Science only Evolution Thread

[Cathryn]

Charles Darwin theory of the evolution and the descent of man from the apes is very disturbing to me. Much of it is sexist and racist. The idea that some races of people are more highly evolved from the ape than other races, is racist. Eugenics directly evolved from these beliefs.

Here is his scientific method applied to women:
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever the takes up, than can woman__whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and the hands. If two lists were made of the eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genious,’ that if men are capable of decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” (The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin)

 

[abu_kamoon]

I guess it depends on your definition of science. To me, science is the search for truth, using the Scientific Method.

From my perspective, there is science, and there is science fiction. The difference is, science can be applied to produce technology. An airplane is designed and built using known scientific principles. These principles have been observed, tested and falsified. They are the basis of calulations used to design the aircraft.

To me, evolution is the best guess “science” can come up with for the explanation of life derived from natural forces. The Bible speaks of man being created directly by God. Evolution doesn’t need God.

If you accept the idea of God, you have to decide whether God created the original humans as He said He did, or He used some type of evolutionary process. If He used some process like evolution, you have to wonder why He told us something else.

Obviously, evolution caused more questions than it answers, like where are the transitional forms? How could one animal suddenly change into another without intermediates, since evolution is supposed to be so slow that we can’t see it.

Why haven’t we evolved cures to all the diseases we are palgued with. The Bible says that we are devolving. We are becoming weaker and more prone to disease.

The Bible says that men were originally much more intelligent than we are today as a result of our degeneration. Evolution teaches that early humans were little more than apes.

As you can imagine, I am not impressed with the evolutionary theory, and I don’t consider it very good science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Charles Darwin theory of the evolution and the descent of man from the apes is very disturbing to me. Much of it is sexist and racist.

Darwin was still the product of his culture, which was indeed racist and sexist. He was considered to be a liberal on such issues, because he thought that people were entitled to freedom and dignity regardless of their abilities. Modern evolutionary theory shows that there are no races. On the other hand, creationists at the time avowed that God wanted some people to be slaves. As late as the 1990s, at least one prominent creationist was espousing the supposed inferiority of blacks.

The idea that some races of people are more highly evolved from the ape than other races, is racist.

Indeed. But modern evolutionary theory refutes that idea. But creationist leader Henry Morris wrote in 1992 that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior. The important thing is that science moves on and removes erroneous ideas. Unfortunately, antievolutionists are still struggling with that problem.

Eugenics directly evolved from these beliefs.

Which is why eugenicists today are creationists, not evolutionists.
Interestingly, before WWII, “Eugenics competitions” were popular at state fairs, where families competed for the best (whatever). They were most common in the antievolutionist Southern states.

And you were going to tell me where Darwin wrote about “new age” beliefs. I’d really like to hear about it.

 

[Cathryn]

Barbarian:
Darwin seemed to be influenced by his grandfather’s “New Age” beliefs, specifically the ideas the senior Darwin espoused in his book the “Temple of Nature. The idea that Darwin was coming from pure science seems to be a misperception. Much of Darwin’s actual theories have been rejected by modern science.

Darwin’s ideas in his book the Descent of Man are mainly Ernest Haeckel’s. At least that is what Charles Darwin says in his introduction to his book The Descent of Man… He says he does not add much new and almost all the conclusions he arrived at are confirmed by Haeckel. Maybe that is why they were so wrong. It’s tragic those ideas had so much influence on our society even to this day. Darwinism is the basis of modernism.

I am familiar with the “Fittest Family” contests at State Fairs complete with submitting family pedigrees and blondest hair and finest features. The fairs were not just a southern thing. They were throughout the United States before the war. The movie Rabbit Fence depicts the Eugenics movement in Australia with the Aborigines and how it tore apart families. I have found that Darwin’s theories of evolution greatly influenced both the extreme left and the extreme right. Racists from both camps jumped on the wagon. Genocide, birth control, abortion, euthanasia, etc. are all products of the eugenics movement. This is the culture of death the Holy Father talks about. It’s interesting to me that the American Journal of Eugenics published by Moses Harman in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was first called Lucifer, the Light Bearer.

The mission, according to Moses Harman, was “to help woman to break the chains that for ages have bound her to the rack of man-made law, spiritual, economic, industrial, social and especially sexual, believing that until woman is roused to a sense of her own responsibility on all lines of human endeavor, and especially on lines of her special field, that of reproduction of the race, there will be little if any real advancement toward a higher and truer civilization.”

I’m surprised you say eugenicists today are creationists, not evolutionists. Modern day eugenics is called “Social Biology”. The American Eugenics Society in 1972 was reorganized and renamed “The Society for the Study of Social Biology” Their publication is available online: soc.duke.edu/~socbio/
This is the scientific arm of Planned Parenthood and the whole birth control, abortion industry, euthanasia and the culture of death.

 

[Deconi]

I guess it depends on your definition of science. To me, science is the search for truth, using the Scientific Method.

From my perspective, there is science, and there is science fiction. The difference is, science can be applied to produce technology. An airplane is designed and built using known scientific principles. These principles have been observed, tested and falsified. They are the basis of calulations used to design the aircraft.

To me, evolution is the best guess “science” can come up with for the explanation of life derived from natural forces. The Bible speaks of man being created directly by God. Evolution doesn’t need God.

If you accept the idea of God, you have to decide whether God created the original humans as He said He did, or He used some type of evolutionary process. If He used some process like evolution, you have to wonder why He told us something else.

Obviously, evolution caused more questions than it answers, like where are the transitional forms? How could one animal suddenly change into another without intermediates, since evolution is supposed to be so slow that we can’t see it.

Why haven’t we evolved cures to all the diseases we are palgued with. The Bible says that we are devolving. We are becoming weaker and more prone to disease.

The Bible says that men were originally much more intelligent than we are today as a result of our degeneration. Evolution teaches that early humans were little more than apes.

As you can imagine, I am not impressed with the evolutionary theory, and I don’t consider it very good science.

You have a fan.

The ‘emphasis’ I’ve highlighted above is why I do not subscribe to the thought that science and faith (in God) are separate realms. Ultimately, they both must attest to ‘their’ root, as it were. I know some of the Fathers have cautioned against ‘straying beyond’ each realm, but I note that these warnings come when someone ‘extends’ a discovery to mean either creation did not happen or there is no Creator.

Science is extremely limited, in the sense that one progresses from theory to theory, and discovery to discovery. Like stepping stones in the dark being lit up by torchlight.

Faith on the other hand awaits at the conclusion having accepted what has been given, as the begining, and what has been revealed, as the conclusion.

When I was an ‘evolutionist,’ I saw it everywhere.

Now, I don’t see it anywhere around me.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin seemed to be influenced by his grandfather’s “New Age” beliefs, specifically the ideas the senior Darwin espoused in his book the “Temple of Nature.

Hmm… don’t see any of that in “The Origin of Species”, or in Darwinian theory. What parts are you talking about?

The idea that Darwin was coming from pure science seems to be a misperception.

That’s a testable claim. What, in his book do you think he did not support with evidence?

Much of Darwin’s actual theories have been rejected by modern science.

The four basic claims of Darwinian theory remain in place because they have been experimentally verified. However, some parts of Darwinian theory, such as the heritability of acquired characteristics and humoral theory of inheritance, have been discarded. Darwin would have no doubt been pleased, since these findings removed a number of scientific objections to his theory.

Darwin’s ideas in his book the Descent of Man are mainly Ernest Haeckel’s.

Regarding Haeckel"

It’s tragic those ideas had so much influence on our society even to this day.

Actually, they didn’t. Recapitulation was almost immediately refuted by an evolutionist, Von Baer.

Darwinism is the basis of modernism.

You give him too much credit.

I am familiar with the “Fittest Family” contests at State Fairs complete with submitting family pedigrees and blondest hair and finest features. The fairs were not just a southern thing.

Not exclusively. But they fit the racist and creationist attitudes of the South at the time. So they were most notable there. Likewise, as you saw, eugenics in it’s unscientific form, such as the sterilization of the “unfit”, lasted longer in the South than elsewhere. It is why a creationist leader, Henry Morris, was one of the last to express in a book the idea of blacks as being racially inferior.

I have found that Darwin’s theories of evolution greatly influenced both the extreme left and the extreme right.

You do know that the communists in the Soviet Union outlawed Darwin’s theory, don’t you?

Racists from both camps jumped on the wagon. Genocide, birth control, abortion, euthanasia, etc. are all products of the eugenics movement.

Which, as you see, were mostly creationists, at least those who were supporting ideas of racial superiority, or the idea of forced sterilization. It is why a creationist leader was able to claim that blacks were intellectually and spriritually inferior, and not only kept his job, but was defended by many other creationists.

Compare that to the way scientists reacted when James Watson expressed some racist views. He was quickly shown the door. One of the most disturbing things about modern creationism is the degree to which racism and eugenic ideas are accepted among them.

This is the culture of death the Holy Father talks about.

Yep. Modern evolutionists are rarely racists because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. Unfortunately the culture of death still lingers on among creationism. Not to say that all or even most of them are like that. But it remains disturbing that there are so many.

I’m surprised you say eugenicists today are creationists, not evolutionists.

See above. The only form of eugenics still considered valid is genetic analysis to find harmful recessives, from which counseling may be provided to people that they might know the risks of marrying certain other people. You can still see lots of racist stuff from fundamentalist websites of rhe more extreme sort.

It is possible in principle to breed people to have specific characteristics (endogamous castes in certain parts of the world have done that) but in practice it’s effectively impossible to do as a planned program.

 

[Chuck_H]

You actually thought the post was serious?

Of course someone did. Did you not do the same with my April fools day post about sex-genetics? Someone will always go bonkers over a joking or humorous post. After all, this is CAF

 

[Chuck_H]

Removed for brevity

I’m surprised you say eugenicists today are creationists, not evolutionists. Modern day eugenics is called “Social Biology”. The American Eugenics Society in 1972 was reorganized and renamed “The Society for the Study of Social Biology” Their publication is available online: soc.duke.edu/~socbio/
This is the scientific arm of Planned Parenthood and the whole birth control, abortion industry, euthanasia and the culture of death.

After looking over the articles that were in PDF form and the titles of those that weren’t, I am having a bit of a problem with the general condemnation of the Social Biology web site you give. Could you point out some concrete examples of “bad papers”?

(Spring-Summer 2003 articles in Social Biology)

Seasonality of Birth and Conception to Teenagers in Texas
Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West

The Influence of Latitude and Cloud Cover on the Seasonality of Human Births
David R. Cummings

The Father (to) Child Affiliative Bond: Convergent Evolution with the Canid Analogue. Wade C. Mackey and Ronald S. Immerman

Double Impact: What Sibling Data Can Tell Us about the Long-Term Negative Effects of Parental Divorce. Nicholas H. Wolfinger, Lori Kowaleski-Jones, and Ken R. Smith

Human Ecology, Crime and Crime Control: Linking Individual Data and Aggregate Crime. Joanne Savage and Bryn Villa

Economic Distress and Cause of Death Patterns for Black and Non-Black Men in Chicago: Reconsidering the Relevance of Classical Epidemiological Transition Theory
Lorella Palazzo, Avery Guest, and Gunnar Almgren

Reconciling Heart Disease and ICD-Codes
David P. Smith and Benjamin Bradshaw

Infant Mortality in Zambia: Socio-economic and Demographic Correlates. Nyovani Janet Madise, Esther Melody Banda, and Kabwe Wendy Benaya

 

[Chuck_H]

I have trouble separating Grandfather Erasmus Darwin’s “Temple of Nature” (pantheism?) from grandson Charles Darwin’s scientific beliefs. He seems to be greatly influenced by his Grandfather’s “New Age” beliefs.

Erasmus Darwin as one of the originators of evolutionary theory and quotes the following passage from the first volume of Zoonomia:

The late Mr. David Hume, in his posthumous works, places the powers of generation much above those of our boasted reason; and adds, that reason can only make a machine, as a clock or a ship, but the power of generation makes the maker of the machine; and probably from having observed, that the greatest part of the earth had been formed out of organic recrements; as the immense beds of limestone, chalk, marble, from the shells of fish; and the extensive provinces of clay, sandstone, ironstone, coals from decomposed vegetables; all of which have been first produced by generation, or by the secretions of organic life; he concludes, that the world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden of evolution of the whole by the Almighty fiat.–*What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of THE GREAT ARCHITECT! THE CAUSE OF CAUSES! PARENT OF PARENTS! ENS ENTIUM! *[Note: The OED cites “unrolling” as the first meaning of “evolution.” This is the meaning E. Darwin intends here. The process unrolls through the divine decree, “fiat.”]

For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves. This idea is analogous to the improving excellence observable in every part of the creation; such as in the progressive increase of the solid or habitable parts of the earth from water; and in the progressive increase of the wisdom and happiness of its inhabitants; and is consonant to the idea of our present situation being a state of probation, which by our exertion we may improve, and are consequently responsible for our actions. [Zoonomia, I, 509, quoted in Shaw, II, xxi]

Not a very good pantheist or atheist if you ask me.

 

[Isambard]

From my perspective, there is science, and there is science fiction. The difference is, science can be applied to produce technology. An airplane is designed and built using known scientific principles. These principles have been observed, tested and falsified. They are the basis of calulations used to design the aircraft.

Which fits right in with evolution given that its predictive abilities lets us develop new vaccines and drugs.

To me, evolution is the best guess “science” can come up with for the explanation of life derived from natural forces.

Thats ambiogensis.

The Bible speaks of man being created directly by God. Evolution doesn’t need God.

Neither does physics, mathmatics, economics, pyschology, meteorology, etc etc.

Obviously, evolution caused more questions than it answers, like where are the transitional forms?

Thats not a question as tons have been found.

How could one animal suddenly change into another without intermediates, since evolution is supposed to be so slow that we can’t see it.

You can see evolution. New species have been created in the lab.

Why haven’t we evolved cures to all the diseases we are palgued with.

Because diseases evolve as well.

The Bible says that we are devolving. We are becoming weaker and more prone to disease.

Which contradicts reality given how much life expentancy has jumped in the west.

The Bible says that men were originally much more intelligent than we are today as a result of our degeneration.

Another contradiction of reality given the reliance of our ancestors on superstition for even everyday activities.

Evolution teaches that early humans were little more than apes.

What do you mean by this?

As you can imagine, I am not impressed with the evolutionary theory, and I don’t consider it very good science.

Because you dont understand it? Thats not the best reason to not accept something.

 

[thomfra]

Our anti-intellectual history continues to make us look foolish around the world.

I wouldn’t stress too much about it. I think most people know that it is just the religious right/bible belt areas that think this way.

 

[thomfra]

NO!:dts:

Of course not.

Uh-uh.

No way.

I’m just going to slink away now and be really embarrassed.
uch:

Ha, ha. Good one.

I believed in Evolution until I read this post. Now I’m **definitely **anti-evolution. All evolution and those communist-liberals who are evolving AROUND CHILDREN should be sent to jail. The act of evolution is sick and disordered, and we should stamp out this practice before this great country becomes like socialist-communist Europe.

 

[reggieM]

When I was an ‘evolutionist,’ I saw it everywhere.

Now, I don’t see it anywhere around me.

Have you posted your story on how you changed your views somewhere? I would like to know about your journey on that path. I’m hoping that many others will follow.

 

[reggieM]

abu kamoon said:

The Bible speaks of man being created directly by God. Evolution doesn’t need God.

Isambard said:

Neither does physics, mathmatics, economics, pyschology, meteorology, etc etc.

That is a fairly common reply. Some will say “neither does plumbing”. But there’s a mistake here. To rephrase the original statement:

“The Bible speaks of man being created directly by God. Evolution doesn’t need God [to explain how man was created].”

Thus, the reply: “Neither does physics, math, economics, plumbing …” is incorrect. None of those fields speaks about how man was created. Evolution does. And evolution doesn’t need God to explain how man was created. That’s the point.

This should be fairly obvious. How is it possible that so many educated scientists (or defenders of evolution) make this same kind of comment on CAF, and when corrected have nothing to say except to repeat it again later?

The fact that this point is so commonly “misunderstood” by people who claim that the theory of evolution is not significantly different in how it treats human life than mathematics or meterology indicates to me that evolutionists really do have a problem with this issue.

It’s a cover-up. It’s an attempt to avoid the issue with a trite phrase and a false comparison of evolutionary theory with other sciences. I’d call that one of the “evolutionary frauds”, among which there are many.

 

[Sideline]

“The Bible speaks of man being created directly by God. Evolution doesn’t need God [to explain how man was created].”

Thus, the reply: “Neither does physics, math, economics, plumbing …” is incorrect. None of those fields speaks about how man was created. Evolution does. And evolution doesn’t need God to explain how man was created. That’s the point.

Sorry, what exactly is the point? What is so special about the creation of the human form that to suggest an evolutionary process is an affront to your concept of God?

This should be fairly obvious. How is it possible that so many educated scientists (or defenders of evolution) make this same kind of comment on CAF, and when corrected have nothing to say except to repeat it again later?

Probably because the average person has no problem ignoring huge chunks of the Bible without breaking a sweat. Do you really believe that there is water above the sky? Physics tells us this isn’t true, and yet you don’t reject physics.

The fact that this point is so commonly “misunderstood” by people who claim that the theory of evolution is not significantly different in how it treats human life than mathematics or meterology indicates to me that evolutionists really do have a problem with this issue.

It’s a cover-up. It’s an attempt to avoid the issue with a trite phrase and a false comparison of evolutionary theory with other sciences. I’d call that one of the “evolutionary frauds”, among which there are many.

What issue?

 

[edwest2]

abu kamoon said:

Isambard said:

That is a fairly common reply. Some will say “neither does plumbing”. But there’s a mistake here. To rephrase the original statement:

“The Bible speaks of man being created directly by God. Evolution doesn’t need God [to explain how man was created].”

Thus, the reply: “Neither does physics, math, economics, plumbing …” is incorrect. None of those fields speaks about how man was created. Evolution does. And evolution doesn’t need God to explain how man was created. That’s the point.

This should be fairly obvious. How is it possible that so many educated scientists (or defenders of evolution) make this same kind of comment on CAF, and when corrected have nothing to say except to repeat it again later?

The fact that this point is so commonly “misunderstood” by people who claim that the theory of evolution is not significantly different in how it treats human life than mathematics or meterology indicates to me that evolutionists really do have a problem with this issue.

It’s a cover-up. It’s an attempt to avoid the issue with a trite phrase and a false comparison of evolutionary theory with other sciences. I’d call that one of the “evolutionary frauds”, among which there are many.

You’ve said it quite clearly. Evolution as taught does not need God. Random mutation, natural selection and environmental pressures - no need to add further ingredients, and you’ve got man.

So why even mention God at all? God is not needed. And no, I’m not talking about adding God to the text, I’m talking to Catholics right here. As you go on and on and on about how evolution works, it’s valid to point out that what you are going on and on about is a theory that does not include God. Yes, it’s science but somehow, it’s perfectly legitimate for scientists to go outside the boundaries of the scientific method and say, based on science, there’s no role for God. See?

Most leading scientists prefer atheism. That is a fact. It needs to be brought up. To me it is no mystery that scientists are using their findings and saying, it all came about naturally - no role for God. They are overstepping their bounds and, in their defense, a few here are saying, well, that’s only their opinion. Opinion? Some of these scientists are using their credentials to help sell a product called atheism. The ad might read: “Most leading scientists agree, you got here naturally! No God required!” They are basically publishing testimonials to that effect any time a book like The God Delusion comes out.

Some people here are using the same terminology I see on atheist forums in reference to viewing reality a certain way. So whenever the ‘science only’ aspect is brought up, it’s valid to point out that a ‘science only’ view of reality, based only on the 5 senses and mechanical devices created by man, reinforces empiricism only. Then when the scientific studies called evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology are added in, the science informs everyone that your genes, your genetic material, is why you are you. A little bit of environment and you are done. You are biological robot 227559, designed to reproduce successfully, perform adaptive activities and die.

And please don’t come back with, but that’s not science. I know. But human beings who only see the the world through science are missing something critical - vital - to their full understanding of who they are and even why they are here. According to science: you are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind. That’s science talking.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Isambard]

That is a fairly common reply. Some will say “neither does plumbing”. But there’s a mistake here. To rephrase the original statement:

“The Bible speaks of man being created directly by God. Evolution doesn’t need God [to explain how man was created].”

Thus, the reply: “Neither does physics, math, economics, plumbing …” is incorrect. None of those fields speaks about how man was created.

Actually, they do. Albeit indirectly. They explain how the universe in which evolution works operates, without invoking God.

Evolution does. And evolution doesn’t need God to explain how man was created. That’s the point.

Neither do the above.

This should be fairly obvious. How is it possible that so many educated scientists (or defenders of evolution) make this same kind of comment on CAF, and when corrected have nothing to say except to repeat it again later?

Because the “point” is stupid. Its based upon special pleading on your part. If your faith is based entirely on Bibolotry, then thats your problem.

The fact that this point is so commonly “misunderstood” by people who claim that the theory of evolution is not significantly different in how it treats human life than mathematics or meterology indicates to me that evolutionists really do have a problem with this issue.

It’s a cover-up. It’s an attempt to avoid the issue with a trite phrase and a false comparison of evolutionary theory with other sciences. I’d call that one of the “evolutionary frauds”, among which there are many.

Only in the same way that geologists cover up that their field negates the story of a global flood, or physics the idea of magic, or the promised rewards being negated by economics.

The only coverup is your own, with your literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[reggieM]

Because the “point” is stupid. Its based upon special pleading on your part. If your faith is based entirely on Bibolotry, then thats your problem.

The only coverup is your own, with your literal interpretation of the Bible.

On what basis do you believe that God created the world and mankind?

I said: “And evolution doesn’t need God to explain how man was created. That’s the point.”

Neither do the above.

How does meteorology or mathematics explain how man was created?

 

[Isambard]

On what basis do you believe that God created the world and mankind?

I dont believe in your God, so the point is kinda moot.

I said: “And evolution doesn’t need God to explain how man was created. That’s the point.”

Thanks to science, we dont need to appeal to magic for a great many things.

How does meteorology or
mathematics explain how man was created?

Meteorology conflicts with the understanding that weather systems dont occur because God is pleased/displeased, or is trying to punish/reward people. It doesn’t invoke God at all. As per mathmatics, it shows us infinitly complex systems can occur naturally w/o a creator ie. Fractals.

 

[VociMike]

You’ve said it quite clearly. Evolution as taught does not need God.

What do you mean, “evolution as taught”? As opposed to what other version of evolution?

Anyway, it’s a rather silly comment. To borrow the punchline to the old joke, “get your own dirt!”. If evolution explains why everything that leads up to evolution exists, then I guess your statement is true. If evolution explains why the universe exists, with the laws that exist and the physical constants that exist and the initial conditions that existed, then I guess your statement is true. Does evolution explain all that?

Your comment is essentially “hey, I found a bunch of tools and plans in this new house, so I conclude that this house had no builder.”