The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

[N4mddissent]

It's hard to believe that Darwin's quack theory of evolution has been embraced by the world.

The pseuo science and nonsense it is based on stretches the bounds of reality.

Hundreds of years from now, people will look back and laugh at the stupid people who believed in this absurd fantasy.

You have a picture of Einstein as an avatar- a man who did not believe in an afterlife or any supernatural concept of god. This demonstrates your awareness of scientific reality.

Einstein was a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God.

He said:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp, and stated:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Also, Einstein said:

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

First, I said Einstein did not believe in a supernatural god. The Spinozan concept of god is that god and nature are two words describing the same reality. In other words, god is nature and not separate from it. I never claimed Einstein considered himself an atheist, so your argument that he did not is pointless.

Since you venerate Einstein enough to use him as your avatar, I'm sure you have no problems agreeing with his other views.

Here's some more Einstein for you:

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other."

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

"Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Arguing against evolution while using a picture of a true man of science as your avatar seems like the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty and disrespect for a great thinker.

 

[rdean]

It's hard to believe that Darwin's quack theory of evolution has been embraced by the world.

The pseuo science and nonsense it is based on stretches the bounds of reality.

Hundreds of years from now, people will look back and laugh at the stupid people who believed in this absurd fantasy.

You have a picture of Einstein as an avatar- a man who did not believe in an afterlife or any supernatural concept of god. This demonstrates your awareness of scientific reality.

Einstein was a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God.

He said:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp, and stated:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Also, Einstein said:

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Only the beginning:

An abridgement of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. It will be sold at Bloomsbury auctions on Thursday

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes

Yours, A. Einstein


------------

Wow, I'm feeling some conflict here.

 

[Sunni Man]

N4mddissent, my use of Einstein is mainly humour.

I don't venerate him as you suggest. He was just smart man with a screwed up social life.

Do you think someone took his picture while he wrote "Duh" on a chalk board?

Please get a grip and try to chill

 

[gcomeau]

Thanks for the long post on the different methods used in geological dating.

Yes, many fossils and rocks are extremely old, but that doesn't prove the theory of evolution.

We're just laying down some of the basics as a starting point. We'll get there.

Again, "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils" "So what"?

Did you just thank me for the post without reading it by any chance? What part of it led you to believe that that statement you just made is valid? Especially considering I gave you the rather large hint of saying "that's wrong" before posting the explanation?

I can only assume you are referring to the use of index fossils. And that you don't understand how index fossils are actually used or how they BECOME index fossils in the first place or you wouldn't be making that statement. Here's how it actually works.

Initially, ages of the strata are determined through radiometric methods. The fossils in them are thus dated. Over a LONG period of time, and MANY MANY different datings of multiple sites geologists tend to find that certain fossils are ALWAYS found in strata of the same age. Every single time. Over hundreds of measurements.

So, after you've found (for example) 1000 trilobites all over the world and every single time you do they're in the same place, when you go to yet another new site and you start digging around and find a trilobite it's a pretty safe assumption to assume you're right back in that same aged strata every single other trilobyte ever found was in. It's just a nice quick and easy field shortcut a geologist can use to eyeball where they are in the geologic column. So yes, by the time they reach that stage where a specific fossil type has been firmly and reliably placed at a certain date through extensive testing at multiple different dig sites, the fossils can be used to "date" the rock after the rock has been used, over and over and over, to date the fossil.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN they stop confirming the dates radiometrically! And there's nothing circular about the process as you are obviously attempting to imply. It's just a field shortcut a geologist can use like a familiar landmark to figure out where you are on a map.

 

[Sunni Man]

Look gocomeau, I am not in a class and you aren't my teacher.

I have B.S. degree from a major university.

So I am quite familiar with what you have posted so far, and am well versed in scientific methodology.

If you have a point, let's cut to the chase and make it.

 

[gcomeau]

Look gocomeau, I am not in a class and you aren't my teacher.

I have B.S. degree from a major university.

So I am quite familiar with what you have posted so far, and am well versed in scientific methodology.

Then what exactly were you trying to accomplish by repeating your 'saying' twice? Do explain.

If you have a point, let's cut to the chase and make it.

The 'point' is examining the evidence in favor of evolutionary theory. And there is no 'cutting to the chase'. You don't seriously expect to review the available evidence in a couple paragraphs do you? Since you say you are familiar with what I've posted to date, and apart from repeating your 'saying' you have made no attempt to refute any of it, can I take that as acceptance of the accuracy of what has been presented so far and move on to the next stage?

 

[Ryan]

The well respected naturalist, Charles Darwin, has influenced the world view of several generations with his theories of evolution through natural selection. Darwin is a particular favorite among the "secular humanists" who cite his theories as proof that Theism is a false belief system.

No, they don't, liar

Over time Darwin's doctrines would provide a philosophical basis for modern eugenics a term coined by his half-cousin Francis Galton.

and?

Without any question, Darwin endorsed the survival of the fittest in a social application, as Darwin biographers Desmond and Moore explain; "Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous (to Darwin’s theory), an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start -‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain society."

it's an accurate descriptive model


The point of this rambling was what?

I stand accused of being a "liar" by a half wit.

Don't expect much effort in my explation, after you edit my message where before the meaning was evident.

An accurate descriptive model of what? What racial extermination would you advocate?

Here is a point you can understand that I hope will also benefit other secular humanists. Take that fish with feet and DARWIN or EVOLVE off your cars, it is a badge of idiocy disguised as an emblem of wisdom.

 

[Ryan]

"The partial or complete extinction of many races of man is historically known . . . Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race . . .the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption . . .When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race."
Charles Darwin

I find this quote very interesting since on one hand Darwin as advocating an unnatural selection which the success of such a process is only threatened by a natural selection.

Competition between populations is part of the natural world

How is it unnatural in any way?

Competition between populations may very well be part of the natural world. However Extinction by war, slaughter, slavery, cannibalism et cetera is a form of unnatural selection. How is the death of societies most able population serve the advancement of a species? Where is the proof that "natural selection" results from cannibalism?

 

[Ryan]

But what of Darwin's belief system? After the death of his daughter, he never again attending Church and clearly rejected Christianity. As Darwin put matters, Christianity was a "damnable doctrine." Over time Darwin's doctrines would provide a philosophical basis for modern eugenics a term coined by his half-cousin Francis Galton. Among the many who would come to embrace Darwin's doctrines include Karl Marx, eugenicist Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood). Also, his work was instrumental to the establishment of the Nuremberg Laws.

Darwin's "doctrines" were the basis of eugenics?

That's like saying Newton is responsible for every person pushed off a cliff because his formulation of the law of gravity clearly told people what would happen if they did it. Newton has inspired generations of murders who threw people out high windows and off balconies and over steep precipices!!!! He's a monster!!! Down with the Law of Gravity!!!

Darwin's explanation of evolutionary processes is a simple description of reality. And even if he DID encouraged eugenics that wouldn't say any more about the accuracy of evolutionary theory than Newton encouraging people to be pushed off of cliffs to their deaths would have falsified the law of gravity.


*********************
Actually, I used the phrase "modern eugenics" identified the source of the term. The original point of mine was highlight some lesser known aspects of Darwin's 'doctrine.' Or, should Darwin be allowed to make some a judgement on Christianity without any likewise reflection upoun his views?

As far as your Newton analogy goes, it only works if you can give me quotes of Newton advocating pushing people off cliffs. What ya got on that?

Your own response indicates that you were totally unaware of Darwin's views. You should be thakful for learning something.

 

[gcomeau]

Actually, I used the phrase "modern eugenics" identified the source of the term. The original point of mine was highlight some lesser known aspects of Darwin's 'doctrine.' Or, should Darwin be allowed to make some a judgement on Christianity without any likewise reflection upoun his views?

As far as your Newton analogy goes, it only works if you can give me quotes of Newton advocating pushing people off cliffs. What ya got on that?

Do you even know what an analogy is?

No, it does not require Newton to actually have said that for it to 'work'. It's an illustration of concept. It doesn't have to be based in historical reality. It holds if the comparison of the ideas involved is sound, which it is.

Your own response indicates that you were totally unaware of Darwin's views. You should be thakful for learning something.

My response indicates I don't care since they have nothing to do with the content of evolutionary theory and I don't look to Darwin for moral guidance. I would be equally uninterested if you told me the person who programmed my JMP software believed in Bigfoot and had some weird sexual fetishes. The software works, that's all I'm concerned with.

Evolutionary theory is supported by all available scientific evidence. That's all I'm concerned with.

 

[Ryan]

hitler was clearly a darwinist

1)'darwinist' is a meaningless word

2)every medical doctor in the world accepts evolution. If you don't think evolution is a fact, try explaining inoculations.

I would be interested in your explanation as why "Darwinist" is a meaningless word.

You do not really understand the issue that I will try again to clarify for you. The process known as evolution is not the real question, the complete origin of modern man is a better question. Both evolution and creation cannot totally explain the orgin of modern man at this time. I pointed out the question in the original post and you missed it because you have really followed the related issues.

 

[Diuretic]

Personally I think "Darwinist" is a meaningless word because it's a label that some people attach to others. Because it's a label it has meaning for the labeller and not the labelled.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Darwin is a particular favorite among the "secular humanists" who cite his theories as proof that Theism is a false belief system.

Science reports factual evidence and logical conclusion. It is not meant to pass judgment on the religious - that's what religion is for.

Such overt racist de-humanization as well as sexism is common in Darwin's papers, particularly his book "The Decent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex." What is less clear are the qualities Darwin considers "civilized" and those which he consider "savage."

And despite all of that long post, no personal attacks disprove evolution. If you just want to make a random point about how someone from over 100 years ago was racist and sexist, I would point to the fact that we didn't have racial integration in this country until a few decades ago, and women didn't have equal voting privileges until 50 years after Darwin died.

Again, "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils" "So what"?

Actually, the corrected version is: our tested and verified dating methods prove the dates of both the fossils and the rock, which correspond to one another.

I have B.S. degree

you have BS alright...

 

[Sunni Man]

you have BS alright...

As you well know, the B.S. stands for Bachelor of Science

I was kind of hoping the thread would stay free of name calling and mud slinging.

Wouldn't that be nice

 

[SmarterThanHick]

yeah that's how I was using it, my fine hypocrite.

 

[Sunni Man]

yeah that's how I was using it, my fine hypocrite.

hypocrite???

 

[JBeukema]

The well respected naturalist, Charles Darwin, has influenced the world view of several generations with his theories of evolution through natural selection. Darwin is a particular favorite among the "secular humanists" who cite his theories as proof that Theism is a false belief system.

No, they don't, liar


I stand accused of being a "liar" by a half wit.

cite your source, liar

An accurate descriptive model of what? What racial extermination would you advocate?

Is that really the best you can do to 'refute' reality?

Interesting how many of you people there suddenly are

 

[JBeukema]

"The partial or complete extinction of many races of man is historically known . . . Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race . . .the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption . . .When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race."
Charles Darwin

I find this quote very interesting since on one hand Darwin as advocating an unnatural selection which the success of such a process is only threatened by a natural selection.

Competition between populations is part of the natural world

How is it unnatural in any way?

Competition between populations may very well be part of the natural world. However Extinction by war, slaughter, slavery, cannibalism et cetera is a form of unnatural selection.

How? One population takes the resources of another or kills them during fights. Is chimpanzees had guns, I'd expect similar results.

Just because our brains and thumbs let us kill more effectively doesn't mean the underlying behavior has changed. We're just better at it.

How is the death of societies most able population serve the advancement of a species?

It doesn't have to be.

Evolution is concerned with species. Evolution acts upon populations.

Where is the proof that "natural selection" results from cannibalism?

Does the dead person or the person who ate him go on to produce offspring?

 

[JBeukema]

hitler was clearly a darwinist

1)'darwinist' is a meaningless word

2)every medical doctor in the world accepts evolution. If you don't think evolution is a fact, try explaining inoculations.

I would be interested in your explanation as why "Darwinist" is a meaningless word.

You do not really understand the issue that I will try again to clarify for you. The process known as evolution is not the real question, the complete origin of modern man is a better question. Both evolution and creation cannot totally explain the orgin of modern man at this time. I pointed out the question in the original post and you missed it because you have really followed the related issues.

You're right- not both can. Only evolution does.

 

[JBeukema]

Personally I think "Darwinist" is a meaningless word because it's a label that some people attach to others. Because it's a label it has meaning for the labeller and not the labelled.

It's another pathetic attempt to claim that science is a religion