E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity.
Darwin: "the imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society"
- Status
P
PLP
Guest
It really doesn’t matter whether or not Darwin was a racist. He was a scientist, not a prophet. He is not transmitting revealed information. He is not an authority on scientific theories of Evolution in the same sense that the Pope is an authority on Catholic dogma.
Evolutionary science is a science, not an ethical theory. You can derive no more ethical conclusions from evolution than you can from physics or geology.
Specifically, scientific theories of evolution do not entail that there are any individuals who should or should not survive or reproduce; they merely state the truth that there are some individuals who do in fact have more reproductive success than other individuals. That we can cure diseases and permit many people to survive, and that we do in fact do so does not in any way contradict the tenets of evolutionary science.
Evolutionary science is a science, not an ethical theory. You can derive no more ethical conclusions from evolution than you can from physics or geology.
Specifically, scientific theories of evolution do not entail that there are any individuals who should or should not survive or reproduce; they merely state the truth that there are some individuals who do in fact have more reproductive success than other individuals. That we can cure diseases and permit many people to survive, and that we do in fact do so does not in any way contradict the tenets of evolutionary science.
D
davidford
Guest
Suppose someone converts to Judaism.
Does that person then have a Jewish “ethnicity”?
D
davidford
Guest
Re: your last paragraph, do you agree with Greg?:
Darwin
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
_ The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the
_ prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore
_ probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods.
_ Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members
_ of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the
_ provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr.
_ Greg puts the case:
_ _ “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like
_ _ rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious
_ _ Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious
_ _ and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years
_ _ in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few
_ _ behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a
_ _ thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts-- and in a dozen
_ _ generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts,
_ _ but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the
_ _ intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that
_ _ remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would
_ _ be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed–
_ _ and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its
_ _ faults.”
“Darwin… was a scientist, not a prophet. He is not transmitting revealed information.”
1979 Gould & Lewontin on Darwin’s sainthood
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135620622.450174.274380%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
1918 Henry Adams on Quotemining and Darwinianity in 1867-8
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133804198.957715.189070%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
“scientific theories of Evolution”
Meaning of “Evolution”?
legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
“Evolutionary science is a science”
Do you consider medical personnel performing experiments to refine partial birth abortion techniques “science”?
“You can derive no more ethical conclusions from evolution than you can from physics or geology.”
Where do “ethical conclusions” derive from?
D
davidford
Guest
Wilberforce “was an Englishman in the 1800s”-- do you consider him a racist?
1989 Koster: “it was Christianity that put an end to slavery around the globe”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406281819.5f06fed5%40posting.google.com
Do you think E.O. Wilson’s sociobiology is “supported by evolutionary theory”?
Do you think Darwin’s views about sexual selection in animals is “supported by evolutionary theory”?
Do you think Darwin’s views about sexual selection in humans is “supported by evolutionary theory”?
Darwin
literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/introduction.html
_ _ During many years it has seemed to me highly probable
_ _ that sexual selection has played an important part in
_ _ differentiating the races of man; but in my Origin of
_ _ Species I contented myself by merely alluding to this
_ _ belief. When I came to apply this view to man, I found it
_ _ indispensable to treat the whole subject in full detail.*
_ _ Consequently the second part of the present work,
_ _ treating of sexual selection, has extended to an inordinate
_ _ length, compared with the first part; but this could not be
_ _ avoided.
_ _
_ _ * Prof. Haeckel was the only author who, at the time
_ _ when this work first appeared, had discussed the subject
_ _ of sexual selection, and had seen its full importance,
_ _ since the publication of the Origin; and this he did in a
_ _ very able manner in his various works.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin praise for Rolle, T.H. Huxley, Buchner, & Haeckel
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134766736.390460.205460%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Darwin, T.H. Huxley, Haeckel, Trotha, Goebbels, Hitler, Marx, O’Hair
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133186735.613068.108090%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
D
davidford
Guest
A ‘god’ is something that is worshipped.
For some, their ‘god’ is Darwin.
For others, their ‘god’ is Hitler.
For still others, their ‘god’ is ‘humanity.’
Hitler:
Germany is our God on this earth.
Compare
David Saville Muzzey, a leader in the Ethical Culture Movement:
Thus the ‘God’ that we love is not the figure on the great
white throne, but the perfect pattern, envisioned by faith,
of humanity as it should be, purged of the evil elements
which retard its progress…
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120450591.444214.186670%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
One might well ask why are there any Jews in the world order?
That would be exactly like asking why are there potato bugs?
Nature is dominated by the law of struggle. There will always
be parasites who will spur this struggle on and intensify the
process of selection between the strong and the weak. The
principle of struggle dominates also in human life. One must
merely know the laws of this struggle to be able to face it. …
In nature life always takes measures against parasites; in the life
of nations that is not always the case. From this fact the Jewish
peril actually stems. There is therefore no other recourse left
for modern nations except to exterminate the Jew…
…we are forever members of the Aryan race. … Aboriginal
man, the Fuehrer believes, did not know the lie…
The nations that have been the first to see through the Jew and
have been the first to fight him are going to take his place in the
domination of the world.
Hitler. Cited in
Heiden, Konrad. 1944. Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power,
translated almost entirely by Ralph Manheim, with Norbert Guterman
translating the last chapter and part of the prior chapter (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company), 788pp. Heiden also wrote A History of
National Socialism. On 758:
Germany is our God on this earth.
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)
380 U.S. 163
United States v. Seeger.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Decided March 8, 1965.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=380&invol=163
Dr. David Saville Muzzey, a leader in the Ethical Culture
Movement, states in his book, Ethics As a Religion
(1951)
“Thus the ‘God’ that we love is not the figure on the greatwhite throne, but the perfect pattern, envisioned by faith,
of humanity as it should be, purged of the evil elements
which retard its progress toward ‘the knowledge, love and
practice of the right.’” At 98.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
a claim: Hitler was a Christian
google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
the courts on the secular religion of secular humanism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127528146.999596.314660%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
If they weren’t an ethnic Jew beforehand, they probably wouldn’t be an ethnic Jew afterwards.
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
Do you care to tell me what these things and people are, or do I have to go look them up myself? And moreover, what in the world do they have to do with evolution?
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
You know, it’s really funny how one word can actually have multiple meanings - like the word “bat.” Sometimes “bat” means a small, winged mammal. Sometimes “bat” means a polished length of wood used in baseball. Sometimes “bat” means a blow or a strike, as in a cat batting a ball of yarn. Sometimes “bat” means to flutter an eyelid, as in “to bat an eyelash.” Crazy, isn’t it?
In other words, when I say that my friend is a god at Halo, I do not mean that my friend created either this world or the world of Halo; I do not mean that he actually knows everything or can do everything. I do not mean that he is immanent and transcendent. I mean that he is very, very good at Halo.
That is why it is an abuse of language to say that humanism holds that humanity is a god in the same way that Catholicism holds that Jesus was a god.
P
PLP
Guest
davidford said:
It would be helpful if you’d cite and quote original material, not just point into a long post of your own elsewhere. It’s impossible to tell whom you’re quoting and from where in the cited posts. Any scientist, though, who would say, “Since Darwin has attained sainthood (if not divinity) among evolutionary biologists…” is speaking with his tounge firmly implanted in his cheek.
It is a persistent and pernicious mistake that many non-scientists make when evaluating science. Scientists simply do not think in a “religious” manner. Authority has no value in determining scientific truth. A scientist is held in esteem only because of the quality of this theories. This is the reverse of authoritarian religious thinking.
That’s a whole 'nother debate. We know, however, that natural science cannot address ethical questions. It’s a very simply logical argument: All ethical questions involve choices between physically plausible options. All scientific theories state what is and is not physically plausible. Therefore science can never resolve an ethical question; at best, science can show that some question is not in fact ethical by showing that one or both of the options are not actually physically plausible.
P
PLP
Guest
davidford: Just as a tip: Your posts and positions would be much easier to read if you improved your formatting. Everything automatically word-wraps; you don’t have to put in a hard return near the end of each line in your text box.
Your composition style also could use some improvement. Simply dumping three pages of quotation following a short assertion is an unpersuasive style. It’s better to make points in your own words, and use short quotations (with proper attribution to their source) to support them. This will allow you to connect various points into a theme without losing the reader’s attention. I’d much rather address your points directly than get so bogged down in poor style that I lose the sense of your presentation.
Darwin might or might not have been a racist. It doesn’t matter. As I said, I do not consider him a prophet nor his wisdom revealed, I do not consider evolution a religion. No one I know who takes science seriously considers it a religion or any scientist to be divinely inspired. Any blot on Darwin’s (or any other scientist’s) character, even if real, does not affect the scientific truth or falsity of his theories or the theories which build on his work.
Your composition style also could use some improvement. Simply dumping three pages of quotation following a short assertion is an unpersuasive style. It’s better to make points in your own words, and use short quotations (with proper attribution to their source) to support them. This will allow you to connect various points into a theme without losing the reader’s attention. I’d much rather address your points directly than get so bogged down in poor style that I lose the sense of your presentation.
Darwin might or might not have been a racist. It doesn’t matter. As I said, I do not consider him a prophet nor his wisdom revealed, I do not consider evolution a religion. No one I know who takes science seriously considers it a religion or any scientist to be divinely inspired. Any blot on Darwin’s (or any other scientist’s) character, even if real, does not affect the scientific truth or falsity of his theories or the theories which build on his work.
D
davidford
Guest
D
davidford
Guest
Gould, Stephen Jay and Richard C. Lewontin. 1979. “The spandrels of
San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist
programme” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
205:589-90. Under their names appears “Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.”
Section 4, in entirety:
_ _ 4. THE MASTER’S VOICE RE-EXAMINED
_ _ Since Darwin has attained sainthood (if not divinity)
_ _ among evolutionary biologists, and since all sides invoke
_ _ God’s allegiance, Darwin has often been depicted as a
_ _ radical selectionist at heart who invoked other
_ _ mechanisms only in retreat, and only as a result of his
_ _ age’s own lamented ignorance about the mechanisms of
_ _ heredity. This view is false. Although Darwin regarded
_ _ selection as the most important of evolutionary
_ _ mechanisms (as do we), no argument from opponents
_ _ angered him more than the common attempt to caricature
_ _ and trivialize his theory by stating that it relied exclusively
_ _ upon natural selection. In the last edition of the Origin,
_ _ he wrote (1872, p. 395):
_ _ _ _ ‘As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented,
_ _ _ _ and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of
_ _ _ _ species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted
_ _ _ _ to remark that in the first edition of this work, and
_ _ _ _ subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position -
_ _ _ _ namely at the close of the Introduction - the following
_ _ _ _ words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the
_ _ _ _ main, but not the exclusive means of modification.” This
_ _ _ _ has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady
_ _ _ _ misrepresentation.’
_ _ Romanes, whose once famous essay (1900) on Darwin’s
_ _ pluralism versus the panselectionism of Wallace and
_ _ Weismann deserves a resurrection, noted of this passage
_ _ (1900, p. 5): ‘In the whole range of Darwin’s writings there
_ _ cannot be found a passage so strongly worded as this: it
_ _ presents the only note of bitterness in all the thousands of
_ _ pages which he has published.’ Apparently, Romanes
_ _ did not know the letter Darwin wrote to Nature in 1880,
_ _ in which he castigated Sir Wyville Thompson for
_ _ caricaturing his theory as panselectionist (1880, p. 32):…
_ _ [am eliding letter extracts-df] We do not now regard all of
_ _ Darwin’s subsidiary mechanisms as significant or even
_ _ valid, though many, including direct modification and
_ _ correlation of growth, are very important. But we should
_ _ cherish his consistent attitude of pluralism in attempting
_ _ to explain Nature’s [sic] complexity.
S
steveandersen
Guest
ev·o·lu·tion n.
- A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
- The process of developing.
2 .Gradual development.
- The process of developing.
- Biology.
- Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
- The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
- A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
- Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
D
davidford
Guest
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In short, Darwin, aka [Gould & Lewontin]“THE MASTER,” has [Gould &
Lewontin]“attained sainthood (if not divinity) among evolutionary
biologists.”
Some heretics are so brazen-faced as to allege regarding [Gould &
Lewontin]"THE MASTER/ [Gould & Lewontin]“God” that he has no clothes:
Roberts, Russell. Sept 1996. Commentary, 23. Roberts is with the
Olin School of Business, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Remarks in entirety:
_ _ I want to thank David Berlinski for his elegant expose of
_ _ the Darwinian emperor and his meager amount of
_ _ clothing. Biologists and the rest of us often confuse what
_ _ I would call micro-evolution (animals have coloring that
_ _ makes them hard to spot in the wild) with macro-evolution
_ _ (the tree of life that Mr. Berlinski mentions where man
_ _ makes his orderly climb out of the primordial soup).
_ _ There is a great deal of evidence for the former and
_ _ precious little for the latter. Where are those pesky
_ _ intermediate forms?
_ _ People often speak about the theory of evolution has if it
_ _ were a ‘fact’ or ‘proven.’ Alas, it is only a theory, a useful
_ _ way of organizing our thinking about the real world.
_ _ When theories stretch too far to accommodate the facts,
_ _ a paradigm shift is usually forthcoming. As Mr. Berlinski
_ _ notes, biologists have trouble imagining an alternative
_ _ paradigm to evolution. This may explain the vehemence
_ _ with which they greet criticism. Perhaps they too are
_ _ uneasy with the emperor’s wardrobe.
Hsu is another heretic:
about Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
abstract of Hsu’s “Darwin’s three mistakes”; Hsu quoting Ernst Chain
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980426214908.24131A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
Hsu “almost tempted to join my colleague, Paul Feyerabend”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35lfj3F4ojm7rU1%40individual.net
Darwin’s bible; Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
1918 Henry Adams on Quotemining and Darwinianity in 1867-8
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133804198.957715.189070%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Paul Johnson
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&id=2828
_ _ At a revivalist meeting of Darwinians
_ _ two or three years ago, I heard
_ _ the chairman, the fiction-writer Ian
_ _ McEwan, call out, 'Yes, we do
_ _ think God is an old man in the sky
_ _ with a beard, and his name is
_ _ Charles Darwin.
In short, Darwin, aka [Gould & Lewontin]“THE MASTER,” has [Gould &
Lewontin]“attained sainthood (if not divinity) among evolutionary
biologists.”
Some heretics are so brazen-faced as to allege regarding [Gould &
Lewontin]"THE MASTER/ [Gould & Lewontin]“God” that he has no clothes:
Roberts, Russell. Sept 1996. Commentary, 23. Roberts is with the
Olin School of Business, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Remarks in entirety:
_ _ I want to thank David Berlinski for his elegant expose of
_ _ the Darwinian emperor and his meager amount of
_ _ clothing. Biologists and the rest of us often confuse what
_ _ I would call micro-evolution (animals have coloring that
_ _ makes them hard to spot in the wild) with macro-evolution
_ _ (the tree of life that Mr. Berlinski mentions where man
_ _ makes his orderly climb out of the primordial soup).
_ _ There is a great deal of evidence for the former and
_ _ precious little for the latter. Where are those pesky
_ _ intermediate forms?
_ _ People often speak about the theory of evolution has if it
_ _ were a ‘fact’ or ‘proven.’ Alas, it is only a theory, a useful
_ _ way of organizing our thinking about the real world.
_ _ When theories stretch too far to accommodate the facts,
_ _ a paradigm shift is usually forthcoming. As Mr. Berlinski
_ _ notes, biologists have trouble imagining an alternative
_ _ paradigm to evolution. This may explain the vehemence
_ _ with which they greet criticism. Perhaps they too are
_ _ uneasy with the emperor’s wardrobe.
Hsu is another heretic:
about Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
abstract of Hsu’s “Darwin’s three mistakes”; Hsu quoting Ernst Chain
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980426214908.24131A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
Hsu “almost tempted to join my colleague, Paul Feyerabend”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35lfj3F4ojm7rU1%40individual.net
Darwin’s bible; Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
1918 Henry Adams on Quotemining and Darwinianity in 1867-8
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133804198.957715.189070%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Paul Johnson
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&id=2828
_ _ At a revivalist meeting of Darwinians
_ _ two or three years ago, I heard
_ _ the chairman, the fiction-writer Ian
_ _ McEwan, call out, 'Yes, we do
_ _ think God is an old man in the sky
_ _ with a beard, and his name is
_ _ Charles Darwin.
D
davidford
Guest
“it is an abuse of language to say that humanism holds that humanity is a god in the same way that Catholicism holds that Jesus was a god.”
Do you see “an abuse of language” here?:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A claim: No true atheism-adherent believes in gods.
Question: What if one ‘god’ is the atheist himself?
Re: [Hitler]“God” or [Hitler]“Providence” referring to Hitler himself:
Q: “Do you believe in a supreme being?”
A: “Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is mankind.”
Analysis: surely not all mankind-- just look at a broadcast of your
local evening news. So, humanism-adherents worship only a portion of
mankind. It would make sense for humanism-adherents to worship the
very best portion of mankind. In many cases, that very best portion
of mankind is the humanist himself.
Q: ‘Do you believe in a supreme being?’
A: ‘Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is ME!’
Morain, Lloyd and Mary. 1998. Humanism As the Next Step
(Amherst, New York: Humanist Press), 145pp. A paragraph on 32:
_ _ _ Harold R. Rafton, founder of the Humanist Fellowship of
_ _ _ Boston, when asked, “Do you believe in a supreme being?”
_ _ _ replied, “Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is
_ _ _ mankind.” Humanists are careful, however, to point out
_ _ _ that this does not mean prideful self-worship of humanity,
_ _ _ because humanists do not worship in the traditional sense.
_ _ _ To be sure, the fulfillment of human life is their highest
_ _ _ value and their goal. But they realize that this fulfillment
_ _ _ is dependent upon human interrelationship with other
_ _ _ varieties of living things and nature as a whole. They
_ _ _ know that nature and its laws largely set the course and
_ _ _ determine the goals humans must seek to be fully human.
_ _ _ Their needs and their hopes are developed in interaction
_ _ _ with each other and nature.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism-adherents Hitler & Haeckel parallels
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133410708.967895.276860%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler was an atheism-adherent.
google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
- Viereck, Peter. 1941, 1961, 1965. Metapolitics: The Roots of the
Nazi Mind (NY: Capricorn Books), 371pp., 287-291, 299. - Rauschning, Hermann. 1940, 2003. The Voice of Destruction
(Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company), 295pp., 243, 252. - May 2003 Timothy Ryback on “Hitler’s Forgotten Library”
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895696/posts
D
davidford
Guest
Do you think that Darwin’s theory of natural selection has a high “quality” and is correct?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
Gould’s 1980 “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
1971 Salisbury’s Doubts about the Synthetic Euphoria
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402290951.48d08417%40posting.google.com
1967 Macbeth calls for “a full disclosure”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405231903.3eb81283%40posting.google.com
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
fallacy of false extrapolation
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
1950 Anthony Standen on the T0E
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403061926.298a316f%40posting.google.com
French persons that rejected the theory of NS
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129861996.983559.40030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
D
davidford
Guest
You were responding to my question, [df]“Suppose someone converts to Judaism.
Does that person then have a Jewish ‘ethnicity’?”
What’s an “ethnic Jew”?
Was the Old Testament’s Ruth an “ethnic Jew”?
Was Ruth a Jew, in your view?
D
davidford
Guest
Wilberforce “was an Englishman in the 1800s”-- do you consider him a racist?
Koster, Jr., John P. 1989. The Atheist Syndrome
(Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.),
199pp. Two paragraphs on 33-34:
_ _ _ The captain of HMS Beagle was Robert Fitzroy,
_ _ _ somewhat of a scientist himself and a man of great courage
_ _ _ and irascible temper. Fitzroy believed that every word of
_ _ _ the Bible was literally true. He also believed that the Bible
_ _ _ justified slavery. Darwin had been raised to hate slavery in
_ _ _ theory, and what he saw of the practice in Brazil, where
_ _ _ slavery was still widely practiced in the 1830s, outraged
_ _ _ him. The fact that Fitzroy rather obtusely used the Bible to
_ _ _ defend slavery may well have reignited Darwin’s childhood
_ _ _ prejudice against the Bible and against unquestioning
_ _ _ Christians.
_ _ _ But the linkage between Christianity and slavery, if indeed
_ _ _ it was established in Darwin’s mind, was not a logical one.
_ _ _ While Darwin and Fitzroy were cruising around arguing
_ _ _ aboard HMS Beagle, Britain outlawed the export of
_ _ _ slaves from Africa under the prodding of William
_ _ _ Wilberforce, a devout Christian who literally worked
_ _ _ himself to death fighting to end slavery throughout the
_ _ _ world. In the United States, liberals like Elijah Lovejoy
_ _ _ and armed radicals like John Brown and his sons supported
_ _ _ their antislavery sentiments with Biblical quotes and
_ _ _ Biblical faith. While the atheistic Darwin of the later years
_ _ _ cringed under his shawl, suffering an endless catalogue of
_ _ _ psychosomatic ailments, fearless Christians like Dr. David
_ _ _ Livingstone and General Charles Gordon roamed Africa to
_ _ _ stamp out slave trading and slave raiding by Arab traders
_ _ _ and by the Africans themselves. Livingstone, in particular,
_ _ _ was a man of such intense Christian conscience that even
_ _ _ the Arabs he was struggling to put out of business
_ _ _ respected him for his integrity. Indeed, it was Christianity
_ _ _ that put an end to slavery around the globe.
Meaning of “evolution”?
legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
D
davidford
Guest
3.1 or 3.2 or both?
That’s a lot of definitions. I try not to assume which definition(s) a person I can ask questions of has in mind when using the word ‘evolution.’
Meaning of “species”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
What are 3 things that “natural selection” can’t do?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1988 A. Lima-de-Faria on the phlogiston-like contradictory nature of
“selection”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39lhabF61ut8sU1%40individual.net
1988 Lima-de-Faria
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1130159020.075563.15930%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
- Status