National Academies book on evolution

[SpiritMeadow]

Not a word from anybody about how Young Mr. Darwin came from a background of drug addiction, murder, adultery, and tyranny; how he beat a puppy in his youth just for the sheer feeling of power it gave him; how his highest enjoyment was shooting vast quantities of small animals and birds; how he got great sport on the island of St. Paul from smashing wild birds over the head with a geologist’s hammer, or how he thought it was a splendid thing that the native people of Argentina were slaughtered en masse, since it would make more room for raising cattle.

Interesting.

Either my link has remained unread, or has been ignored or dismissed, although one would think that at least one or two stray Darwinists would try to rise up and defend their Stainless Hero.

Evidently not.

Of course, the site will be airily dismissed as a “Christian Creationist site”, which is to be expected…but check the footnotes, since the examples I describe above all come from either Darwin himself, from the official logs of the Beagle expedition, from Darwin’s family members or close friends, or from legitimate biographers.

(shrug) As I said before, you can keep him. I frankly don’t see a whole lot to admire in a guy who came real close to being expelled from college because he’d rather party than study, and who got a huge kick out of butchering as many animals as he could just for the fun of it.

“The world’s greatest naturalist”, indeed.

Someone will comment on your “dishing of the dirt” from your admittedly creationist site when you explain how this invalidates evolutionary theory. Just because you know precious little science or basic logic, doesn’t mean you can’t learn to at least make an argument that is rationally related to the issue.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Tell me: how did whopping birds over the head with a hammer contribute to our overall pool of scientific knowledge?

I’m intensely interested.

Umm…are you serious? Have you ever been in a science class or lab ever?

 

[drpmjhess]

Umm…are you serious? Have you ever been in a science class or lab ever?

SpiritMeadow, did you whop birds over the head as a high schooler? I didn’t even pith frogs. Perhaps Wolseley’s association of evolutionary belief with sadism is central to his/her understanding of science.

By the way, check out the vitriol flowing in the thread on the exclusive use of masculine pronouns for God. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3227694#post3227694. Some people are really frightened by any spirituality broader than their own tiny traditional experience of God! Misogyny certainly still runs deep in some dark corners of the Church.

Petrus

 

[inthecloud]

YEC’s reject, as a whole, most of biology, all of genetics, most of geology, much of astrophysics and astronomy, and large chunks of archeology. I seldom expect people to publish in fields they have already decided are bunk, and am actually quite happy that the YEC crowd does reject these fields, since these fields data supports only a longer term of life, let alone the universe, than the YEC’s are willing to allow for.

Add linguistics and history.

 

[drpmjhess]

Add linguistics and history.

Does YECs got linguage? Sorry – too snarky. The idea that language evolves would be anathema to them.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, did you whop birds over the head as a high schooler? I didn’t even pith frogs. Perhaps Wolseley’s association of evolutionary belief with sadism is central to his/her understanding of science.

By the way, check out the vitriol flowing in the thread on the exclusive use of masculine pronouns for God. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3227694#post3227694. Some people are really frightened by any spirituality broader than their own tiny traditional experience of God! Misogyny certainly still runs deep in some dark corners of the Church.

Petrus

I’ll have to look it up and take a peek, but I get so riled up, maybe I should stay away! …I dissected a frog once…and a worm…but I do admit i tend to kill insects a lot…I suppose that means I can’t cook.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’ll have to look it up and take a peek, but I get so riled up, maybe I should stay away! …I dissected a frog once…and a worm…but I do admit i tend to kill insects a lot…I suppose that means I can’t cook.

“Cockroach cluster” is an excellent chocolate confection, and can be rendered humanely.

 

[reggieM]

The Real Danger of Darwin is Racism

philly.com/inquirer/currents/20080120_The_real_danger_in_Darwin_is_not_evolution__but_racism.html

Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist. Had they actually read Origin, they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin’s scientifically based proposals was the elimination of “the negro and Australian peoples,” which he considered savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization.

Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.

Regardless of how we got here, we should recognize that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never recognized this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.

 

[reggieM]

Ant Parasite Turns Host Into Ripe Red Berry, Biologists Discover
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116142805.htm

Ant Parasite Turns Host Into Ripe Red Berry, Biologists Discover
ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2008) — A newly discovered parasite so dramatically transforms its host, an ant, that the ant comes to resemble a juicy red berry, ripe for picking, according to a report accepted for publication in The American Naturalist. This is the first example of fruit mimicry caused by a parasite, the co-authors say.

Presumably, the dramatic change in appearance and behavior tricks birds into eating infected ants - parasites and all - so that the bird can spread the parasite in its feces. The fruit-eating birds’ droppings, which are mostly seeds and insect parts, are gathered by other ants who then feed and unwittingly infect their young.

This bizarre lifecycle of a parasitic nematode, or roundworm, plays out in the high canopy of tropical forests ranging from Central America to the lowland Amazon, according to Robert Dudley, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

“It’s just crazy that something as dumb as a nematode can manipulate its host’s exterior morphology and behavior in ways sufficient to convince a clever bird to facilitate transmission of the nematode,” Dudley said.

---

But of course we knew that already. What’s the big deal? Evolution did it – scientists said so. It’s a fact.

 

[drpmjhess]

The Real Danger of Darwin is Racism

This is semi-literate quote-mining, at best. My advice: earn a college degree and learn a useful skill!

 

[reggieM]

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Yes, we should quote the title of the book in context, otherwise that is “quote mining”

*among Darwin’s scientifically based proposals was the elimination of “the negro and Australian peoples,” *

Sure, that’s true – but it’s not a very “literate” way to say it, thus we don’t need to even think about it.

*Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. *

Taken in context, Darwin was actually just proposing that we shouldn’t care for the ill because they were inhibiting the evolution of the human race. Plus, you’re just quoting him on what he said without giving the necessary spin that will make it all sound so much better!

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Real Danger of Darwin is Racism

You won’t find many scientists who are racists these days, because evolutionary theory shows us that there are no biological human races.

On the other hand, this is the sort of thing we see from many creationists:

"But the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

This apalling bit of racial slander against people of African descent was written not in the 1800s, but in 1991, by Henry Morris, the head of the Institute for Creation Research.
(The Beginning of the World, 1991, P. 147-148)

Darwin, contrary to your claims, clashed with creationists on the issue of slavery. Darwin opposed slavery. While, like Abraham Lincoln, he did not consider blacks equal to whites, he asserted that they were entitled to freedom and rights

**Darwin detested slavery, and though usually diplomatic around the captain, he refused to accept FitzRoy’s opinion that Brazilian slaves were “happy.” FitzRoy became so angry that Darwin prepared to leave the ship, but the dispute blew over when FitzRoy apologized. **
sciencebulletins.com/exhibitions/darwin/trip/ship.php

While many creationists/ID’ers are not racists at all, one of the most disturbing problems is that racists such as Morris were not only tolerated but elected to positions of leadership among them.

 

[reggieM]

apalling bit of racial slander

I find Darwin’s racism appalling, especially since he built it into a scientific theory that regarded the elimination of “unfit” races.

It’s not just racism itself since he was concerned that care for people who are ill was a set-back for evolution.

As other critics of Darwin’s theory have mentioned (including some who accept the theory), evolutionary theory has a cruel undercurrent pointing to competition and elimination. Applied in a human context it has lead to a wide variety of evils.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Real Danger of Darwin is Racism

philly.com/inquirer/currents/20080120_The_real_danger_in_Darwin_is_not_evolution__but_racism.html

Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist. Had they actually read Origin, they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin’s scientifically based proposals was the elimination of “the negro and Australian peoples,” which he considered savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization.

Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.

Regardless of how we got here, we should recognize that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never recognized this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.

What has this to do with the science? What is behind your deep hatred for evolutionary theory ? i’m still waiting for an answer?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Yes, we should quote the title of the book in context, otherwise that is “quote mining”

*among Darwin’s scientifically based proposals was the elimination of “the negro and Australian peoples,” *

Sure, that’s true – but it’s not a very “literate” way to say it, thus we don’t need to even think about it.

*Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. *

Taken in context, Darwin was actually just proposing that we shouldn’t care for the ill because they were inhibiting the evolution of the human race. Plus, you’re just quoting him on what he said without giving the necessary spin that will make it all sound so much better!

YOu have now exhibited a rabid hatred for Darwin. What is behind this? As I said before, people don’t dedicate this much time in an attempt to dissuade people from believing in evolution unless something they treasure is in danger from their point of view. Explain why you are afraid of evolutionary theory…what do you feel will go away if its true. Please stop this immature diatribe against a dead man.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I find Darwin’s racism appalling, especially since he built it into a scientific theory that regarded the elimination of “unfit” races.

It’s not just racism itself since he was concerned that care for people who are ill was a set-back for evolution.

As other critics of Darwin’s theory have mentioned (including some who accept the theory), evolutionary theory has a cruel undercurrent pointing to competition and elimination. Applied in a human context it has lead to a wide variety of evils.

Well at least it some progress, you are moving to arguments with less and less merit. actually these about Darwin have no merit, just a petulant display of anger. Why? What if evolution is true? what happens to reggie’s life?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I find Darwin’s racism appalling,

Darwin’s position on race was pretty much like Abraham Lincoln’s. Both were considered liberals at the time; although they thought Europeans were superior (as almost all Europeans of the time did) they argued that all humans were entitled to dignity and freedom.

especially since he built it into a scientific theory that regarded the elimination of “unfit” races.

Regarded, it, as his argument with creationist (and pro-slavery) Captain Fitzroy showed, with disgust.

It’s not just racism itself since he was concerned that care for people who are ill was a set-back for evolution.

I think it’s time for you to show us a checkable statement from Darwin on that. I’ll explain why that is so hard to believe in a bit.

As other critics of Darwin’s theory have mentioned (including some who accept the theory),

One of the most vociferous critics of Darwin, just about a decade ago, asserted that blacks were spritually and intellectually inferior to other races. And he was a creationist. Although you’d have to look hard to find a racist among scientists today, we still see the most backward and ugly racism among creationists. It’s one of the major differences between scientists and creationists.

 

[reggieM]

YOu have now exhibited a rabid hatred for Darwin. What is behind this?

Rabies?

 

[reggieM]

I think it’s time for you to show us a checkable statement from Darwin on that.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poorlaws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (p. 9, quoting Darwin, c. (1874) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (2nd edition) John Murray, London, Vol. I, pp. 205-6.)

 

[drpmjhess]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.

ReggieM, give it up. You know that resistance is futile. Even if you think 100,000 biologists are dead wrong, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that from your amateur’s armchair you will get the National Academy of Science or the AAAS or any other society to listen to you and rewrite their charters to reflect your creationist assumptions.

You can go along for as long as you want posting on piddly little listservs shelling out your hatred for evolutionary biology, but it won’t make one whit of difference. And when evolutionary biologists contribute to cures for half a dozen diseases that afflict you when you are an old man, if you are a person of integrity you will refuse any medical treatment based on their discoveries.

Petrus