Evolution and Racism

[Namesake]

,“the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian”
St. Jerome

newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

This is not the first time this happened and I would like to say it would be spectacular in its cunningness if it were not so dangerous.The most visible fact is that the valuable facet of scientific investigation within Christianity has shifted to a plausible platform commonly known as science vs religion.The way this happened is incredible by the hijacking of the insights of the great Christian astronomers and the reduction of astronomy to the ‘scientific method’ as it is now known,a device which Darwin used to inject a ‘cause’ into evolution.

The problem with the intelligent design people is that they still play within the rules of empiricism,the problem with the Church is that it just does not have the people to spot the Arian strain within its ranks and deal with the matter effectively.

I think I am starting to understand, maybe. Are you upset that the scientific method doesn’t include God, or at least a designer of some sort. Is that what is upsetting to you?

 

[Nepenthe]

I’m very much agreeing with The Barbarian that the overwhelmingly vast majority of biologists (of all related sub-fields) are not racists, not at all.

It is worth remembering that the practical sciences are as different now from what they were 100-120 years ago as Mathematics is from the time of Pythagoras! Okay, maybe not quite that far, if you’ve ever spoken at length with theoretical mathematicians…whoa. But the more practically-oriented scientists (ie physicists, chemists, biologists, etc) are indeed endeavoring, unceasingly, to refine and define what they DO know, as well as tossing what they DON’T know into the circular file, and incredibly rapid progress has been and is being made.

 

[oriel16]

I think I am starting to understand, maybe. Are you upset that the scientific method doesn’t include God, or at least a designer of some sort. Is that what is upsetting to you?

Empiricism is anti-scientific never mind anything relating to Christ or Christianity.Newton was an Arian and his ‘achievement’ reflects that of an Arian in that he distorted the original insights of the great astronomers towards the ‘scientific method’ agenda.The wider population thinks there is some connection between Copernicus to Newton and on to today’s bunch of empiricists but for those who understand the approach Copernicus took to solar system structure via the antecedent geocentric view,it shows Newton as an idiot who never understood the main arguments for the motions of the Earth in a heliocentric structure.

A thousand times to say the same thing - empiricism is not ‘science’ and that is where Arian tendencies have created havoc both within Christianity and outside it.

I am not upset,I am delighted I have the gifts of God to know the difference between genuine scientific investigation and empiricism.

 

[Namesake]

Empiricism is anti-scientific never mind anything relating to Christ or Christianity.Newton was an Arian and his ‘achievement’ reflects that of an Arian in that he distorted the original insights of the great astronomers towards the ‘scientific method’ agenda.The wider population thinks there is some connection between Copernicus to Newton and on to today’s bunch of empiricists but for those who understand the approach Copernicus took to solar system structure via the antecedent geocentric view,it shows Newton as an idiot who never understood the main arguments for the motions of the Earth in a heliocentric structure.

A thousand times to say the same thing - empiricism is not ‘science’ and that is where Arian tendencies have created havoc both within Christianity and outside it.

I am not upset,I am delighted I have the gifts of God to know the difference between genuine scientific investigation and empiricism.

OK. Then I suppose I ought to be upset because I must be an Arian, Right (but I am not)? I mean, I go along with Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, etc. If those guys were Arians then it must be a pretty good thing.

If those guys were wrong, I don’t want to be right

 

[DavWan]

Darwin was not a supporter of eugenics. Do you believe that he was?

I believe he created as an unintended side effect the science that led to Eugenics, and that he endorsed some of the ideas of the proponents of Eugenics.

Don’t get caught up in confusing Third Reich Eugenics for Eugenics in general. What Darwin seems to have endorsed in The Descent of Man comes closer to the Planned Parenthood version. Not extermination, but controlled breeding.

If he later retracted what he said in The Descent of Man, I have not seen it. If he did, I will withdraw my objection. Otherwise it still seems valid.

 

[oriel16]

OK. Then I suppose I ought to be upset because I must be an Arian, Right (but I am not)? I mean, I go along with Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, etc. If those guys were Arians then it must be a pretty good thing.

If those guys were wrong, I don’t want to be right

If you go along with them,yes,you are an Arian but the person who started it all off is Newton,the rest are just outriggers of his attempt to distort,and I mean distort, astronomical insights into his predictive agenda.

It would make little sense to you that Newton based his agenda of Flamsteed’s Ra/Dec system which is an observational convenience for determining positions and events against an astrological framework within the 365/366 calendar system making it useless for anything relating to the orbital motion of the Earth,which is ,just about everything.

Newton was a mathematician and not an astronomer and hardly knew that astrological geometry runs through his ‘cause’ for orbital motion just as national supremacy runs through Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution but that is what you get when an Arian tries to handle material which requires a high degree of intuitive intelligence.

If you are a follower of those guys and their anti-scientific approach ,you are not wrong,you are dangerous.

 

[Nepenthe]

Newton was a genius, of that there is no doubt. But I have to admit, I prefer Leibniz’ approach.

 

[oriel16]

Newton was a genius, of that there is no doubt. But I have to admit, I prefer Leibniz’ approach.

Newton was an Arian and an Arian does not possess the gifts of God that you call genius,they may be cunning and clever if you think these are attributes but Arian ‘genius’ is a contradiction even for Arians insofar as Inspiration is missing in their view of the Trinity hence the lack of connection between Son and Father. He simply distorted the work of a true genius such as Copernicus because the work of Copernicus inspires those who get a flash of his reasoning which in turn generate new energies.Newton merely generates more of the same distortions.

The mode of genius,at least in a creative aspect, is always the same whether it is a Beethoven or a Pascal -

“Those ideas that please me I retain in memory, and am accustomed, as I have been told, to hum them to myself. If I continue in this way, it soon occurs to me how I may turn them to account, so as to make a good dish of it, that is to say, agreeably to the rules of counterpoint, to the peculiarities of the various instruments. All this fires my soul, and, provided I am not disturbed, my subject enlarges itself, becomes methodised and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statue, at a glance. Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, but I hear them, as it were, simultaneously (gleich alles zusammen). What a delight this is I cannot tell! All this inventing, this producing, takes place in a pleasing lively dream. Still the actual hearing of the tout ensemble is after all the best.” Beethoven

“These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning.” Pascal

In plain language,Newton was an idiot who was out of his depth in astronomical matters yet managed to conceal his deficiencies in a blizzard of definitions,axioms and what have you.As an astronomer who works within the astronomical tradition of Copernicus and Kepler I can judge where he maneuvers this way and that way but it all comes out as a mess considering that he does not work off orbital comparisons as Copernicus and Kepler did but off hypothetical observers,absolute/relative space and that sort of worthless junk.If you have any specific questions as to what he did then just ask.

The point is that most Christians get a quick glance at what Jesus accomplished and even the briefest encounter is enough to awaken that intuitive intelligence concealed behind the hard crust of the intellect but it is a facility based on Love itself and not love of knowledge,power or any other sort of Earthly gain but it certainly belongs to God.

 

[Namesake]

If you go along with them,yes,you are an Arian but the person who started it all off is Newton,the rest are just outriggers of his attempt to distort,and I mean distort, astronomical insights into his predictive agenda.

It would make little sense to you that Newton based his agenda of Flamsteed’s Ra/Dec system which is an observational convenience for determining positions and events against an astrological framework within the 365/366 calendar system making it useless for anything relating to the orbital motion of the Earth,which is ,just about everything.

Newton was a mathematician and not an astronomer and hardly knew that astrological geometry runs through his ‘cause’ for orbital motion just as national supremacy runs through Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution but that is what you get when an Arian tries to handle material which requires a high degree of intuitive intelligence.

If you are a follower of those guys and their anti-scientific approach ,you are not wrong,you are dangerous.

Well, I am not only a follower but I am an admirer. Especially of the four guys I mentioned but also of a lot of other scientists. I suppose you would call them Arian too.

However, it’s kind of neat how well their science works considering how wrong you say they were.

 

[Nepenthe]

oriel 16
The mode of genius,at least in a creative aspect, is always the same whether it is a Beethoven or a Pascal

I have no idea how you can make such a statement with a remotely straight face.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I find your attempts to deny the role of Darwin and those he inspired within Eugenics to be ludicrous.

You saw the evidence. You seem remarkably resistant to facts. You saw that in The Descent of Man, Darwin termed eugenic ideas “evil.”

You learned that the Holocaust was inspired not by a scientist, but by a religious leader, Martin Luther.

You learned that later Darwinists even showed that the idea of eugenics and the Nazis were scientifically insupportable.

If you can ignore that, I doubt if any evidence will sway you.

Read The Descent of Man. Darwin in fact endorses some of Galton’s ideas (I believe on page 167 of the source I used).

In fact, he says that to act on them is evil. So much for that.

You go through all this effort to rebut minutiae

No doubt it’s annoying that so many of your assumptions are wrong.

(and yes I do know what tu quoque is, and you commit the fallacy every time you come up with a Luther reference, a “creationist” reference or any other whenever someone brings up the problems of Eugenics and Darwinism) and ignore the main points I seek to raise.

C’mon Dav, you thought that “Tu Quogue” was “no, Darwin didn’t do it, Luther and the Nazis did it.” But that’s not what it means.

Note I did not say Darwin endorsed Hitler. Indeed Darwin seemed to think Christian ethics required that we not do the pragmatic thing.

Seems like a reasonable thing. But by the time Hitler came around, Darwinists had also shown that it wouldn’t work.

Hitler however lacked those ethics that kept Darwin from advocating these things.

You mean he had the same lack of ethics that Luther had. Eugenics was not about the Holocaust.

I find it most amusing that you seem to think I am a Creationist

I said you were? (Barbarian checks) Um, no, I didn’t.

because I dare to question you on Eugenics and Darwin,

I was quite pleased to discuss it with you. You don’t seem too pleased with the way it went, however.

which only affirms the Dogmatic view you seem to hold.

Ah, that’s it. The Barbarian is “Dogmatic”, because he won’t agree with Dav.

For me it is perfectly acceptable to recognize that Darwin and others had faulty racial prejudices

That seems to be the only thing I told you that you’re willing to accept. The evidence you found distasteful, you ignored.

However, given your tendency to insult and to distort what I say in your responses, I see no more reason to take part in this thread.

Funny how those most inclined to that are always least aware of it, um?

Dialogue requires both people to listen and consider what the other says, and in this case you will have no other consideration than to demand I accept what you say without question.

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn’t. But I did offer you a lot of evidence. Would you like to see a little more detail?

Really, how can I label it anything but “Sacred Darwinism” and “Dogmatic”?

You could perhaps calm yourself and think of a more rational reply. If that’s possible.

 

[wasmit]

Thanks for your replies.

lol !

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The empirical/Arian approach to creation is the problem as opposed to Darwin as the symptom of the problem.Put focus on trying to overturn , tone down or promote Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution and the game is already over as is true scientific investigation.

Biological evolution always sat well within geological evolution as
the strata contained the history of the planet in terms of
biology,geology,climate conditions or catastrophic events that
reshaped the configuration of life on the planet.There is still no
need for a ‘cause’ required and certainly not the centerpiece which is basically an adaption of an essay on human racial supremacy dumped into biological evolution wholesale.It is not bad science,it is anti- scientific insofar as it takes biological evolution out of its symbiotic relationship with every other discipline (geology,astronomy,climatology ect) and turns it into an exercise in forensics or reduces life to a branch of chemistry.

This era with its distinctly Arian tone simply cannot grasp why many scientists and Church authorities fought against the Arian tendency and it must do so again.I can understand the betrayal the Pope must have felt when Galileo tried to pin this Arian outlook on the pontiff but at least that Pope was wise enough to look through the narrative characters and see the unfair insinuation mouthed against the fictional ‘Simplicio’.

“In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage–if indeed it does not make them ill.” Galileo

That doesn’t quite explain what Arius has to do with evolution, though; but thanks for the trouble ​

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why is Evolution called ‘The theory of evolution’ if it is a scientific fact?

Because “theory” is as certain as it gets in science. Many laymen are confused by the informal use of “theory,” and suppose that scientists use it as “not sure” or “hypothesis.”

perhaps because it can’t be replicated in a science lab??

No. Evolution is routinely demonstrated in science labs.

It’s a common misconception that if we can’t reproduce a volcano, there is no such thing as geology. Science requires observation, not necessarily a lab experiment.

 

[Camron]

But that is exactly what Darwin did,his ‘eureka’ moment is based on national supremacy with a sprinkling of ‘laws’ attached to the essay and he basically says if Malthus idea is true between civilised and savage nations then it must also be true for biological evolution !.

You make it sound as if it were a crime that Darwin made a connection between the struggles between social classes within human civilization and extrapolated these observations backward into the struggles for survival throughout the biological diversity of the earth.

I think Darwin was ahead of his time regarding racism, although he would still be considered a racist by our standards today, This has been pointed out many times already.

I mean,how clear can he possibly be even if it is an anti-scientific approach to evolution ?.

How clearly can it be made that Darwin himself did not actually hold to some of these opinions. He was simply looking for a plausible explanation for the diversity of life we see today. And he was most likely correct for many of the connections he made too.

Now if you feel that you have a case you will have to explain it more clearly, because so far I don’t see the point of bringing these quotes up.

 

[DavWan]

You saw the evidence. You seem remarkably resistant to facts. You saw that in The Descent of Man, Darwin termed eugenic ideas “evil.”

Not by my reading. He considered the pragmatic approach evil. He thought that the restrictions on having the unfit marry was a good idea. It’s still Eugenics, hust not the Hitlerian view.

You learned that the Holocaust was inspired not by a scientist, but by a religious leader, Martin Luther.

I believe I said that the role of anti-semitism was not denied. However, Luther’s role does not exclude Darwin’s influence. You misrepresent me by making it sound like I am saying only Darwin was responsible

You learned that later Darwinists even showed that the idea of eugenics and the Nazis were scientifically insupportable.

Um… I believe I said that later Darwinists rejected it.

In fact, he says that to act on them is evil. So much for that.

In a selective reading yes. He also said that while it would be cruel to do what nature did for the savages, the more gentle way was good.

No doubt it’s annoying that so many of your assumptions are wrong.

I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate this…

C’mon Dav, you thought that “Tu Quogue” was “no, Darwin didn’t do it, Luther and the Nazis did it.” But that’s not what it means.

Um, no. Tu quoque means you respond to the errors of one side by pointing to the errors of the other side. That is irrelevant hovever to the topic of discussion.

You might not have intended it, but you did present it as if the sins of Christians negated the sins of Darwinists.

Seems like a reasonable thing. But by the time Hitler came around, Darwinists had also shown that it wouldn’t work.

That does not change the damage done of evolutionists of the time inspiring the people who would eventually form the Nazi ideals… Perhaps I phrased it badly, but this was the entire timeframe I was discussing. Not evolution today. Not evolution of the mid 20th century. The era of Darwin and the early 20th century.

You mean he had the same lack of ethics that Luther had. Eugenics was not about the Holocaust.

Um, are you aware that the Nazis also advocated the concepts of sterilization of the unfit, the killing of the weak? Look at their plans for Poland and controlling the “inferior” races. I apologize if you thought I was referring to the Final Solution, but I was not.

I said you were? (Barbarian checks) Um, no, I didn’t.

Does your statement of eloquence and denials ring a bell?

I was quite pleased to discuss it with you. You don’t seem too pleased with the way it went, however.

I’m annoyed that you seem to be missing my point or evading my point.

Ah, that’s it. The Barbarian is “Dogmatic”, because he won’t agree with Dav.

Nope. Your dogmatism is that you have certain assumptions that you give the impression cannot be questioned. If you deny this, perhaps you should change your phrasing?

That seems to be the only thing I told you that you’re willing to accept. The evidence you found distasteful, you ignored.

The evidence you seem willing to ignore is that based on his views, Darwin advocated some milder forms of Eugenics. Did he later retract his support for those? That later evolutionists rejected this, I never denied to begin with.

Funny how those most inclined to that are always least aware of it, um?

Clearly… as on another forum, your ad homs were responsible for the locking of half the threads on evolution.

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn’t. But I did offer you a lot of evidence. Would you like to see a little more detail?

I’m still wating for you to rephrase your “No True Scotsman” fallacies. That early Darwinists who favored eugenics were not really Darwinist. Remember, many Marxists rejected the ideas of Lenin and Mao. That does not mean Lenin and Mao were not Marxists. Likewise, later Evolutionists rejected eugenics of Darwinists. This did not make those evolutionists non-Darwinian.

You could perhaps calm yourself and think of a more rational reply. If that’s possible.

And as always, going to the ad hominem…

My objections are not to your science, but to your pre-conceived philosophies that color them, and this is what I am taking issue with.

if you want to show me Darwin retracted his support for the more gentle forms of eugenics, then fine. I will withdraw my objection. If you can’t… why try to deny Darwin’s influence on the misguided “science” of eugenics?

Scientists do make some errors and wrong turns after all. Some things are believed to be factual and then later they are rejected.

But don’t try to seperate Darwin’s teachings that did lead to Eugenics from the rest of them… That’s “No True Scotsman.”

 

[Squishy]

I really dont see what the debate is here.

Their was racism long before Darwin, and their was racism long after Darwin.

Eugenics, something similer to what we did with dog/horses long before Darwin? Again i hardly think the blame can be layen at his feet.

Does Evolution create racists. No. Are some people who support evolutional theory racist. Yes. Just as some creationlists are.

 

[oriel16]

You make it sound as if it were a crime that Darwin made a connection between the struggles between social classes within human civilization and extrapolated these observations backward into the struggles for survival throughout the biological diversity of the earth.

p.

National ideas of supremacy is a dangerous animal regardless of who is making the call and if I have to explain to you that the procedure of superimposing an essay on national supremacy on a biological evolutionary framework as a ‘cause’ is anti-scientific in the extreme then you will hardly notice that they are two different things.

You truly believe national supremacy struggles shade off into a platform for biological evolution and if the Church does not actively fight this horror then the Trinity no longer exists in the Church.The problem is Not Darwin but the empirical atmosphere in which the dumb idea fermented just as national socialism spawned Hitler.

 

[DavWan]

I really dont see what the debate is here.

Their was racism long before Darwin, and their was racism long after Darwin.

Eugenics, something similer to what we did with dog/horses long before Darwin? Again i hardly think the blame can be layen at his feet.

Does Evolution create racists. No. Are some people who support evolutional theory racist. Yes. Just as some creationlists are.

All of these are assumed in what I say. No Darwin did not create Racism, but some of the ideas he had were certainly used to justify it “scientifically” under the guise of “improving humanity.”

Darwin didn’t invent it (You’ll see some ideas in Plato’s Republic), but some of his statements gave it credibility, and unfortunately some who were influenced by him took it to unfortunate ends.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You seem remarkably resistant to facts. You saw that in The Descent of Man, Darwin termed eugenic ideas “evil.”

Not by my reading.

Darwin calls it an “overwhelming evil”, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

However, Luther’s role does not exclude Darwin’s influence.

Nonsense. If Darwin influenced the Nazis, they wouldn’t have done it, would they? He said it was wrong.

Barbarian observes:
You learned that later Darwinists even showed that the idea of eugenics and the Nazis were scientifically insupportable.

I believe I said that later Darwinists rejected it.

It’s good that you now admit it. But if Darwin said that eliminating the unfit was evil, and evolutionary theory showed it was not feasible, what about that do you think inspired the Nazis?

He also said that while it would be cruel to do what nature did for the savages, the more gentle way was good.

He says that it’s an “overwhelming evil” to let even the least human die, much less kill them. He argues that all humans are entitled to rights and freedom. What is the more gentle way he advocates?

Um, no. Tu quoque means you respond to the errors of one side by pointing to the errors of the other side.

You realize this now. But you used it when I pointed out that you had wrongly accused Darwin of inspiring the Holocaust when in fact it was German antiSemitism in general and Martin Luther in particular.

That is irrelevant hovever to the topic of discussion.

Then why did you bring it up?

You might not have intended it, but you did present it as if the sins of Christians negated the sins of Darwinists.

I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I didn’t. I said it wasn’t Darwin, but Luther who inspired the Holocaust.

Seems like a reasonable thing. But by the time Hitler came around, Darwinists had also shown that it wouldn’t work.

That does not change the damage done of evolutionists of the time inspiring the people who would eventually form the Nazi ideals…

It does not change the damage done of John McCain stealing your hubcaps. For the same reason.

Perhaps I phrased it badly,

No kidding.

Not evolution today. Not evolution of the mid 20th century. The era of Darwin and the early 20th century.

In the early 20th century, Darwinians denounced eugenics. Darwin said the idea was evil. How do you spin that to argue they “inspired” the Nazis? The Nazis openly admitted it was Luther.

Nazis also advocated the concepts of sterilization of the unfit, the killing of the weak?

The stuff Darwin called “evil”, and Darwinists demonstrated wasn’t even feasible? Yep.

Look at their plans for Poland and controlling the “inferior” races. I apologize if you thought I was referring to the Final Solution

It’s not smart to argue that the Nazis were inspired by Darwinists to do things that Darwinists denounced.

Barbarian observes:
I said you were? (Barbarian checks) Um, no, I didn’t.

Does your statement of eloquence and denials ring a bell?

The fact that you can’t come up with a quote of me calling you one sure does.

Barbarian observes:
The Barbarian is “Dogmatic”, because he won’t agree with Dav.

Nope. Your dogmatism is that you have certain assumptions that you give the impression cannot be questioned.

You’ve learned caution. In other words, I didn’t say it, but you want to say I did.

If you deny this, perhaps you should change your phrasing?

Perhaps you should deal with what I say, for a change.

The evidence you seem willing to ignore is that based on his views, Darwin advocated some milder forms of Eugenics.

He said that it was evil to even let the weak die off. Show us that advocacy.

Barbarian chuckles:
Funny how those most inclined to that are always least aware of it, um?

Clearly… as on another forum, your ad homs were responsible for the locking of half the threads on evolution.

Perhaps you should focus more on marshalling some evidence, and less time on how evil the Barbarian is. Venting may feel good, but think about what others see.

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn’t. But I did offer you a lot of evidence. Would you like to see a little more detail?

I’m still wating for you to rephrase your “No True Scotsman” fallacies. That early Darwinists who favored eugenics were not really Darwinist.

I said that? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Didn’t say that, either. Perhaps it’s not intended to be dishonest, and you just confabulate what you don’t remember, but it’s not doing you any good.

Likewise, later Evolutionists rejected eugenics of Darwinists.

This did not make those evolutionists non-Darwinian.

Barbarian about accusing scientists of “sacred Darwinism” and the like:
You could perhaps calm yourself and think of a more rational reply. If that’s possible.

And as always, going to the ad hominem…

You have no sense of irony, at all, do you?

My objections are not to your science, but to your pre-conceived philosophies that color them, and this is what I am taking issue with.

It appears you’ve simply invented some philosophies for me, and insist that I must believe them.

if you want to show me Darwin retracted his support for the more gentle forms of eugenics, then fine.

First, you must show that he supported eugenics. Hint: Even if the Barbarian is utterly evil, it won’t support your argument. Come on back when you can show some evidence.

And we’ll take a look.