The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

[Ryan]

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

Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

It isn't but never mind, it's an old tactic that doesn't work.

To all those who commented, the issue of whether or not "secular humanism" is a religion the issue had nothing to do with my views one way or the other. In 1957, the USSC ruled in favor of a secular humanist organization, the Washington Ethical Society, in , a tax exemption case. The ethical society won as the USSC ruled that secular humanism is a non-theistic religion (Washington Ethical Society v. DC). The 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins affirmed this ruling. Two USSC cases., not me.

The secular humanist organizations had long sought the status of a religion and finally got it. Years later "secular humanist" organizations reversed gears and do not always want to be considered a religion. The reason was because of the "no establishment" clause could also place restrictions on "secular humanism." There was another lower court case that the USSC refused to hear. Essentially, secular humanists seek both the tax exemption status but avoid the "no establishment." Any fair minded person can recognize the lack of ethics this requires.

As far as Scientology is concerned, I believe the IRS granted the tax exempt status. Probably because the USSC was afraid of the case.

Despite the definitions and the accusations of "old tactics" the truth is now before you...

 

[Ryan]

BTW JB, tell me again why you think I "fail"

 

[Ryan]

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
—Biologist Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker.

So what?

This was a response to someone calling me a "liar" and wanting proof to back up mu statement. Just leave it, at that the rest is not important.

 

[Ryan]

A special note to all creationists

We do not base modern evolutionary theory on what Darwin believed, please get that in your skull before you attack Darwin and act like you won.

Interesting, who or what do you base modern evolutionary theory upon?

I read a quote recently that states, "Darwin himself made the observation that humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm." The supportive evidence regarding the bones, muscle, skin, body hair, fat and skulls were raised. Actually I have seen two researchers credited with some varition of this quote, John Innes is one.

Researchers C.P. Groves, Charles E. Oxnard and Lewis Leakey all have agreed that Australopithecus was totally different in morphology from humans. By the way, the late Leakey was a devout Christian and very much a believer in the evolutionary process in general. Groves goes a step further and comments that "non-Darwinian" principles would be required to explain any connection between "Lucy" and modern humans.

Since evolution is a theory blind adherence is not an ideal situation and questioning is important. There maybe other theories that are more credible then exclusive evolutionary theory. I am not sure of all the factors that come into play but I do find that strict evolutions very resistant to other lines of thought. I guess what's really at play is protecting their core beliefs, very much as the zealous religious people that reacted when their core beliefs were traumatized when the evolutionary theory became known to them. Well maybe that's just whatever element of ape some lines still carry.

Who are you referring to as "attacking" Darwin and "acting like they won"? I guess I missed that.

 

[Ryan]

Hey JBeukema, could any of these quotes qualify as a "damnable doctrine" in the "Darwinist" style? Why or why not.

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical conclusion, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

1) There's no such thing as 'darwnism'; that's a moronic term Honvidists use to try to make polymerase into God

2)What is Christianity? in the words of Nietzsche,

Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.
from Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, p.23, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Christianity is an escape for the weak of heart and feeble of mind. Nothing more.




3) Damnable? Who is to do the damning? To where shall any such doctrine be damned?

"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife . . .where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed, one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die."

Sounds like an accurate description of the world attached to a segment you've quotemined to show how dishonest you are


I wonder what went where those three little dots were...




and how any of this disproves the fact of evolution
​

The second quote was by Darwin. Most people consider him as intelligent and that might be but I wonder about that statement. Does it not stand to reason that woman could at the very least benefit from their male relatives? To answer your question about who's doing the damning, foremost would be Darwin.

The quote that you stated was an "accurate description of the world" and then went on to say how dishonest I am was from online in the form you got. The quote was attribute to Hitler.


Comparison with 10th chapter of Hitler’s Mein Kampf:

"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife . . .where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed, one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die."


The Racism of Charles Darwin

Your a barrel of monkeys...

 

[Ryan]

Did you or did you not, try to establish a likeness between my original post and making the case of Newton being blamed because of his theory of gravity for any incidents of a person pushing another person off a cliff? That is essentially what I took your response to mean but please explain if I was somehow mistaken.

The problem, I found with that comparison that the theory of gravity is based on a laws of nature where as, eugenics is human manipulation of nature for a desired objective.

Ahem...

Theory of gravity = describes a natural physical process.
Theory of evolution = describes a natural physical process.

Pushing someone off a cliff = Using knowledge of that natural physical process in a way that brings harm to others.
Instituting as eugenics program = Using knowledge of that natural physical process in a way that brings harm to others.

Get it now?

Did Newton advocate pushing people off cliffs?

IRRELEVENT. As already explained.

Again you ignore the ethical question that Darwin endorses extinction in his eugenics beliefs. Evolution was irrealvant to the issue. It was a bad comparison that you made, it should not be that big deal. If you want to debate further this fine but I have said all that I have to say on this one.

 

[gcomeau]

Again you ignore the ethical question that Darwin endorses extinction in his eugenics beliefs.

I ignored nothing. I directly addressed that in my earlier response. I DO NOT CARE what Darwin endorsed. It is completely irrelevant. He is not cited as a source of moral guidance by anyone on the planet, who gives a crap what you think he "endorsed"?

His only modern relevance, in any capacity, is the theory of evolution. Which is not in any way impacted by anything else he did or did not endorse. Let me repeat myself by directly quoting my previous response to this issue you claimed I "again ignored"

"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."

Did you catch it this time around? Was there anything there you required be explained in simpler terms?

 

[Sunni Man]

I am ready for the next stage gcomeau

 

[geauxtohell]

To all those who commented, the issue of whether or not "secular humanism" is a religion the issue had nothing to do with my views one way or the other. In 1957, the USSC ruled in favor of a secular humanist organization, the Washington Ethical Society, in , a tax exemption case. The ethical society won as the USSC ruled that secular humanism is a non-theistic religion (Washington Ethical Society v. DC). The 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins affirmed this ruling. Two USSC cases., not me.

The secular humanist organizations had long sought the status of a religion and finally got it. Years later "secular humanist" organizations reversed gears and do not always want to be considered a religion. The reason was because of the "no establishment" clause could also place restrictions on "secular humanism." There was another lower court case that the USSC refused to hear. Essentially, secular humanists seek both the tax exemption status but avoid the "no establishment." Any fair minded person can recognize the lack of ethics this requires.

As far as Scientology is concerned, I believe the IRS granted the tax exempt status. Probably because the USSC was afraid of the case.

Despite the definitions and the accusations of "old tactics" the truth is now before you...

And if tax exempt status from the IRS was the sole barometer to measure what is and is not a religion, you might have a point.

As it stands, even if some people try to create a religion called "seculiar humanism", so what? What does that have to do with the fact that evolutionary theory is among the most highly supported and established theories in science?

How does it change the fact that you have no scientifically valid alternative to offer in its place?

 

[Setarcos]

while we're on the topic, can someone please explain to me what "Christian Science" is exactly?

An oxymoron? A lie?

 

[Setarcos]

what do you base modern evolutionary theory upon?

facts

empiricism

logic

I read a quote recently that states, "Darwin himself made the observation that

It doesn't matter what Darwin said. There are no authorities in science.

 

[Setarcos]

Comparison with 10th chapter of Hitler’s Mein Kampf:
.

In accordance with Godwin's Law, the discussion is over. You lose.

 

[gcomeau]

I am ready for the next stage gcomeau

Coming right up...

The Nested Hierarchy.

This is one of the most fundamental concepts which needs to be properly understood if you want to properly grasp the evidence for evolution. It describes the structure of the pattern of biological diversity produced by an evolutionary process. Evolution is the only process which predicts and explains such a pattern.

The nested hierarchy is a consequence of the way in which genetically heritable traits are transmitted from generation to generation. For an illustration, see the following (animated gif):

“NGT” represents a point at which a new genetic trait is introduced to a population which through natural selection comes to be spread throughout that population to the point where it reaches fixation in the genome. From that point on it will be heritable by all the future generations of that population. Such an event can occur at any time, in any group, but due to the nature of biological reproduction and genetic heritability it can be propagated only “downstream” of the point at which it is introduced. So, the earlier in the process a new trait is acquired, the wider a cross-section of the final population it will be present in. Any traits acquired after that point will be found grouped into smaller and smaller cross-sections of the population and always completely contained within the groupings of earlier acquired traits. For example, in an evolutionary scenario we never expect to see something like this:

There is no way an “ABCF” combination could coexist with the other final products listed there. There is no evolutionary pathway for producing both that combination and the others shown. (That red dotted line does not happen in an evolutionary framework)

To contrast, if we were examining the products of a common design process we not only could, but would expect to see such outcomes all the time. If while working it’s way along those branching design paths a designer came up at some point with the “C” trait and noticed… “hey, this works better than anything I’m using over on that “AF” development line” then of course any designer would utilize that knowledge in his other designs. For example: The human eye vs. the octopus eye. The eyes on an octopus are far superior in design to our eyes. Their optic nerves attach in a manner which does not produce a blind spot in their vision, that same attachment anchors their retinas, and because all the nerve connections come in through the rear of the eye they do not degrade visual acuity. In our eyes the optics nerve pokes through the back of the eye causing a blind spot which our brains must constantly and imperfectly correct for, because our retinas are not anchored by the nerve attachments a sharp blow to the head can detach them, and because the nerve attachments are in the front they get in the way of incoming light screwing up our visual acuity. Any designer who knew how to build an octopus eye would know there was a better way to design an eye than that. The evidence indicates however that the octopus evolutionary path simply experienced optical development which was superior to anything that occurred in human ancestry after the two branched off from each other… and after that branching occurred there was no way in which to share the advances experienced on one line with the other. Not within an evolutionary framework.

Now, what do we see when we look at the pattern of biological diversity present today? Here’s an example using 30 major examples (animated gif, modified from the universal phylogenetic tree diagram in Doug Theobald’s “29 evidences for macroevolution”. Takes a little while to cycle through.)

As you can see, a distinctive nested hierarchical pattern, precisely what is predicted and explained by an evolutionary development process. No other process has ever been proposed that would produce that particular distinctive pattern. I am quite aware that someone can now come along and say “well a designer could have designed it so that it made that pattern on purpose” but the point is that it doesn’t matter what pattern was found you could always say the same thing. It’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis... which is another way of saying a completely useless answer. It tells us nothing. At all. It’s the same as saying “I hereby predict we will find… something!” and then when we do find “something” pointing out how the findings are completely consistent with your “theory”.

Evolution on the other hand makes a very specific prediction which is a necessary consequence of the mechanisms it describes… a prediction which, if the theory were wrong, could very easily be disproven. That prediction is however specifically confirmed by the data. That’s considered very powerful evidence that a theory has it right.

What is considered even more powerful evidence is that the fossil record overlays the nested hierarchical pattern created by the phylogenetic groupings of modern species which is shown above to an extremely high degree of accuracy. The innermost (and therefore within an evolutionary framework, latest to be introduced) groupings of genetic characteristics are the latest to have representation within the fossil record… etc…

This excellent cross-correlation of data between modern biological diversity and the fossil record is known as the twin nested hierarchy.

 

[N4mddissent]

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

Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

And when did secular humanism and darwinism become synonymous? It's like saying heliocentrism and protestantism are the same thing.

 

[N4mddissent]

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
—Biologist Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker.

"Copernicus made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist as well."
- Me

And I believe Dawkins would agree. You see, if you understood his point, it is that Darwin helped answer what had previously been a troubling question for those who questioned whether god existed. If one could not explain the origin of the various species, including man, using a naturalistic explanation, then it was more difficult to dismiss supernatural explanations. Similarly, if the Earth was the center of the solar system or the galaxy, it would be much more difficult to intellectually dismiss this as the product of chance. Darwin provided a naturalistic explanation of origins. Copernicus showed that we indeed are not at the center of the solar system or galaxy.

These, and many other men of science have provided us with knowledge to fill the gaps of ignorance where supernatural beliefs previously found purchase. Collectively, they have provided naturalistic explanations which provide the framework for intellectually accepting a universe without the need for supernatural intervention.

This does not mean that Heliocentrism is synonymouse with atheism or secular humanism (two different things). Likewise, it is a non sequitor to say that these non-theistic ideas necessarily follow from the Theory of Evolution.

 

[editec]

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

Amen to that sentiment.

That's why, despite the fact that I am a believer, I am mortified when some of my fellow believers insist that morality must come from GOD.

What these mistaken believers seem to be telling me, is that, sans God, they'd run roughshod over the earth as complete savages because they would't fear retribution from a just GOD.

Jesus!

Don't they realize is what they're really saying is that if there is no god there is no reason to be a good human being?


Can these self-proclaiming Christians really be so insane as to NEED the fear of retribution at the hand of God to keep them in line?

 

[gcomeau]

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

Amen to that sentiment.

That's why, despite the fact that I am a believer, I am mortified when some of my fellow believers insist that morality must come from GOD.

What these mistaken believers seem to be telling me, is that, sans God, they'd run roughshod over the earth as complete savages because they would't fear retribution from a just GOD.

Jesus!

Don't they realize is what they're really saying is that if there is no god there is no reason to be a good human being?


Can these self-proclaiming Christians really be so insane as to NEED the fear of retribution at the hand of God to keep them in line?

I have lost count of how many Christians have absolutely insisted to me that if God didn't exist they couldn't think of a single reason not to go on a looting/raping/murder spree because there were no ultimate consequences in the afterlife.

I continue to have an opinion of humanity that is not quite depressed enough to believe them. The are pretty obviously just lying their asses off to try to win an argument.

Of course, the willingness to blatantly lie in order to apparently serve the interests of a being that considers lying to be a mortal sin isn't exactly a wonderful alternative interpretation of their actions, at the very least it makes them incredible idiots... but it's better than them all being a bunch of amoral psychopaths kept in check only by the threat of drastic punishment if they follow their impulses.

 

[Ryan]

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

Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

And when did secular humanism and darwinism become synonymous? It's like saying heliocentrism and protestantism are the same thing.

If you are directing that question to me then point out what statement of mine your question is based upon. Before you do that though, read the genesis of the exchange.

 

[N4mddissent]

Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

And when did secular humanism and darwinism become synonymous? It's like saying heliocentrism and protestantism are the same thing.

If you are directing that question to me then point out what statement of mine your question is based upon. Before you do that though, read the genesis of the exchange.

I did read the exchange. The first time secular humanism is mentioned is when you mention it in the post I quoted. Diuretic stated that Dawinism is a meaninless term. JB said the term Darwinist is an attempt to equate science with religion. Then you responded that secular humanism is a religion. Now, you also mentioned scientology which had not been mentioned before and really doesn't fit into the conversation. I suppose you could have been replying with random thoughts, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming your comments were inaccurate rather than completely irrelevant.

 

[Ryan]

Comparison with 10th chapter of Hitler’s Mein Kampf:
.

In accordance with Godwin's Law, the discussion is over. You lose.

Once again we have someone not appreciating the exchange as it played out. It was not me that offered the point that Hitler was a "Darwinst." It was not me that tried to discredit this point by claiming "Darwinist" was not really a word. I do not know much of Godwin but if his desire is to reduce the referances to Hitler and Nazis that seems to seems to me to be a good objective.

In my original post, I made a passing notation of the influence of Darwin on the Nuremberg laws. The poster you are defending has called me a "liar" and "dishonest" because of my views. One specific accusation that arose was the use of what was referred to as something like 'those three little dots' which are known as ellipsis. Maybe ellipses is another none word but I referred my accuser to the source that made the comparision in the form I posted.

I did not make any inordinate, inappropriate, inordinate or hyperbolic comparisions. I did not call my accuser Hitler or a Nazi. What you ignored about "Godwin's Law" was the abuse factor in uses of the law itself. Notice how you you declare the "discussion over."

"Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

So you lose according to the law you cited.