Culture Human evolution Intelligent Design

Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence

Spread the love

From J. R. Miller at More than Cake:

Sadly, the record shows that the strongest advocates of UCD were racists in the guise of scientists who set-out to prove that the non-white features of blacks and aboriginal tribes were markers of an inferior pre-human species. As Jon Mooallem wrote in the NY Times:

No living humans had skeletal features remotely like these [Neanderthals], but King was under the impression that the skulls of contemporary African and Australian aboriginals resembled the Neanderthals’ more than “ordinary” white-people skulls. So extrapolating from his low opinion of what he called these “savage” races, he explained that the Neanderthal’s skull alone was proof of its moral “darkness” and stupidity. “The thoughts and desires which once dwelt within it never soared beyond those of a brute,” he wrote. Other scientists piled on. So did the popular press. We knew almost nothing about Neanderthals, but already we assumed they were ogres and losers.

Mooallem sanitizes the language for the modern reader, but [geologist] King himself wrote, “the Neanderthal skull is of an elongated oval form, with a basil outline bearing much resemblance to that of the Negro cranium… it is of a large size, being about an inch longer than ordinary British skulls…” King goes on to conclude that these features do not represent the higher human species (white people), but resembles the most “degraded” and “savage” races more akin to the apes. In 1886, just 3 years after King’s “discovery”, the German biologist and staunch racist Ernst Hackel proposed the name Homo-stupidus. It was also Hackel who in 1926 approved of Bernolet Moens’ experiments to use “negro” sperm to impregnate a chimpanzee believing these “lower forms” could interbreed with apes (Weikart, 59). Today many ND-evoultionsits may not publicly endorse the racist underpinnings of these “esteemed” proponents of Darwinian evolution, but “scientists” like Richard Dawkins continue to see humans as evolved animals. These modern ND evolutionists wholeheartedly approve of hybridization experiments and eagerly accept this classic definition of what “modern humans” should look like and continue the search for the missing link that connects the pre-human HN which they assume split from modern humans more than 1 million years ago.

The newest Neanderthal evidence, however, exposes this historic euro-centric prejudice and demonstrates the failure of these so-called “great men of science” to make a proper classification. More.

The photos that Miller provides showing the gradual humanization of Neanderthals in artists’ conceptions are fascinating.

So there is a history there, both in the paleontology community (and among religious people trying to make sense of it all, as Miller also recounts).

We really did not know much about Neanderthal man until fairly recently. The most common sort of evidence turning up today suggests that the Neanderthal lived pretty much the same as other humans and interbred with them. Although many claim that modern humans wiped them out, the story may be more complex. If Neanderthals were much less numerous than newcomers, many of them would be assimilated, as today’s genome maps seem to suggest.

The principal reason that Neanderthals have continued to be seen as less than human after the decline of racism in science is that they were the best hope that Darwinians had for a missing link, a not-quite-human. The Neanderthals’ biggest failure, as it happens, was that they did not live down to that billing. Even the Guardian’s editorial board now feels that, like so many others, they have been misjudged.

And the missing link is still missing.

See also: Neanderthal artwork found: “Academic bombshell” obliterates “lesser human” theory?

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

and

A deep and abiding need for Neanderthals to be stupid. Why?

In this third post in my series, I look at 3 common views for making sense of the Neanderthal evidence and argue that the best option is to view them as fully human and descended from Adam and Eve.

50 Replies to “Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence

  1. 1
    Allan Keith says:

    News, thank you for acknowledging that Darwin didn’t create racism. Racists just tried to use his theory in a lame attempt to use science to justify their racism.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Allan Keith at 1, Darwin helped make racism science. Surely that pioneering effort is worthy of recognition even though many others helped.

  3. 3
    Allan Keith says:

    News,

    Allan Keith at 1, Darwin helped make racism science. Surely that pioneering effort is worthy of recognition even though many others helped.

    And chemistry made chemical warfare science. And microbiology helped make biological warfare science. And particle physics made nuclear warfare science. And Orville and Wilbur made carpet bombing science. And religion made the crusades and jihads acceptable. I fail to see your point.

  4. 4
    goodusername says:

    The principal reason that Neanderthals have continued to be seen as less than human after the decline of racism in science is that they were the best hope that Darwinians had for a missing link

    It was always recognized that they co-existed with anatomically modern humans (e.g. cro-magnons) and so no one (or hardly anyone) thought of them as “missing links”. They were thought of as a side branch that went extinct.

    Darwin helped make racism science

    Anyone who looks at pre-Darwinian science will see that no such help was needed there, and in fact he overthrew much of the most racist science of his day (e.g. polygenism).

  5. 5
    News says:

    Allan Keith at 3, Darwinism is not evolution. It is a theory of evolution that was uniquely well suited to incorporating racism into the scientific study of humans, as Richard Weikart demonstrates in his books and eugenics demonstrated in practice.

    goodusername at 4, Darwin added more racism than he took out. He made racism good science instead of bad science.

    Noe of that is anyone’s fault today but you can’t get past what you won’t own.

    Fortunately, so much Darwinism is being confuted now that the problem is slowly resolving itself.

  6. 6
    goodusername says:

    It is a theory of evolution that was uniquely well suited to incorporating racism into the scientific study of humans

    How so?

    Darwin added more racism than he took out.

    I’m certain that if you opened some pre-Darwinian texts that were considered the leading science of its day that you’d be shocked.

    He made racism good science instead of bad science.

    Since I’m pretty sure you’re not a Darwinist, what do you mean by “good science”?

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    If you want to read blatant, unalloyed racism try On The Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther. And bear in mind that what he wrote was by no means an uncommon sentiment throughout Christian Europe for centuries. Yet it’s still Darwin who’s primarily responsible for racism, the Nazis and the Holocaust.

  8. 8
    Allan Keith says:

    News,

    Allan Keith at 3, Darwinism is not evolution. It is a theory of evolution that was uniquely well suited to incorporating racism into the scientific study of humans, as Richard Weikart demonstrates in his books and eugenics demonstrated in practice.

    How so? All Darwin said was that natural selection acted on heritable variation within populations. What is racist about that? What is controversial about that? It has been demonstrated thousands of times.

    Did sick twisted people jump on this to promote their white superiority nonsense? Yes they did. Did the people who did this consider themselves Christian? Yes they did. So, who is the enemy here? Darwin or Jesus? Honest people will admit that neither are responsible. Where do you stand?

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, this exchange could be used as case studies in denial and distraction. There is no doubt that racism is a longstanding human problem, and that in many animals, the different and weaker will be picked on. Darwin et al lived in an age that saw science as the heart of unprecedented progress, and constructed theories that fit that in a context of presumed evolutionary progress. Racism and class superiority — toff-ism? — came in with it. That is blatant in chs 5 – 7 of darwin’s Descent of Man. This then lent scientific respectability to racism, eugenics, euthanasia and ultimately genocide and class war. We have to face that, and find a way to respect fundamental equality, which is a moral principle. where, evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers cannot ground such. One consequence is the ongoing worst holocaust in history: 800+ million unborn children in 40+ years, advancing at a million per week, and corrupting our whole civilisation. Think about the rhetorical gymnastics to deny, distract and dismiss such at a future date. KF

  10. 10
    Silver Asiatic says:

    kf

    We have to face that, and find a way to respect fundamental equality, which is a moral principle. where, evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers cannot ground such.

    Young atheists of the alt-Right correctly understand that the outrage that people express about racism and inequality is not grounded in logic or reason – certainly not from an atheist perspective.

    “What’s wrong with racism”? They ask this and receive incoherent answers. They ask the same about feminism and other civic morals. If moral codes are established arbitrarily, and they really have no binding force, then racism is perfectly fine. Younger atheists simply accept this now.

    In the end, the atheist alt-Right will discover (they are already discovering) that masculine force, aggression and violence are the best ways of gaining dominance and power over society. Might makes right.

    “Christianized atheists” object to this and lament. But they don’t have an argument against it. They can try ridicule and hostility but the power of the older generation’s disdain has worn off by now.

    Atheists who appeal to Christian morals (such as equality or fairness) while also attacking Christianity and upholding Darwinism are contradictory or even hypocritical.

  11. 11
    Tom Robbins says:

    Darwin was a racists – the full title of his Origin of a species was “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” FAVORED RACES. Almost all white Europeans or Black Africans, or Asians were racist at that time. HOWEVER, I am not one to apply our higher sensibilities, often in a more actualized mind due to the wealth and education of that person, to people so many years ago – in fact, I HATE that we villinize an entire group simply because our fear and misunderstandings of the times, really changed what people thought was true… its very arrogant. Of course I abhor Racism, but I completly understand PREJUDICE, like people tend to cluster together – does it make hispanics in the city of Miami racists? Nope – that’s and individual by individual case. But when these ideas shape science, they need to be taken seriously and we need to re-evaluate without the worldview crap that has no place in science. And I am saying this for judgemental “christians” and “atheists” alike – the leader of the human Genome project is a Christian, but his personal ideas do not matter one bit (or should not) when it comes to doing science. HUGE advances in science were made by deist, as they wanted to describe and understand God’s creation – I believe it is harder for an atheist to be honest in science (i.e. multiverse and living in a simulation theory when confronted with evidence we are built from information, consciousness, and the evidence that there is a creator is far greater than not) – but to be a good scientists, you must, at the end of the day, go where data takes you, understanding it will NEVER explain why we are here, it will only help us understand our reality a little better, AS OUR HUMAN MINDS SEE IT, and produce technology to help us (hopefullY).

  12. 12
    Allan Keith says:

    Tom Robbins,

    Darwin was a racists – the full title of his Origin of a species was “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

    I was wondering when this nonsense would be brought up.

  13. 13
    ScuzzaMan says:

    I completly (sic) understand PREJUDICE, like people tend to cluster together

    Like people tend to cluster together purely as a positive preference for “like people”. No prejudice (generally defined as positive or negative sentiment based on apparent group membership) nor negative preference against any particular unlikeness or general otherness is required for this happen. It is perfectly natural and unremarkable, having no moral or ethical implications whatsoever.

    The same cannot be said for attempts to force people to associate with various cause du jour groups for political purposes.

  14. 14
    Belfast says:

    AK at 12

    preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

    This is nonsense? How so?

  15. 15
    Allan Keith says:

    Belfast,

    preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

    This is nonsense? How so?

    Try reading the book and you will find out why.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    AK, perhaps, you would find reading Darwin’s second book — The Descent of Man — chs 5 – 7, interesting. I found his discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English (presumably upper classes) revealing. The start of Ch 6 is telling, in many ways. The onward case of say the logos for the Eugenics conferences is significant also. The problem posed had an interesting answer that I found in a passage from a far more notorious figure. KF

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    Arguing that Darwin’s views on race – which are racist by current standards – are sufficient to taint his theory of evolution is to commit the ad hominem fallacy. His personal beliefs say nothing about whether his theory stands on its own as an explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. Just as arguing that the theory is somehow undermined because the eugenics movement was derived from it is the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam, an appeal to (adverse) consequences.

  18. 18
    Belfast says:

    AK at 15

    Try reading the book?

    That is an unworthy cop-out.

  19. 19
    Allan Keith says:

    Belfast,

    Try reading the book?

    That is an unworthy cop-out.

    Not at all. It is a constructive suggestion. You say that the subtitle of the book is proof that he was a racist. Please provide some excerpts from the book where he talks about human races. I will save you the time. He doesn’t. He doesn’t mention human evolution at all in that book. At that time, biologists used the word “race” to refer to any grouping below the species level.

    Was Darwin racist by today’s standards? Absolutely. As was every white westerner at the time. Even abolitionists of the day (eg, Wilberforce) would be considered racist by today’s standards. But judged by the standards of the day, Darwin would have been considered one of the least racist white person around.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, Darwin’s views on race were clearly deeply integrated into his evolutionary theorising, and they were elaborated into extended frameworks that found expression in eugenics and onward in the practice of social darwinism — where, yes Darwin was a social darwinist [see Descent of Man chs 5 – 7] — and even euthanasia. Eugenics, per the motto of the well known 2nd international congress [with participation by his family], was defined as the self-direction of human evolution. Indeed, Hunter’s Civic Biology, at the heart of the Scopes trial, given its title and content, taught eugenics as a matter of course as integral to the modern scientific viewpoint. It was the shock of the Nazi genocide rooted in such things that caused a backing away over the next several decades. Such shock, specifically did not include the class warfare democides of the Marxists; that has for some reason not received the same universal horror and repudiation. I find the reactions to the relevant history to be as significant as those to the implications of evolutionary materialistic scientism for mind and moral government (which jointly reduce it to grand delusion and self-referential incoherence). KF

  21. 21
  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, of course some above remarks pivot on the point that Darwin studiously avoided addressing humanity in his first book on evolution. C 1870 he went on to write about human evolution and said many things that bring out the points in my above linked notes. The evidence on the quite plain deep integration of racist views in the theory from its roots needs to be fairly addressed. KF

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 17 states:

    Arguing that Darwin’s views on race – which are racist by current standards – are sufficient to taint his theory of evolution is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

    Actually, Darwin’s views on race are not just racist by ‘current standards’. They are racist by our God given eternal objective moral standards.

    Saying that his views are only racist by ‘current standards’ implies that his views were somehow not morally racist by the standards of his day.

    Racism is always, objectively, racism no matter what and is ALWAYS, objectively, morally wrong, no matter what the popularity of racism may be at any given time in history.

    Atheism cannot ground objective morality.

    Sev goes on to state:

    His personal beliefs say nothing about whether his theory stands on its own as an explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.

    As to ‘standing on its own’, Darwin’s theory does not stand on its own as a scientific theory. It does not even have a universal law to appeal to as every other theory of science has.

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    In fact the foundational randomness postulate of Darwin’s theory, (rather than any foundational universal law as all other theories of science have), can be forcefully argued to be the one thing that prevents Darwin’s theory from ever being considered truly scientific.

    This is evidenced by the fact that if randomness were to be found in any of the foundational universal laws it would destroy our ability to do science

    Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006
    Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”
    The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,,
    The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed.
    http://www.space.com/2613-scie.....-laws.html

    Since Darwin’s theory has no rigid mathematical foundation built upon a universal law to appeal to, Darwin’s theory, to give itself the ‘illusion’ of scientific respectability, relies heavily on bad liberal theology (Darwin’s college degree was in Theology), and on imagination. Imagination which is, for all intents and purposes, unrestrained by any contrary empirical findings (i.e. unfalsifiability).

    Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudo-Science based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDi6gUMQJQ

    Sev goes on to state:

    Just as arguing that the theory is somehow undermined because the eugenics movement was derived from it is the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam, an appeal to (adverse) consequences.

    Besides the horrendous social consequences that Darwin’s theory has wrought on mankind, it is also interesting to note Darwin’s theory, unlike other scientific theories, has done nothing good for mankind.

    Scientific theories have a history of deepening man’s understanding of Nature, and thus providing man with beneficial technological breakthroughs because of that deepened understanding of nature (For instance, Newton’s theory of Gravity was ‘good enough’ to land men on the moon). Evolution, unlike those other scientific theories, has completely failed on this account to foster research and deliver technological breakthroughs:

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)

    In fact, instead of fostering discovery, it can be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution has hindered scientific discovery, and has also led to medical malpractice, by falsely predicting both junk DNA and vestigial organs.
    On the other hand, Intelligent Design, far from hindering science as Darwinian evolution has done, is found to be a ‘driver of science’:

    “It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology.”
    Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design – David Snoke – 2014

    How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design – July 2014
    Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems:
    *”Negative feedback for stable operation.”
    *”Frequency filtering” for extracting a signal from a noisy system.
    *Control and signaling to induce a response.
    *”Information storage” where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes:
    “This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. ”
    *”Timing and synchronization,” where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order.
    *”Addressing,” where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target.
    *”Hierarchies of function,” where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order.
    *”Redundancy,” as organisms contain backup systems or “fail-safes” if primary essential systems fail.
    *”Adaptation,” where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, “These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way,” and “Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.”,,,
    Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that “just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little ‘junk.’” He explains, “Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible,” and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....87871.html

    All in all, unlike Intelligent Design, Darwinian evolution does not qualify as a ‘real science’ in any meaningful sense of the term ‘real science’, but is more realistically classified, (at least how Darwinists treat it), as a unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

    Verses:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    2 Peter 1:16
    For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

  24. 24
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    Just as arguing that the theory is somehow undermined because the eugenics movement was derived from it is the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam, an appeal to (adverse) consequences.

    If the consequences follow logically from the theory, then it is appropriate to state that the theory is a cause of the consequences.

    Evolution attempts to explain human life and behavior. If a consequence of that theory is that human life is de-valued and immoral behavior increases, then the theory is dangerous.

    For those people who believe that one goal of human life is to live with virtue and develop oneself towards better moral behavior, then a theory that undermines that cannot be correct about what human nature really is.

    Darwin’s theory is atheistic and anti-human. It is reductionist. Human beings are not qualitatively different than bacteria. Racism is not a problem in evolutionary terms.

    We repeat this point countless times on UD and I understand why none of the atheists can deal with it because it is irrefutable. There is no good or evil in terms of evolution (and that theory supposedly explains all life).

    Moral outrage about racism is an appeal to theistic morality.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    Arguing that Darwin’s views on race – which are racist by current standards – are sufficient to taint his theory of evolution is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

    There is plenty that taints Darwin’s concepts on evolution. For one natural selection has been a bust when it comes to being a designer mimic. Secondly there wasn’t any science to support Darwin’s claims and that still holds true today. For example no one knows how to test the claim that vision systems evolved via stochastic processes.

    Darwin’s was not a scientific theory so it never stood on its own. It always required the gullibility of anyone reading it.

  26. 26
    Allan Keith says:

    SA,

    If the consequences follow logically from the theory, then it is appropriate to state that the theory is a cause of the consequences.

    I would disagree. How humans with their biases apply the theory is the cause. A theory is just a model to explain observations.

    Evolution attempts to explain human life and behavior. If a consequence of that theory is that human life is de-valued and immoral behavior increases, then the theory is dangerous.

    A consequence of the theory of gravity is that if we suffer a fall of thirty feet or more, we are likely to die. But I never hear anyone say that the theory of gravity is dangerous.

    For those people who believe that one goal of human life is to live with virtue and develop oneself towards better moral behavior, then a theory that undermines that cannot be correct about what human nature really is.

    One does not follow the other.

    Darwin’s theory is atheistic and anti-human. It is reductionist.

    How can evolution be anti-human. That is like saying that plate tectonics is anti-mountain.

    Human beings are not qualitatively different than bacteria.

    We are different than bacteria in thousands of qualitative ways. Multi-cell vs single cell. Reproduce sexually. more massive. etc.

    Racism is not a problem in evolutionary terms.

    No it’s not. It is not a problem in chemistry, physics or quantum mechanics either. But to say that the knowledge of evolution has caused racism is to ignore thousands of years of recorded history.

    Moral outrage about racism is an appeal to theistic morality.

    You mean the same theistic morality that accepted slavery, the decimation of aboriginal peoples and cultures, the crusades… My moral outrage against racism comes from years of travel and interacting with peoples of every race and culture, and coming to the realization that we all have the same fundamental desires. Food and shelter for ourselves and our families.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    A consequence of the theory of gravity is that if we suffer a fall of thirty feet or more, we are likely to die.

    It all depends.

    But I never hear anyone say that the theory of gravity is dangerous.

    So what? What does that have to do with the fact that evolutionism is dangerous for the reason provided?

  28. 28
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AK

    I would disagree. How humans with their biases apply the theory is the cause. A theory is just a model to explain observations.

    A theory that purports to explain all biological life on earth including the origin of human life in a materialist paradigm, can only be applied in one way.

    A consequence of the theory of gravity is that if we suffer a fall of thirty feet or more, we are likely to die.

    If we had no theory of gravity we would suffer the same consequences. But evolution, instead, is a worldview that has consequences.

    How can evolution be anti-human.

    As I stated, it is reductionist. It reduces the value of human beings.

    Some key points, I’m not sure if you accept or not:

    1. Evolution has no goal or direction
    2. Evolution is blind to the future. It has no purpose.
    3. Whatever has evolved, emerged blindly, through accident. Random mutation and random environment.
    4. Evolution cannot assign value to anything.
    5. In the evolutionary perspective, human life has no more value than does any other biological form. In the materialist perspective, human life has no more value than does a pile of rocks. They’re both made of physical substances alone.
    6. The classical idea of “humanity” is one that is respectful of the high value of human life. It is oriented towards purpose, destiny, meaning. In the theistic view, all humans are sacred – created for a purpose and reason, with a destiny to fulfill. Evolution destroys all of that
    7. From the above, evolution is anti-human. It destroys all meaning and purpose of human life – it reduces human life to something trivial.

    That is like saying that plate tectonics is anti-mountain.

    You’re comparing a theory about human life with that of a geological formation. It follows from above. This analogy destroys the meaning of human life.

    We are different than bacteria in thousands of qualitative ways. Multi-cell vs single cell. Reproduce sexually. more massive. etc.

    Those are quantitative differences (size, shape) not qualitative. As stated above, evolution cannot assign value to anything.

    No it’s not.

    Evolution is a worldview. It explains human life and behavior. Evolution does not have a problem with racism, as you admit. Therefore, those who believe evolutionary theory and also have moral problems with it are contradictory.

    My moral outrage against racism comes from years of travel and interacting with peoples of every race and culture, and coming to the realization that we all have the same fundamental desires. Food and shelter for ourselves and our families.

    Evolution reduces human life to food, reproduction and survival. None of those aspects are necessary in the evolutionary view because without them, there can be no negative consequences. If a species goes extinct, this is not a problem in the evolutionary worldview.

    But regarding racism, if stronger, more fit human beings can eat better, live better, reproduce better – all by being racist and oppressive to other human beings, that fits perfectly with evolution. That is competition which gives rise to evolutionary development.
    Weaker members die off. They are not necessary. In a competition for resources, the more fit will survive and reproduce and the less will die.

    Racism is simply a part of that process.

    In the end, nothing matters. There is no basis for moral outrage about anything. All human behaviors, supposedly, are created by evolution. There is nothing to be outraged about.

    Lions attack antelopes. Crocodiles attack birds, fish and small animals. Dogs attack each other.

    Where is the moral outrage?

    For the evolutionary view, there can be none. So outrage about racism is irrational.

  29. 29
    Allan Keith says:

    SA,

    A theory that purports to explain all biological life on earth including the origin of human life in a materialist paradigm, can only be applied in one way.

    How so? Your argument would hold true if all we could do is react to stimulus in a reflex manner. But we are capable of overriding many of our reflexes and instincts. We can reason, think abstractly, predict consequences of our actions, etc.

    If we had no theory of gravity we would suffer the same consequences. But evolution, instead, is a worldview that has consequences.

    What consequences would those be? Racism? Greed? Selfishness? Unrestricted self-interest? Narcissism? Societal policies that are prejudicial to others? All of these pre-date the theory by as many years as humans have existed. The western world, by-and=large, has become less racist, at least overtly, more generous to those less fortunate, more understanding of differences. This at the same time that acceptance of evolution has increased and belief in religion has decreased.

    As I stated, it is reductionist. It reduces the value of human beings.

    Humans have always had the value that they themselves bring to the table. How does a theory change this?

    Evolution is a worldview. It explains human life and behavior. Evolution does not have a problem with racism, as you admit. Therefore, those who believe evolutionary theory and also have moral problems with it are contradictory.

    No, evolution is a scientific theory to explain the diversity of life that we see. It may inform our individual world views but it is not one in and of itself. Just because the theory of evolution is agnostic about racisms does not mean that I cannot be morally opposed to racism. The golden rule forms a strong foundation for many of our moral values. But this is a concept that can easily be derived from simple reasoning. It does not need any god to formulate it. There are many ways in which I would prefer not to be treated. If I expect others not to treat me in those ways, reason says that I should reciprocate.

  30. 30
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AK

    Humans have always had the value that they themselves bring to the table. How does a theory change this?

    As stated, the theory reduces the value of human life. When people believe that theory, that’s what they bring to the table.
    Other ideas, in opposition to evolution, show the high value of human life. We have a much greater purpose and destiny – much higher standards and value as beings, than bacteria or plants since created and loved by God and we exist for a reason. Evolution opposes this.
    In the evolutionary view, human beings are an accidental product of blind, unintelligent forces.
    “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.”
    The evolutionary explanation is that nothing has inherent value.

  31. 31
    Allan Keith says:

    SA,

    The evolutionary explanation is that nothing has inherent value.
    That is true. But that doesn’t mean that we as individuals, and society as a whole, cannot assign value to our lives and the lives of others. I agree that it would be nice to find out that our lives have some higher meaning, but why is it so important? Would the lack of a higher meaning reduce the value of your son or daughter?

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    No, evolution is a scientific theory to explain the diversity of life that we see.

    That is false as there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. But then again you don’t know what a scientific theory entails because you just don’t know what science is.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    But that doesn’t mean that we as individuals, and society as a whole, cannot assign value to our lives and the lives of others.

    Talk about living in a fairy tale.

    I agree that it would be nice to find out that our lives have some higher meaning, but why is it so important?

    It is so important because it means everything, duh.

    Would the lack of a higher meaning reduce the value of your son or daughter?

    Would there be a son or daughter without one?

  34. 34
    Allan Keith says:

    ET,

    It is so important because it means everything, duh.

    Are you saying that if it turns out that humans have no inherent higher meaning, imbued in us by some god, that you would be incapable of having a meaningful life? How sad.

  35. 35
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AK

    Are you saying that if it turns out that humans have no inherent higher meaning, imbued in us by some god, that you would be incapable of having a meaningful life? How sad.

    The theory asserts that your life has no inherent meaning. It is worth nothing.
    You accept that. But then you insist that your life is meaningful.
    As pointed out above, this is a fairy tale or fantasy. Making up an imaginary meaning is a denial of the reality that the theory teaches. It’s illogical.

  36. 36
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    Are you saying that if it turns out that humans have no inherent higher meaning, imbued in us by some god, that you would be incapable of having a meaningful life?

    Non-sequitur

  37. 37
    Allan Keith says:

    SA,

    The theory asserts that your life has no inherent meaning. It is worth nothing.
    You accept that. But then you insist that your life is meaningful.
    As pointed out above, this is a fairy tale or fantasy. Making up an imaginary meaning is a denial of the reality that the theory teaches. It’s illogical.

    All I am saying is that our lives have no “inherent” meaning. But we have brains, can think rationally. This gives us the ability to formulate meanings for our lives. If you call this fantasy, so be it. Some people find meaning in work. I don’t see how that can be inherent.

  38. 38
    Allan Keith says:

    ET

    Non-sequitur.

    Non-responsive.

  39. 39
    Nonlin.org says:

    News@5,

    Darwinism is not evolution. It is a theory of evolution

    How is Darwinism different than “evolution”? And what is “evolution” anyway?

  40. 40
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    All I am saying is that our lives have no “inherent” meaning.

    That is your unsupportable opinion. Given the evidence it is clear that there is inherent meaning to our lives.

    But we have brains, can think rationally.

    And yet you don’t seem to be able to do so.

  41. 41
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    Non-responsive.

    Insipid troll

  42. 42
    ET says:

    How is Darwinism different than “evolution”?

    Darwinism entails specific evolutionary mechanisms. These mechanisms are blind and mindless

    And what is “evolution” anyway?

    1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

    2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

    4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

    5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

    [page 136-37 of “Darwinism, Design and Public Education”]

  43. 43
    Nonlin.org says:

    ET@42,

    Your reply does not clarify the difference. But more importantly, how can ID proponents defeat Darwinism when accepting Darwin’s stupid brain farts?!?

    Case in point, how can Casey Luskin write this nonsense:
    https://evolutionnews.org/2006/08/derbyshire_attacks_gilder_part_1/
    “This false comparison misrepresents the views of ID proponents, who accept much of modern evolutionary theory. ID proponents fully recognize that natural selection can produce many small-scale changes but simply question if evidence for such changes can be extrapolated to account for all of life’s complexity”?!?
    Do you agree with this? Do most ID proponents? If so, no wonder no one takes ID seriously.

    There is not even an “artificial selection” to speak of, let alone “natural selection”. Think about it!
    http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/
    Plant and animal breeding is not the “artificial selection” described by Darwin and has nothing to do with any natural process. Breeding requires a desired outcome, selection (just a minor step!) and isolation of successive generations of promising individuals, active mating or artificial insemination, optimization of growth conditions for the selected individuals, and/or other genetic technologies. Without most of these active steps nothing happens. Chihuahua and Poodle have no superior survivability to common dog or wolf, but happened anyway because humans worked hard to make them possible. But no one ensures all these active steps in nature. To take only one example, how could humans have “evolved” distinctly from chimps when no one separated each and every new generation based on a teleological model? Why did the proto-human not mate back with his/her regular chimp cousins to put an end to the split? Who and how could have separately optimized conditions for both chimp and human so both lineages survived in what looks like very much similar environments? ‘Selection’ of both “artificial” and “natural” type is thus the wrong word and should be phased out.

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Nonlin:

    Your reply does not clarify the difference.

    Of course it does.

  45. 45
    Allan Keith says:

    ET,

    Insipid troll.

    Except that I don’t have this obsessive need to respond to every one of your comments, as you do with mine. A bit of the old “pot calling the kettle black” concept.

  46. 46
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    Except that I don’t have this obsessive need to respond to every one of your comments, as you do with mine.

    No, you have an obsessive need to lie and try to BS your way through a discussion. That is why I respond to you- to expose your lies and BS

  47. 47
    Nonlin.org says:

    ET@44,

    Read my comment 43 again. Do you agree with Casey Luskin or not? That is the real question if you haven’t figured out. Unfortunately, I see more and more ID proponents that do. This is so wrong, it will be known as a Semmelweis moment when people will wake up.

  48. 48
    ET says:

    Nonlin- Evolution by means of telic processes- think genetic algorithms- is still evolution. It just is not Darwinian evolution which is evolution by means of non-telic processes.

  49. 49
    ET says:

    Nonlin- Yes natural selection can produce small changes- just look at sickle-cell trait

  50. 50
    Nonlin.org says:

    ET,

    Have you ever seen “Evolution by means of telic processes”, or are you making it up?

    Sickle-cell is an adaptation similar to antibiotic resistance, etc.

    Why do you insist on recycling the Darwinist wrongheaded terminology? All you’re doing is creating confusion.

Leave a Reply