The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

Ryan

Member
Apr 9, 2009
221
13
16
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. Many of Darwin's adherents also believe that they as a group are intelligent, critical thinkers and well informed on the related issues. Likewise, those that view Darwin's theories of evolution as inadequate in fully explaining the origin of modern man are superstitious, irrational and/or unintelligent people blinded by a some primitive belief system.

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.

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."

A major element of Darwin's world view included the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race as evidenced by cultural achievements, economic strength and the vast British Empire. Conversely, there existed in proximity to Britain a lesser race of Irish Celts with a high birth rate due in part to the Catholic influence in the culture at that time. As Darwin stated, "the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like "rabbits." One should wonder what degree of significance Darwin placed upon the actions of his own Anglo-Saxon government to the horrible environment in Ireland. Surely, he would have to recognize the relationship between the policies of a super power, Britain, on the Irish population and the result he would prefer, consistent with his life's work, was extermination of a "lesser" native population.

Darwin's ambition of extermination was certainly not limited to the "unaspiring Irishman." Darwin seemed to envision a future modern industrial society that would wage some type of war of genocide on those he regarded as "sub-races." As Darwin explained his views; "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

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."

Well before Darwin's time, Britain gradually emerged as a world power, during the reign of Elizabeth I. The Elizabethan period was followed by centuries of a brilliant expansion of an Empire lorded over by a relatively small island. By the 20th century the sun began to set on the British Empire, the great measure of Darwin's racial theories were negated. Many of the former British colonies are today global flash points that, no doubt, will one day boil over.

For instance, the feudal cultures of India and Pakistan, enjoyed under British rule, a development of a modern infrastructure that enabled both nations to develop nuclear arsenals. These two cultures have a long history of tension particularly over the beautiful region of Kashmir. China, now a military and economic super power, has never forgotten the exploitation of the British "East India Company" and will one day be on the march to secure their dominance in the world. The power vacuum left in the Middle East as the Ottoman Empire fell into decline allowed the British to redraw the maps to their liking. Today, we live with the consequences of British colonial draftsmanship. Israel, once a protectorate of Britain in now a military superpower that is surrounded by enemies united in there aspiration to destroy that Nation. Within the divided City of Jerusalem is the five acre, area known as the "Temple Mount," where conflicting prophecies, nationalism combined with fundamental faith combine for a volatile atmosphere that is a constant threat to ignite and drag the rest of the world into charnel.

There are many other examples, but few cultures have been as devastated as the British Anglo-Saxons themselves. Without question, the Anglo-Saxon as a race are a great people excelling in both the arts and sciences who are now paying a great price for a vanished empire. The "rights of an English man" have eroded to the point where exercising the most basic human right of self defense can now lead to the law abiding being charged with a crime. British society, under intense Orwellian style surveillance is inundated with foreign cultures from the far reaches of the empire that are often hostile to the host nation. What kind of future can be expected for Britain?

The legacy to a Darwinian type of doctrine has been observed by the great witness of time and the consequences of British colonialism, the extending of the Anglo-Saxon range at the expense of the "lower races," still greatly devastates the world today. Darwin would probably be horrified with the present circumstances of the world. Certainly, his destructive theories played a major role in destabilizing the world, Darwinism is the "damnable doctrine."

-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.
 
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?
 
"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?
 
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.
 
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.
The more oft you post, the less I believe you're for real
 
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.

Sunni, you're such an idiot. You think that allah made muslims out of clay!!!!! :rofl:

Now go beat wife number 2, I hear she's pretty ugly.
 
Looking at Darwin, a man who died in, what, 1882 or thereabouts, and his theory of evolution and then looking at what we know today, it's like looking at Marie Curie's understanding of atomic energy and what we know about atomic energy today. We've come a long way.

Conservatives are still stuck in 1882. To many of them, science is a "faith". Some religious leaders say studying science can lead to mental illness.

When you go to college now, it's difficult to find a couse that teaches basic "evolution". Instead, there are now "dozens" of fields based on the science of evolution. There is even on entire course on "ocular evoltuion" or how the eye evolved.

Conservatives still go to doctors even though you can't find a reputable medical doctor that doesn't believe evolution is fact. How can you be a doctor and believe instead, in "mystical, magical creation". Even Behe, the father of modern ID, says that using the same yardstick to call ID a science, you could also call "Astrology" and "Alchemy" science (he said that under oath at Dover). Of course, there are those on the right who say, "But they ARE science". Yea, right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

Visit the talk origins website and when you can refute all of it, then come back with your claims.
 
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."
 
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.

Sunni Man said:
t'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.

Oh look, another one. Would you like to discuss the evidence involved? I tried to with The Light in another thread but I made one post on radiometric dating procedures and he hasn't been seen there since. How about we just see which side of this debate is engaged in "quackery" and pseudo-science? You up for it?
 
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.

Sunni Man said:
t'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.

Oh look, another one. Would you like to discuss the evidence involved? I tried to with The Light in another thread but I made one post on radiometric dating procedures and he hasn't been seen there since. How about we just see which side of this debate is engaged in "quackery" and pseudo-science? You up for it?
I have intensely debated this subject on several boards.

Not sure if I have the time or energy to do it once again.

Concerning radiometric dating; there is a saying by some scientists about using it for evidence to support evolution:

"The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils." "So what"?
 
I have intensely debated this subject on several boards.

Not sure if I have the time or energy to do it once again.

Concerning radiometric dating; there is a saying by some scientists about using it for evidence to support evolution:

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

I seriously doubt you got that "saying" from any scientist who actually uses radiometric dating processes, considering it's wrong and they would know that.

Now, I'm going to reproduce my first post on the subject here, and assuming you can find the time you go ahead and tell me what part of it is incorrect.



Carbon (C14) Dating:

C14 dating is used to date the remains of organic, air breathing organisms up to approximately 50,000 years old. While living these organisms breathe the atmosphere, which contains trace amounts of the radioactive isotope Carbon 14 that is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere through neutron bombardment. So long as they are alive the C14 content of their bodies will remain in equilibrium with the C14 content of the atmosphere. When they die respiration ceases, along with the intake of any new quantities of C14. Over time the C14 decays with a half-life of 5568 years into N14. By measuring how much C14 remains un-decayed the time elapsed since the death of the organism can be determined.

A common mi-sperception of C14 dating is that it relies on the assumption that atmospheric C14 levels remained constant in the past so that we can know how much C14 an organism started off with. While this was an assumption made when the technique was first developed about half a century ago it has not been the case for several decades. Historical atmospheric C14 concentrations have been charted and calibrated using both dendochronology and lake varves which incorporate organic sediment in their annual deposition layers. One particularly good example of this is Lake Suigetsu in Japan where cores have been drilled to a depth of 45,000 annual layers. Because of the layering process we have an independent count of exactly how old every layer is… and because the layers incorporate organic material (the remains of a surface algae which dies off every year and sinks to the bottom of the lake) each layer can be C14 dated as well, and using these two data points the atmospheric C14 content can be charted all the way back for the entire time span encompassed by the varve core. This data (cross-checked against multiple other sites and methods) then allows us to apply C14 dating to other sites already knowing how fluctuations in atmospheric C14 concentrations in the past will effect the results… and allowing us to calibrate out error that would otherwise be introduced due to those past fluctuations.

Just one more note on C14 dating... once this calibration scale was applied it was discovered that previous C14 dates had been underestimating ages. By a few percent. There are also the occasional examples of C14 dates which have supposedly been wildly inaccurate. Many of these examples are the result of grossly improper applications of the method. For example, one I have encountered quite often is the "C14 dating of a living snail shell" that came back as thousands of years old... I believe this is one of Hovind's pet illustrations. The mollusks in question were extremely inappropriate subjects for C14 dating, which anyone familiar with the method would know. They form shells which are in equilibrium with the carbon content of the water sources in which they live... NOT the atmosphere. No C14 lab worth it's salt would ever date such an organism without warning the person requesting the test of the reservoir effect that would most likely render the test results invalid.

Longer Ranged Radiometric Dating:

There are a great many longer ranged radiometric dating methods using radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives than C14. I’ll quickly review a couple of them.

1. Argon-Argon (Ar40-Ar39) dating. Argon-Argon is a method closely related to Potassium-Argon, where the age of a sample is determined by measurement of how much of the potassium-40 in the rock has decayed into Argon-40. However, with the Argon-Argon method it is also possible to tell if there is any Argon-40 present which is NOT a product of the decay of the potassium in the sample. This is done by placing the sample to be dated in close proximity to a nuclear reactor for several hours. The resulting neutron bombardment from the reactor causes potassium-39 in the sample to be transformed into Argon-39. Argon-39 has a half-life of only 269 years, and is not found in nature… so any subsequently detected argon-39 is known to be a product of the decay of the potassium-39 in the sample. After this is done the sample is then put through an incremental heating process and the released argon-40/argon-39 ratios are measured at every stage. A sample that contains only argon-40 that is a product of the decay of the potassium-40 in that sample will release argon-39 and argon-40 in the same proportion at EVERY heating step. If there is parentless argon-40 in the sample that is not a product of the decay of that sample’s potassium-40 however the ratios will change at different heating stages. This eliminates the popular claim that excess parentless argon in a sample can cause that sample to date as older than it really is.

2. Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr) dating. Very useful for dating igneous rocks in particular. There are many different isotopes of Strontium (Sr-87, Sr-86, etc…). Rubidium-87 decays into Strontium-87. When magma first cools into an igneous rock formation all parts of the rock will have the same ratio of strontium-87/strontium-86 because the isotopes are freely dispersing through the molten rock prior to that time. However, once the rock hardens different parts of the rock will have different rubidium/strontium ratios than others since the atomic make-up of rubidium is larger than that of all the strontium isotopes and it will be incorporated into the structure of some minerals more or less easily than that of others. From that point on the rubidium will continue decaying into strontium-87… and the areas of the rock with higher initial ratios of rubidium/strontium will have their concentrations of strontium-87 increase at a higher rate than those with a lower ratio of rubidium-strontium. By taking multiple measurements from different sections of a sample and plotting their final ratios of strontium-87 to other strontium isotopes which, not being byproducts of the radioactive decay of other elements, have remained stable since the formation of the rock… the initial ratios of those isotopes throughout the sample can be determined and the elapsed time since the samples formation is established. Again, this method is highly resistant to any objections that we have to assume the concentrations of the isotopes in the samples being dated in order to date them. That is simply not the case. The initial concentrations are experimentally determined.

For further info on the various radiometric dating methods, and since (I believe) all the other participants in this discussion are Christians, I would highly recommend this page:

Radiometric Dating

Dr. Wiens goes into considerably greater detail than I have, there’s the added advantage of several visual aids, and he’s not a godless atheist like me for those that tend to distrust us as a matter of principle… just in case there are any of those reading along.

Constancy of Decay Rates

For my last point in this post I’ll address one more often-encountered claim. That we just assume that decay rates have remained constant over time. This is not true. The constancy of decay rates over time has been independently established by multiple tests. Among them the isotopic analysis of the byproducts of the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor at Gabon which establish that decay rates have undergone absolutely no detectable change for a minimum of the past 1.8 billion years. There is also an entire battery of interstellar observations that can be made that would detect a past alteration of decay rates since that would require a change of the fine structure constant of the universe… with quite readily observable effects. Effects which are never observed no matter how far away (and thus how old) the object is we are looking at.

And that is a summary of the “evolutionary” position on dating methods. The dates arrived at are accepted and used in establishing ancient evolutionary timelines, ages of fossils, etc... because there is extremely solid evidentiary support for the reliability of those methods.


So, any errors you want to point out? Or do you accept that is accurate?
 
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.

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

Forum List

Back
Top