualifies as "evidence" of any kind,; certainly not evidence that would hold up in any court of law (or be accepted by any scientific journal). Here are the only three quotations from Turnbull's article relating to this topic. All of them are from letters about "how things used to be" (two from the same correspondent). Neither relate any documented event, and no other "evidence" is presented:
"A Gorilla or a Chimpanzee can be caught and sent alive to the Zoological Gardens, or killed and forwarded in a cask of rum to the British Museum, but loud would be the outcry were similar attempts made to promote the study of Anthropology (Busk, 1862, p. 348)." [Turnbull calls this a "lighthearted" comment; i.e. a joke]
Note the date of Busk's letter; Darwin's Descent of Man was published in 1871. Prior to 1871, Darwin did not publish anything about the evolution of humans.
"To what strange uses are our noble primeval inhabitants to be devoted! At your prices I could have procured about œ2000 worth in the last six years. I shall start on the warpath again! Hope to succeed in slaughtering some stray skeleton (Mitchell Library MSS 1589/2/193)"
And:
The shooting season is over in Queensland and the 'Black Game' is protected now by more humane laws than formerly. So it is impossible to obtain reliable skulls & skeletons (Turnbull, 1991, p. 115).
No statements about "Darwinian scientists" either killing Aborigines or contracting with anyone to do so, or even encouraging someone to do so. And, of course, no evidence that anything like that ever happened. Indeed, Turnbull's only mention of "Darwinistic" science comes in this sentence:
"The rapid acceptance of Darwinistic modes of thought from the early 1860s is traditionally seen as a watershed in the history of the human sciences.
Again, Darwin's Descent of Man was published in 1871. Turnbull then ads this:
However, we would do well not to overlook some important historical continuities, notably how procurement, exhibition and giving of Aboriginal remains served a variety of social ends.[Emphasis added]
Interesting; why didn't Turnbull say "scientific" or "Darwinist" ends? Because the whole thrust of his article was about the social perversion of anthropological and archaeological science, and especially the desecration of Aboriginal burial sites by grave-robbers (who sold artifacts obtained by grave-robbing to museums). IOW, Turnbull's article is not about the direct application of Darwin's theory of evolution to the procurement of museum specimens, nor does it contain any evidence that "Darwinists" (as opposed to anthropologists and archaeologists) were involved in questionable means of obtaining specimens from grave-robbers. Now let's compare this to Clive's Hayden’s assertion in #25:
"We should also remember the killing of Australian aboriginals during the early part of the 20th century by Darwinian scientists who believed that they were missing links between apes and humans, and less than human and more than ape.” [Emphasis added]
What are we supposed to remember? Clearly, we are supposed to remember something that never happened, and for which there is no documentary evidence of any kind. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that Clive’s assertion does not qualify as blatant propaganda, if not an outright lie?Allen_MacNeill_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

We must not for a moment seek to excuse the excesses of the organized Church or atrocities committed in its name, but at the same time we do well to contrast, as Jerry does in 49, the historic influence of Bible based religion with the Dark Side of the Enlightenment whose prophets claimed the mantle of messiah. Solzhenitsyn may have missed some of his own Christendom’s failings, but he surely touched a nerve of that Dark Side in his Harvard Address. Oh, and perchance some might want to read Gelernter’s Americanism - & Its Enemies, originally published in Commentary.Rude_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Just to put atrocities in perspective: "Atheist Atrocities We'll grant you the witch-hunts, the Inquisition, and some of the Crusades, but beyond that, organized Christianity can't really be blamed for the killing of innocents. No, you atheists have pretty much cornered the market on murder and mayhem, bearing responsibility for over 259 million deaths around the world. In fact, atheist governments, which are also largely Communist, have killed more people than all the wars of the past century. The Soviet Union alone took 126 million lives, while Communist China has murdered 114 million people and counting. By way of comparison, note that during the 25 years of the Spanish Inquisition only 2,000 individuals were executed, while the atheist governments of Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia have killed 3 million people each. The most telling statistic? Try this: 41 percent of all deaths in the twentieth century were perpetrated by atheist governments—during peacetime, mind you, and against their own people. I know what you're going to say—atheism didn't kill these people; they were murdered by confused individuals who just happened to be atheists—but then that pretty much lets us all off the hook, now doesn't it?" This is from a Christian magazine called Salvo. Now the 41% number is obviously wrong so I am guessing that it may mean non natural deaths or something like that. Also from the same magazine "What's So Great About Christianity The New Atheists maintain that "religion poisons everything"—that Christianity in particular is responsible for all that is wrong with the world and nothing that is right. Well, they may want to recheck their facts. Here are just a few of Christianity's contributions to civilization: The rise of science that began in the sixteenth century can be directly attributed to Christian Scholasticism and the medieval Catholic universities. In fact, most major scientific advances throughout history stemmed from the belief that God had ordered the universe in such a way that its secrets could be discovered. •It was the Christian conclusion that slavery was an abomination in the eyes of God that led to its abolishment in the West. •Most of the great art of the past two millennia was inspired by Christianity. Artists such as Michelangelo, Donatello, El Greco, and even Dali—to name just a few—all took their cue from the Christian Scriptures and church tradition, as did writers such as Dante and Chaucer. •Prior to the Civil War, 92 percent of American colleges and universities were established by a branch of the Christian church, including Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, William and Mary, the University of California, and Northwestern. •Every hospital that bears the prefix "St." in its name evidences the foundational role that Christianity played in worldwide healthcare; and the world's most successful charitable organizations, including the Red Cross, Catholic Charities, and the YMCA, all have Christian origins. •There are no predominantly Christian nations in the world that fail to ensure religious freedom. It is only in non-Christian countries, such as China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, that religious freedom is inhibited. •Due to St. Paul's pronouncement that "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," Christian women throughout the world fare much better than their non-Christian peers, experiencing statistically less gender-related oppression, violence, and dehumanization." You may want to quibble over the details but essentially Christianity has been a very big plus on the plus/minus scale (my favorite hockey statistic.)jerry_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Re #44:
"Even so, I could find no credible evidence that any would?be skeletal collector in Queensland frontier districts had been directly implicated in the killing of Aboriginal people for their remains."

"There is no conclusive proof that the bones Lamond offered the museum were of people killed by the Native Police."
Direct quotes from the pdf. I don't know what kind of stories you consider to be "evidence", but neither of these would be admitted in a court of law. Indeed, a prosecutor attempting to do so would be flirting with a contempt of court citation by most judges. So, your "smoking gun" evidence consists of hearsay and fourth-hand stories. Typical...Allen_MacNeill_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Count me with Denyse on this one. It’s one thing to apologize for evil, and indeed materialists have apologized for evil committed in the name of their ideology, but I have yet to see them consider the connection between ideology and action. Such blindness is a hallmark of the Cultural Left. What materialism seems unable to do is introspect. Also I’m rather disgusted with the vilification of the Hebrew Scriptures by so many so utterly ignorant of what they really say and of the three and a half millennia of Jewish interpretation. If you don’t have the guts to trash the Koran then why trash the Book that inspired the liberty and freedoms you now enjoy? As David Gelernter, a victim of the Unabomber, has pointed out many times, America’s founders were more students of the Old Testament than the New, this because the former was most concerned with matters of state and the latter a little more with survival as a powerless minority. What would shock me is to see the materialists admit that Darwinism can be dangerous. Not the misuse of Darwinism or the perversion of Darwinism, but simply taking Darwin seriously unguided by any attachment to traditional morality. When they quit changing the subject to an attack the Jewish Book and introspect just a little, maybe then Denyse will quit bringing it up.Rude_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

KRiS, I sure don't know why David used such harsh words to describe your condition and I don't approve of that. However, I haven't read much of your musings on UD and the current sample that I had makes it clear that you haven't think your subject through. I said in #33: "Heaven forbid a future where only the one human culture survives because evolution so decrees. " Let me help you quickly. Evolution is always progressive in the core of its assumptions - without it there is no evolution. "Adaptation to the environment" means things must progress to benefit some evolving entity individually and entities collectively (Over time evolution is oblivious to the steps in between. The fact is according to evolution progress has to happen.). In that sense evolution does decrees progress - like a force of nature. For anyone considering this kind of inevitable "natural progression" ...always to something better adapted, it should logically followed that the ultimate state within a specific environment (like earth or our universe or a multi-verse for that matter) has to be reached. For us humans I simply called that state "one culture" or you can see it as "the single best adapted culture" (Today we even have a process called Globalization to depict this drive to progress.) Again... evolution decrees this type of progression and since "TIME is on evolution's side" this will happen. (You should think this one through... For instance: ...if evolutionary progression is inevitable and there is an infinite number of past evolutionary events, then it logically follows (regardless of the infinite "steps in between" withing infinite number of environments) that the ultimate evolutionary state has to have emerged and infinite number of events ago. This ultimate evolutionary state must be fully adapted to any possible environment. It will therefore also have all the properties we currently attribute to God and a lot more adapted traits that we cannot even imagine.) Back to your argument: Your counter argument is counter evolutionary as well. Try again and try to focus on understanding an argument before you assume ignorance. Also... work from the strengths of your argument without changing it to suite your perceptions. P.S. You might find this difficult to accommodate but if you manage to understand something like Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" then you will start to see all the weird and wonderful "logical" consequences of evolutionary thinking. It is fun, you should try it.mullerpr_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

A few minutes searching on Google produced this: http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/turnbull.htm Fairly compelling academic research into Darwinist-motivated killing of aborigines, from a source that isn't associated with any creationist organisation as far as I can tell. For what it's worth, I'm with DonaldM on all of this and I think that this subsequent discussion is a bit of red herring. Sure, some Darwinists are racists and have used Darwinism to justify their positions. So, sadly, are some Christians, though in my view it takes a lot more ingenuity to justify their position from the Bible when in fact it teaches the exact opposite. Either way, this is a science blog and the only really pertinent question is whether the logic of ID leads to racism in the same way as the logic of Darwinism clearly does. No-one, as far as I know, has tried to argue that, so perhaps we should wind all of this up.Stephen Morris_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Adel DiBagno:
If Darwinian scientists deliberately killed Australian aborigines, that would have been an atrocity and should be widely known. What were the facts? Who were these cruel and callous people? Names, dates, and places are needed.
You want documentation. OK. Here it is. It doesn't actually show Darwinian scientists killing Australian aborigines, but they certainly did everything else short of that. Warning: this will turn your stomach. http://www.griffith.edu.au/griffithreview/campaign/apo/apo_ed21/Turnbull_Ed21.pdfvjtorley_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, Let's let Clive speak for himself.Adel DiBagno_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Re #38 Adel - I think you have found the source! This is a story that seems to be recycled around some of the more bizarre creationists (and I mean creationist not ID) including Carl Wieland. Well at least I know what Clive was referring to...Mark Frank_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

DaveScott "“Evolved” is synonymous with “changed”. If we begin with the standard assumption that all life diversified from one or a few cell lines beginning billions of years ago then quite obviously some cell lines changed more than others. Thus some cell lines are move evolved than others." How can you quantify this out of interest?GSV_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

mullerpr
“All living creatures (and races) are equally evolved since they have all survived to this day.” Could you give me a reference from any of Darwins’ writings that supports this view?
Unfortunately I cannot because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of his writings. When I say that they are equally evolved, I'm using the word "evolved" in the sense of "adapted for survival". All living creatures are (so far) equally adapted for survival as is evidenced by the fact that they have survived until now. As for the future, who knows?
However in the Western environment the well adapted indigenous people tend to become very unstable to the extent that whole populations implode (think of the North American Indians). Heaven forbid a future where only the one human culture survives because evolution so decrees.
This really highlights another false assumption that people here are working under. That is the assumption that the theory of evolution dictates what should happen, rather than describing what does happen. The instability you describe is a result of the change in their environment caused by the invasion of other species or (in the case of the North American Indians) races. They were unable to adapt quickly enough, which is often the case with what is known as an invasive species (or in this case invasive races). Does this mean that it should happen? Of course not. Does Darwinism dictate that any invasive species/race must wipe out any existing species/race? Of course not. It describes what can and often does happen when an invasive species/race does appear. Anyone who attempts to "cause" evolution by attempting to subjugate or exterminate another species/race is working on a false assumption of their own superiority and on the false assumption that Darwinism is proscriptive rather than descriptive. Both are distortions of Darwinism. DaveScot
“Evolved” is synonymous with “changed”.
Okay, I can accept that, though I don't think that that's the way that Clive was using the word. (see above for my explanation of my own use of the word) If we use your definition, then Clive's statement can be paraphrased as "Applied to human races, it stands to reason that some [have changed more] than others." While this may or may not be true (I'm not even sure how you'd measure that within a single species), his usage implies that this means that "changed more than others" necessarily equates to superiority. Again, Darwinism is concerned only with survivability and puts no value judgment whatsoever on whether one creature is better or worse than another. In the case of evolved meaning "changed more than others", that can actually be a disadvantage in many cases. For instance, sharks have remained stable for so long because they are so well adapted to their environment that too much change can put a shark at a disadvantage (unless of course one assumes that they have not changed only because they haven't mutated or gotten a virus or been modified in any way for that long...I kind of doubt that myself). If one were to force a value judgment on this, then a "more evolved" shark would be "inferior". That aside, the original point still stands in that the assumption that "more evolved" (by any definition) equals superior is an assumption made apart from Darwinism and is a distortion of the theory, not a logical consequence of it.
You’re a troll but even worse you’re a moron. Take a hint and take a hike numbnuts.
I'm curious about just how quickly I would be banned if I were to use similar language.KRiS_Censored_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank [39]: Please show some patience. I'm confident that the evidence will soon be provided.Adel DiBagno_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

mullerpr #37 I fear you are being serious. How do I set about showing that "not even 2 aboriginals has been killed for science in those days". It is virtually impossible to prove such a negative (e.g. can you provide evidence that no ID supporter has used violence to support their aims?) Surely it is for Clive or someone to first clarify their accusation (which was the intention behind #28) and then provide evidence.Mark Frank_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

mullerpr [32]
As far as I know there are some receipts, signed by scientists, for orders placed on aboriginal corpses, but I have no reference for you. I read it in some history book long ago. I suppose someone here might be able to verify that for you or you can phone the “Department of Aboriginal affairs in Australia”, they tend to keep track of these kind of thing. Let me know if you are redeemed or if it actually happened the way Clive stated the facts.
This looks like an interesting topic, but my Google searches haven't come up with anything except undocumented claims by someone named Carl Wieland. If Darwinian scientists deliberately killed Australian aborigines, that would have been an atrocity and should be widely known. What were the facts? Who were these cruel and callous people? Names, dates, and places are needed. [37]
To help you I will be on the look out for a reference in this regards.
Indeed, mullerpr, it is great to have your help in digging out the facts.Adel DiBagno_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply