If Darwin Rose From The Dead, Would Modern Liberals Welcome Him?
Sound of Trumpet
http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2009/02/unwelcome-guest.html
Thursday, February 12, 2009
An Unwelcome Guest
The present day. A large town-house in Hampstead. In the lounge are
seated four persons: Dr and Mrs Ashmarr, he, an academic, she a
publisher; Mr Hipkins, a science-writer; and Miss Treadwell, a
journalist. They await the arrival of Mr Charles Darwin, who has been
brought back from the grave for the evening in celebration of his two
hundredth birthday. [The reader is welcome to petition the writer for
technical details on how this resurrection was effected, or why Mr
Darwin would spend his brief time in such company. The writer regrets,
however, that, owing to many pressing matters, he cannot guarantee
that he will have the time to supply an answer.] The doorbell rings,
and a Polish servant-girl goes to answer it. A few moments later, Mr
Darwin enters the lounge at the sound of laughter.
Dr Ashmarr. Ah, my dear Mr Darwin, what a miracle it is that brings
you here! Forgive us. You catch us in a nervous state. My wife was
just amusing us with her impression of the Mayor of London. Please
come in and let me introduce you. [He does so.]
Mr Darwin. You are all most kind. [He takes a seat, and so as to break
the ice, begins somewhat nervously to speak.] As bearing on the
subject of imitation, the strong tendency in our nearest allies, the
monkeys, in microcephalous idiots, and in the barbarous races of
mankind, to imitate whatever they hear deserves notice. [1]
Mrs Ashmarr. I beg you pardon?
Mr Darwin. Ah, madam, I beg yours! I did not mean to suggest . . .
Dr Ashmarr. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, we are here to celebrate the
two hundredth birthday of our honoured guest, Mr Charles Darwin, a
genius, I hope you don’t mind my saying, and a man of whom this
country can be justly proud. The whole world owes you a great debt.
Mr Hipkins. Indeed, you have brought great intellectual fulfilment to
men such as I.
Miss Treadwell. Hear, hear!
Mrs Ashmarr. Bravo!
Mr Darwin. I thank you all for your kind words. I must say that
everything has been most queer for me today. I can see that much has
changed.
Mr Hipkins. It has, Mr Darwin, and you are impressed, no doubt, by the
progress that has been made.
Mr Darwin. I am shocked, sir, though I dare say I have not seen the
half of it. Tell me, how is our noble race faring on the whole?
Mr Hipkins. Our noble race?
Mr Darwin. The English. They are still a noble race, are they not? [2]
Dr Ashmarr. Ah, Mr Darwin, forgive me, but we do not speak of
ourselves that way any more.
Mr Darwin. Then it is as I feared. ’Tis all too true that the
reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to
increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous
members. [3] With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon
eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state
of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check
the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the
maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men
exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last
moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved
thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed
to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate
their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic
animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of
man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly
directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting
in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow
his worst animals to breed. [4]
Miss Treadwell. But that is frightful!
Dr Ashmarr. Mr Darwin, are you seriously suggesting that we remove our
aid from those less fortunate from ourselves?
Mr Darwin. Not at all, sir. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so
urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. . . . Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly
bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but
there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the
weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the
sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is
more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind
refraining from marriage. [5]
Mr Hipkins. It is true that many now refrain from marriage.
Mr Darwin. Well, that is splendid! Then there is hope.
Mr Hipkins. Err . . . of course.
Dr Ashmarr. But of progress, Mr Darwin, there is still much to be
done. The dreadful inequality that still blights this country is
enough to shame us all.
Mr Darwin. But this is far from an unmixed evil; for without the
accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly
through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are
now everywhere extending, their range, so as to take the place of the
lower races. [6]
Miss Treadwell. Mr Darwin, you forget yourself. This is the twenty-
first century. We do not speak of savage and civilised peoples, let
alone . . . Such terms are vague and inappropriate.
Mrs Ashmarr. Oh, Mr Darwin, we are shameful — we have not offered you
a drink!
Mr Darwin. That is of no consequence, madam. A small sherry should
suffice, if you don’t mind.
Mrs Ashmarr (to the servant-girl). Aniela, fetch Mr Darwin a small
sherry, would you?
Mr Hipkins. We understand that you have been away a long time, Mr
Darwin, but I must say to you that we no longer admit race as a valid
concept.
Mr Darwin. There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when
carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,—as in
the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the
body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull,
and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless
task to specify the numerous points of structural difference. The
races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation, and in
liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are
likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional,
but partly in their intellectual, faculties. [7]
Mr Hipkins. Not any more.
Mr Darwin. I . . .
Dr Ashmarr. We have progressed beyond all that, Mr Darwin.
Mr Hipkins. Naturally, ha-ha, we do not look to natural selection for
the progress of civilisation.
Mr Darwin. I could show fight on natural selection having done and
doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to
admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many
centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous
such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have
beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to
the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower
races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races
throughout the world. [8] I see how the Anglo-Saxon race will have
spread and exterminated whole nations; and in consequence how much the
human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank. [9]
[Mrs Ashmarr gives out a yelp. Miss Treadwell drops a glass. Mr
Hipkins gapes in horror.]
Dr Ashmarr. But that is monstrous! That’s not what we mean by progress
at all!
Mr Darwin. Oh dear, have I said something out of turn?
Miss Treadwell. You, Mr Darwin, are a savage.
Mr Darwin. You mean I am not civilised?
Miss Treadwell. I mean precisely that. Besides, you are quite wrong.
We are becoming diverse, Mr Darwin, yes, vibrant and diverse! Things
are changing, progress is being made. Europe will no longer be
hideously white. Your beloved race will disappear.
Dr Ashmarr. I think, Mr Darwin, that I speak for everyone here in
declaring that you are no longer welcome.
Mr Darwin. But . . .
Dr Ashmarr. Aniela, show Mr Darwin to the door.
[Aniela leads the bewildered Mr Darwin out of the room.]
Mrs Ashmarr. Oh, what a frightful man! I had no idea! He’s not at all
as he appears in the Sunday-supplements.
[1] [“As bearing . . . notice.”] C.R. Darwin, The Descent of Man; and
Selection in Relation to Sex, Vol. I. (London: John Murray, 1871), pp.
56-7.
[2] [“a noble race.”] C.R. Darwin, Letter to Syms Covington, 23rd
November 1850, transcribed and published online for the Darwin
Correspondence Project.
[3] [“the reckless . . . members.”] C.R. Darwin, The Descent of Man, p.
174.
[4] [“With savages . . . to breed.”] C.R. Darwin, ibid., p.168.
[5] [“Nor could . . . from marriage.”] C.R. Darwin, ibid., pp.168-9.
[6] [“But this is far from . . . lower races.”] C.R. Darwin, ibid., p.
169.
[7] [“There is . . . faculties.”] Charles Darwin, ibid., p.216.
[8] [“I could show . . . the world.”] C.R. Darwin, Letter to William
Graham, 3rd July 1881, op.cit.
[9] [“how the Anglo-Saxon race . . . risen in rank.” ] to C.R. Darwin,
Letter to Charles Kingsley, 6th February 1862, op.cit.; minor changes
made to format.
Immortalist
> http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2009/02/unwelcome-guest.html
>
Sounds more like the Herbert Spencer and his application of the law of
the jungle to culture, than Darwin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
Timothy 1:4a
of Trumpery, even by cut and paste :-}
Partly this just shows Darwin as a fallible man of his time; partly
it's a legitimate challenge to modern liberal sensibilities (which I
generally share).
I have noted myself that modern society does not cull the weak -- on
purpose, of course! -- and that this inevitably tends to the
proliferation of bad eyesight and a hundred other unfortunate
inheritances. My own hope for a better future is not to start killing
and sterilizing, and not to watch the species sink to the lowest
common denominator, but for test tube fertilization to someday allow
mom and dad to choose some of the genes that they allow and forbid
themselves to pass to their kids.
Ask any middle class carrier of hemophilia how much she'd pay to
ensure her sons did not have the disease, or that her daughters would
not be carriers, and you'll see why this will come. It will probably
start in my lifetime.
Will there be abuses? Yes there will, big time. Like 20th century car
crashes, I doubt we can avoid them. But overall the effects could be a
very, very good thing.
Immortalist
> Well written and thought provoking -- not what I'm used to from Sound
> of Trumpery, even by cut and paste :-}
>
> Partly this just shows Darwin as a fallible man of his time; partly
> it's a legitimate challenge to modern liberal sensibilities (which I
> generally share).
>
> I have noted myself that modern society does not cull the weak -- on
> purpose, of course! -- and that this inevitably tends to the
> proliferation of bad eyesight and a hundred other unfortunate
> inheritances. My own hope for a better future is not to start killing
> and sterilizing, and not to watch the species sink to the lowest
> common denominator, but for test tube fertilization to someday allow
> mom and dad to choose some of the genes that they allow and forbid
> themselves to pass to their kids.
>
But what would ensure that the choices of these parents, collectively,
would lead through superstition and religious nonsense to a de-evolved
human anyway?
Society, through its laws and institutions, already regulates
behavior. But it does so in virtual blind ignorance of the deep
reaches of human nature. By relying on moral intuition, on those
satisfying visceral feelings of right and wrong, people remain
enslaved by their genes and culture. Their minds develop along the
channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they
exercise free will in moment-by-moment choices, this faculty remains
superficial and its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only
by penetrating to the physical basis of moral thought and considering
its evolutionary meaning will people have the power to control their
own lives. They will then be in a better position to choose ethical
precepts and the forms of social regulation needed to maintain the
precepts.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
Timothy 1:4a
> On Feb 18, 8:11 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well written and thought provoking -- not what I'm used to from Sound
> > of Trumpery, even by cut and paste :-}
>
> > Partly this just shows Darwin as a fallible man of his time; partly
> > it's a legitimate challenge to modern liberal sensibilities (which I
> > generally share).
>
> > I have noted myself that modern society does not cull the weak -- on
> > purpose, of course! -- and that this inevitably tends to the
> > proliferation of bad eyesight and a hundred other unfortunate
> > inheritances. My own hope for a better future is not to start killing
> > and sterilizing, and not to watch the species sink to the lowest
> > common denominator, but for test tube fertilization to someday allow
> > mom and dad to choose some of the genes that they allow and forbid
> > themselves to pass to their kids.
>
> But what would ensure that the choices of these parents, collectively,
> would lead through superstition and religious nonsense to a de-evolved
> human anyway?
You seem to be on a different thought track. I'm talking primarily
about physical defects. Example: Like my mom and several brothers and
sisters, I sometimes get migraines. If I had to catch my food every
day, and if there was not quite enough food for my family and the
family living across the valley, my family would probably die out,
because I would be a less efficient provider.
Instead, I have two lovely kids who sometimes get headaches and will
probably give me grandchildren. My tendency for migraines will ripple
out into the gene pool, joining the genes for bad eyes, knobby knees,
teeth needing braces, etc.
We are all French poodles. Throw us back naked on the savannah and
not 5% would survive. And it's only going downhill from here.
Anyone want to volunteer to stop breeding? Okay, I know some will, but
not enough, and not for the right reasons. Better if we gained the
ability to select for clear brains, good eyes and teeth, happy
productive dispositions, etc.
I know the possibilities are scary. So are the results of not doing
it.
> Society, through its laws and institutions, already regulates
> behavior. But it does so in virtual blind ignorance of the deep
> reaches of human nature. By relying on moral intuition, on those
> satisfying visceral feelings of right and wrong, people remain
> enslaved by their genes and culture. Their minds develop along the
> channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they
> exercise free will in moment-by-moment choices, this faculty remains
> superficial and its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only
> by penetrating to the physical basis of moral thought and considering
> its evolutionary meaning will people have the power to control their
> own lives. They will then be in a better position to choose ethical
> precepts and the forms of social regulation needed to maintain the
> precepts.
>
> Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
> Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
Mike Schilling
>
> We are all French poodles. Throw us back naked on the savannah and
> not 5% would survive.
5%? Are you suggesting that the savannah would support three hundred
million humans?
Anyway, there's no reason to stop at the savannah. Throw us back in
the ocean, and we'd all drown.
Michael Grosberg
> On Feb 18, 11:26 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:11 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well written and thought provoking -- not what I'm used to from Sound
> > > of Trumpery, even by cut and paste :-}
It's silly and assumes atheists acceptance of Darwin's idea has
anything to do with what he was like as a person.
> We are all French poodles. Throw us back naked on the savannah and
> not 5% would survive. And it's only going downhill from here.
So? you are perfectly fitted to your surroundings, and that's what
matters. Your surroundings just happen to include offices and suburbs
and highways.
Errol
wrote:
> > We are all French poodles. Throw us back naked on the savannah and
> > not 5% would survive. And it's only going downhill from here.
>
> So? you are perfectly fitted to your surroundings, and that's what
> matters. Your surroundings just happen to include offices and suburbs
> and highways.
If I was perfectly fitted to my surroundings I would be a wall-to-wall
carpet or a built-in-cupboard.
The point is that in the event of a global disaster (bird flu, comet,
nuclear warfare) we might need to exist with our hands, lore, and wits
alone, and that doesn't look promising.
the bad news is:
Without weapons, any animal larger than a rat will take us out.
without medicine, toothache alone will take out several hundred
millions
Without laws and society, we will take out what isn't already taken
out.
the good news is:
maybe it never happens
Michael Stemper
>An Unwelcome Guest
Indeed.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
PV
No, we'd be all "Aiiieee, Darwin Zombie!" and shooting him in the head with
shotguns. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Mike Schilling
> Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@email.com> writes:
> [whatever]
>
> No, we'd be all "Aiiieee, Darwin Zombie!" and shooting him in the
> head with shotguns. *
Creationists wouldn't be afraid of Zombie Darwin, because they have
nothing he wants.
Christopher A. Lee
<grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 6:43 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 11:26 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 18, 8:11 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Well written and thought provoking -- not what I'm used to from Sound
>> > > of Trumpery, even by cut and paste :-}
>
>It's silly and assumes atheists acceptance of Darwin's idea has
>anything to do with what he was like as a person.
The idiots imagine Darwin got some kind of (false) revelation and was
motivated against religion, even though he was Christian at the time.
It's his ideas, research and results that count. The stuff that was
right has survived the test of time, including the mechanisms for
heredity and mutation that he didn't know but predicted.
>> We are all French poodles. Throw us back naked on the savannah and
>> not 5% would survive. And it's only going downhill from here.
>
>So? you are perfectly fitted to your surroundings, and that's what
>matters. Your surroundings just happen to include offices and suburbs
>and highways.
Which is why an economic crash has the potential to be much, much
worse than the last one. We are used to living in cities, buying food
produced elsewhere. We no longer grow our own fruit and veg, keep
pigs, chickens and cows ourselves.
--
Agent 5 users can filter 90% of Usenet spam using
message-id: {google}
Bill Snyder
Not even Abby Normal?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
arch...@googlemail.com
> http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2009/02/unwelcome-guest.html
>
Cool, now bring back Jesus and we'll see what he has to say about the
Gentiles.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Davej
> http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2009/02/unwelcome-guest.html
> They await the arrival of Mr Charles Darwin, who has been
> brought back from the grave for the evening in celebration of his two
> hundredth birthday.
Let us also bring back Isaac Newton, who was, in his spare time, a
religious nutjob.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> An Unwelcome Guest
That you are.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
William Hyde
Actually I would disagree on two counts. First, that he quite
possibly spent more time on religion than on physics and
mathematics. So it wasn't his spare time. Secondly, that he came to
the rather sensible conclusion that some aspects of Christian doctrine
are contradicted by the bible. It would have been the end of his
university appointment, to say the least, if he made this public. A
hundred years earlier and it would have been the end of his life.
He persisted with this research (which he found just as fascinating as
his work on physics and alchemy) perhaps in the hope of coming up with
a set of arguments which would convince the orthodox. He met with
other Arians to discuss these matters (and it wasn't easy to find
them).
He was quite devout, which I'm not prepared to say qualifies him as a
nutjob.
As to Darwin, the more I read of him the more I understand just what a
genius he was . Certainly orders of magnitude smarter than the author
of the essay we're responding to.
William Hyde
Immortalist
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST), Michael Grosberg
>
The Savanna Principle is a theory about the evolutionary roots of the
human brain. ...it asserts that the environment that molded the human
brain through natural selection is drastically different than the
world humans currently live in. This disparity between what man was
designed to do and what he currently can do leads to a host of
societal difficulties, according to the theory. For example, ancestors
who craved sugary and fatty foods lived longer and were healthier than
those who didn't, in a time that such things were relatively scarce.
Today, the abundance of such temptations leads to obesity and heart
disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_principle
Immortalist
> On Feb 18, 11:26 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:11 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well written and thought provoking -- not what I'm used to from Sound
> > > of Trumpery, even by cut and paste :-}
>
> > > Partly this just shows Darwin as a fallible man of his time; partly
> > > it's a legitimate challenge to modern liberal sensibilities (which I
> > > generally share).
>
> > > I have noted myself that modern society does not cull the weak -- on
> > > purpose, of course! -- and that this inevitably tends to the
> > > proliferation of bad eyesight and a hundred other unfortunate
> > > inheritances. My own hope for a better future is not to start killing
> > > and sterilizing, and not to watch the species sink to the lowest
> > > common denominator, but for test tube fertilization to someday allow
> > > mom and dad to choose some of the genes that they allow and forbid
> > > themselves to pass to their kids.
>
> > But what would ensure that the choices of these parents, collectively,
> > would lead through superstition and religious nonsense to a de-evolved
> > human anyway?
>
> You seem to be on a different thought track. I'm talking primarily
> about physical defects.
Not at all off topic. You said something about making choices that
could influence gene frequencies in the human gene pool.
The only way forward is to study human nature as part of the natural
sciences, in an attempt to integrate the natural sciences with the
social sciences and humanities. I can conceive of no ideological or
formalisric shortcut. Neurobiology cannot be learned at the feer of a
guru. The consequences of genetic history cannot be chosen by
legislatures. Above all, for our own physical well-being if nothing
else, ethical philosophy must not be left in the hands of the merely
wise. Although human progress can be achieved by intuition and force
of will, only hard-won empirical knowledge of our biological nature
will allow us to make optimum choices among the competing criteria of
progress.
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
Timothy 1:4a
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:43 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 11:26 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 8:11 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well written and thought provoking -- not what I'm used to from Sound
> > > > of Trumpery, even by cut and paste :-}
>
> It's silly and assumes atheists acceptance of Darwin's idea has
> anything to do with what he was like as a person.
I wasn't clear if it was a YEC rant or a conservative rant.
You're certainly right that it has nothing to do with the validity of
evolution.
> > We are all French poodles. Throw us back naked on the savannah and
> > not 5% would survive. And it's only going downhill from here.
>
> So? you are perfectly fitted to your surroundings, and that's what
> matters. Your surroundings just happen to include offices and suburbs
> and highways.
It never was survival of the fittest - always survival of those who
fit :-)
I just want my great-cubed-grandchildren to be the best they can be.
Timothy 1:4a
wrote:
> Timothy 1:4a wrote:
>
> > We are all French poodles. Throw us back naked on the savannah and
> > not 5% would survive.
>
> 5%? Are you suggesting that the savannah would support three hundred
> million humans?
Only if we paved it and filled it with supermarkets.
I just meant not 5 out of any given 100 are physically fit enough.
> Anyway, there's no reason to stop at the savannah. Throw us back in
> the ocean, and we'd all drown.
I knew there was a reason I'm carrying all this blubber! That's a
challenge I'm up for.
Timothy 1:4a
wrote:
> PV wrote:
> > Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@email.com> writes:
> > [whatever]
>
> > No, we'd be all "Aiiieee, Darwin Zombie!" and shooting him in the
> > head with shotguns. *
>
> Creationists wouldn't be afraid of Zombie Darwin, because they have
> nothing he wants.
I'm guessing zombies eat brains?
Timothy 1:4a
> On Feb 18, 8:43 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 11:26 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 8:11 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well written and thought provoking -- not what I'm used to from Sound
> > > > of Trumpery, even by cut and paste :-}
>
> > > > Partly this just shows Darwin as a fallible man of his time; partly
> > > > it's a legitimate challenge to modern liberal sensibilities (which I
> > > > generally share).
>
> > > > I have noted myself that modern society does not cull the weak -- on
> > > > purpose, of course! -- and that this inevitably tends to the
> > > > proliferation of bad eyesight and a hundred other unfortunate
> > > > inheritances. My own hope for a better future is not to start killing
> > > > and sterilizing, and not to watch the species sink to the lowest
> > > > common denominator, but for test tube fertilization to someday allow
> > > > mom and dad to choose some of the genes that they allow and forbid
> > > > themselves to pass to their kids.
>
> > > But what would ensure that the choices of these parents, collectively,
> > > would lead through superstition and religious nonsense to a de-evolved
> > > human anyway?
>
> > You seem to be on a different thought track. I'm talking primarily
> > about physical defects.
>
> Not at all off topic. You said something about making choices that
> could influence gene frequencies in the human gene pool.
OK. So it's "what would ensure that the choices of these parents,
collectively, would *NOT* lead through superstition and religious
nonsense to a de-evolved human anyway?" That's a legitimate problem.
> The only way forward is to study human nature as part of the natural
> sciences, in an attempt to integrate the natural sciences with the
> social sciences and humanities. I can conceive of no ideological or
> formalisric shortcut. Neurobiology cannot be learned at the feer of a
> guru. The consequences of genetic history cannot be chosen by
> legislatures. Above all, for our own physical well-being if nothing
> else, ethical philosophy must not be left in the hands of the merely
> wise. Although human progress can be achieved by intuition and force
> of will, only hard-won empirical knowledge of our biological nature
> will allow us to make optimum choices among the competing criteria of
> progress.
>
> On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
Timothy 1:4a
Survival of the fattest.
Mike Schilling
Good guess, and one that shows you'd be in danger yourself.
James A. Donald
> As to Darwin, the more I read of him the more I
> understand just what a genius he was . Certainly
> orders of magnitude smarter than the author of the
> essay we're responding to.
Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that liberals
don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
the willies - they prefer "evolution", leaving out the
brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
some are better than others implied by "of the fittest".
They prefer Gould's evolution, where all surviving
kinds are equal, where speciation results from the
random chance of separation, not natural selection,
where species do not develop differing kinds within a
species except as a result of complete and total
separation - they never develop separation as a result
of differential selection producing different kinds.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:57:05 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>> As to Darwin, the more I read of him the more I
>> understand just what a genius he was . Certainly
>> orders of magnitude smarter than the author of the
>> essay we're responding to.
>
>Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that liberals
>don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
>the willies - they prefer "evolution", leaving out the
>brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
>some are better than others implied by "of the fittest".
>They prefer Gould's evolution, where all surviving
>kinds are equal, where speciation results from the
>random chance of separation, not natural selection,
>where species do not develop differing kinds within a
>species except as a result of complete and total
>separation - they never develop separation as a result
>of differential selection producing different kinds.
You have chosen not to understand and then repeat a false statement as a
substitute.
William December Starr
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> said:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
>> Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that liberals
>> don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
>> the willies - they prefer "evolution", leaving out the
>> brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
>> some are better than others implied by "of the fittest".
>> They prefer Gould's evolution, where all surviving
>> kinds are equal, where speciation results from the
>> random chance of separation, not natural selection,
>> where species do not develop differing kinds within a
>> species except as a result of complete and total
>> separation - they never develop separation as a result
>> of differential selection producing different kinds.
>
> You have chosen not to understand and then repeat a false
> statement as a substitute.
Oh, I don't think he's chosen at all.
-- wds
James A. Donald
> Sounds more like the Herbert Spencer and his application of the law of
> the jungle to culture, than Darwin.
You are unfamiliar with Darwin - which was, I think, the point of the
original post.
James A. Donald
> Partly this just shows Darwin as a fallible man of his
> time
It shows that Darwin is a genius, and that you cannot
have a materialist world view and a politically correct
world view.
Presumably Trumpet suggests that the politically correct
should abandon materialism, but I point to the same
facts and suggest that they should abandon political
correctness.
> My own hope for a better future is not to start
> killing and sterilizing, and not to watch the species
> sink to the lowest common denominator, but for test
> tube fertilization to someday allow mom and dad to
> choose some of the genes that they allow and forbid
> themselves to pass to their kids.
Tbat program is already under way. A short while ago,
unborn children were routinely tested for three known
bad genes - now this is up to eleven. In due course,
will rise to several tens millions, and the parent will
get a detailed projection of how the child is likely to
turn out.
But then what do you do with the welfare mums who do
have umpteen kids by umpteen fathers, and are
disinclined to bother with any of that?
Presumably, with the passage of time, the gap between
the large voting majority of irresponsible welfare
morons, and the ever smaller productive genetically
optimized elite, is going to grow bigger and bigger.
Giga
Thursday, February 12, 2009
An Unwelcome Guest
The present day. A large town-house in Hampstead. In the lounge are
seated four persons: Dr and Mrs Ashmarr, he, an academic, she a
publisher; Mr Hipkins, a science-writer; and Miss Treadwell, a
journalist. They await the arrival of Mr Charles Darwin, who has been
brought back from the grave for the evening in celebration of his two
hundredth birthday. [The reader is welcome to petition the writer for
technical details on how this resurrection was effected, or why Mr
Darwin would spend his brief time in such company. The writer regrets,
however, that, owing to many pressing matters, he cannot guarantee
that he will have the time to supply an answer.] The doorbell rings,
and a Polish servant-girl goes to answer it. A few moments later, Mr
Darwin enters the lounge at the sound of laughter.
Dr Ashmarr. Ah, my dear Mr Darwin, what a miracle it is that brings
you here! Forgive us. You catch us in a nervous state. My wife was
just amusing us with her impression of the Mayor of London. Please
come in and let me introduce you. [He does so.]
Mr Darwin. You are all most kind. [He takes a seat, and so as to break
the ice, begins somewhat nervously to speak.] As bearing on the
subject of imitation, the strong tendency in our nearest allies, the
monkeys, in microcephalous idiots, and in the barbarous races of
mankind, to imitate whatever they hear deserves notice. [1]
Mrs Ashmarr. I beg you pardon?
Mr Darwin. Ah, madam, I beg yours! I did not mean to suggest . . .
Dr Ashmarr. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, we are here to celebrate the
two hundredth birthday of our honoured guest, Mr Charles Darwin, a
genius, I hope you don’t mind my saying, and a man of whom this
country can be justly proud. The whole world owes you a great debt.
Mr Hipkins. Indeed, you have brought great intellectual fulfilment to
men such as I.
Miss Treadwell. Hear, hear!
Mrs Ashmarr. Bravo!
Mr Darwin. I thank you all for your kind words. I must say that
everything has been most queer for me today. I can see that much has
changed.
Mr Hipkins. It has, Mr Darwin, and you are impressed, no doubt, by the
progress that has been made.
Mr Darwin. I am shocked, sir, though I dare say I have not seen the
half of it. Tell me, how is our noble race faring on the whole?
Mr Hipkins. Our noble race?
Mr Darwin. The English. They are still a noble race, are they not? [2]
Dr Ashmarr. Ah, Mr Darwin, forgive me, but we do not speak of
ourselves that way any more.
Mr Darwin. Then it is as I feared. ’Tis all too true that the
reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to
increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous
members. [3] With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon
eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state
of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check
the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the
maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men
exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last
moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved
thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed
to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate
their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic
animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of
man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly
directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting
in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow
his worst animals to breed. [4]
Miss Treadwell. But that is frightful!
Dr Ashmarr. Mr Darwin, are you seriously suggesting that we remove our
aid from those less fortunate from ourselves?
Mr Darwin. Not at all, sir. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so
urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. . . . Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly
bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but
there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the
weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the
sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is
more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind
refraining from marriage. [5]
Mr Hipkins. It is true that many now refrain from marriage.
Mr Darwin. Well, that is splendid! Then there is hope.
Mr Hipkins. Err . . . of course.
Dr Ashmarr. But of progress, Mr Darwin, there is still much to be
done. The dreadful inequality that still blights this country is
enough to shame us all.
Mr Darwin. But this is far from an unmixed evil; for without the
accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly
through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are
now everywhere extending, their range, so as to take the place of the
lower races. [6]
Miss Treadwell. Mr Darwin, you forget yourself. This is the twenty-
first century. We do not speak of savage and civilised peoples, let
alone . . . Such terms are vague and inappropriate.
Mrs Ashmarr. Oh, Mr Darwin, we are shameful — we have not offered you
a drink!
Mr Darwin. That is of no consequence, madam. A small sherry should
suffice, if you don’t mind.
Mrs Ashmarr (to the servant-girl). Aniela, fetch Mr Darwin a small
sherry, would you?
Mr Hipkins. We understand that you have been away a long time, Mr
Darwin, but I must say to you that we no longer admit race as a valid
concept.
Mr Darwin. There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when
carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,—as in
the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the
body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull,
and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless
task to specify the numerous points of structural difference. The
races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation, and in
liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are
likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional,
but partly in their intellectual, faculties. [7]
>It is clear that the idea of there being distinct races is just wrong. If
>you walked from Scotland to South Africa (apparently) you would see a
>fairly gradual change in the way people look.
Mr Hipkins. Not any more.
Mr Darwin. I . . .
Dr Ashmarr. We have progressed beyond all that, Mr Darwin.
Mr Hipkins. Naturally, ha-ha, we do not look to natural selection for
the progress of civilisation.
Mr Darwin. I could show fight on natural selection having done and
doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to
admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many
centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous
such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have
beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to
the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower
races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races
throughout the world. [8] I see how the Anglo-Saxon race will have
spread and exterminated whole nations; and in consequence how much the
human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank. [9]
[Mrs Ashmarr gives out a yelp. Miss Treadwell drops a glass. Mr
Hipkins gapes in horror.]
Dr Ashmarr. But that is monstrous! That’s not what we mean by progress
at all!
Mr Darwin. Oh dear, have I said something out of turn?
Miss Treadwell. You, Mr Darwin, are a savage.
Mr Darwin. You mean I am not civilised?
Miss Treadwell. I mean precisely that. Besides, you are quite wrong.
We are becoming diverse, Mr Darwin, yes, vibrant and diverse! Things
are changing, progress is being made. Europe will no longer be
hideously white. Your beloved race will disappear.
Dr Ashmarr. I think, Mr Darwin, that I speak for everyone here in
declaring that you are no longer welcome.
Mr Darwin. But . . .
Dr Ashmarr. Aniela, show Mr Darwin to the door.
[Aniela leads the bewildered Mr Darwin out of the room.]
Mrs Ashmarr. Oh, what a frightful man! I had no idea! He’s not at all
as he appears in the Sunday-supplements.
[1] [“As bearing . . . notice.”] C.R. Darwin, The Descent of Man; and
Selection in Relation to Sex, Vol. I. (London: John Murray, 1871), pp.
56-7.
[2] [“a noble race.”] C.R. Darwin, Letter to Syms Covington, 23rd
November 1850, transcribed and published online for the Darwin
Correspondence Project.
[3] [“the reckless . . . members.”] C.R. Darwin, The Descent of Man, p.
174.
[4] [“With savages . . . to breed.”] C.R. Darwin, ibid., p.168.
[5] [“Nor could . . . from marriage.”] C.R. Darwin, ibid., pp.168-9.
[6] [“But this is far from . . . lower races.”] C.R. Darwin, ibid., p.
169.
[7] [“There is . . . faculties.”] Charles Darwin, ibid., p.216.
[8] [“I could show . . . the world.”] C.R. Darwin, Letter to William
Graham, 3rd July 1881, op.cit.
[9] [“how the Anglo-Saxon race . . . risen in rank.” ] to C.R. Darwin,
Letter to Charles Kingsley, 6th February 1862, op.cit.; minor changes
made to format.
William Hyde
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:57:05 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>
> > As to Darwin, the more I read of him the more I
> > understand just what a genius he was . Certainly
> > orders of magnitude smarter than the author of the
> > essay we're responding to.
>
> Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct
Not even remotely.
- that liberals
> don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
> the willies - they prefer "evolution",
It has nothing to do with liberals.
We don't call the theory of Evolution "Darwinism" for the same reason
that we don't call physics "Newtonism". A lot has been discovered
since Darwin's day, and while his central insight holds, he'd have to
do quite a bit of studying before he could understand today's
"Darwinism".
leaving out the
> brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
> some are better than others implied by "of the fittest".
> They prefer Gould's evolution, where all surviving
> kinds are equal, where speciation results from the
> random chance of separation, not natural selection,
No, this is totally untrue. Natural selection remains important, and
there are arguments over just how important, but it is not the only
agent of evolution, as Darwin himself pointed out when he discussed
sexual selection.
William Hyde
Dan Clore
A while back I saw an attempt by George Lakoff (or someone like that) to
rephrase "survival of the fittest" in a more accurate manner. From
memory, it came out to something like "survival of those best nurtured
by their particular environmental niche."
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Michael Stemper
In article <d09sp4hp7a79c4e5c...@4ax.com>, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:57:05 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>> As to Darwin, the more I read of him the more I
>> understand just what a genius he was . Certainly
>> orders of magnitude smarter than the author of the
>> essay we're responding to.
>
>Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that liberals
>don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
>the willies - they prefer "evolution",
In exactly the same way that physicists don't say "Einsteinism", but
"relativity", and the same way that mathematicians don't say "Cantorianism",
but say "set theory".
It's only the cranks who attack these ideas that identify the idea with
its originator, ignoring the fact that such ideas develop, get refined,
and adjusted as they are studied.
Having observed such cranks for many years, I've come to the conclusion
that they are projecting onto others a mind-set that views scientific
or mathematical theories as some form of Holy Scripture. That's evident
from the nature of the article that started this whole thread. It's an
attempt to attack evolution by attacking Darwin.
What these people don't understand is that it's the idea that matters,
not the character of the first person to promote it.
>We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>of the kind of animals that we are.
"Mine!"
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Economists have correctly predicted seven of the last three recessions.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
And anybody who's studied the extremes sexual selection have wrought
knows that personal survival is irrelevant. Immortality through your
kids indeed.
Gene
@news.motzarella.org:
> In exactly the same way that physicists don't say "Einsteinism", but
> "relativity", and the same way that mathematicians don't say
"Cantorianism",
> but say "set theory".
Or like we don't say "Galois theory" but "field automorphism theory".
James A. Donald
> > Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that liberals
> > don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
> > the willies - they prefer "evolution", leaving out the
> > brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
> > some are better than others implied by "of the fittest".
> > They prefer Gould's evolution, where all surviving
> > kinds are equal, where speciation results from the
> > random chance of separation, not natural selection,
> > where species do not develop differing kinds within a
> > species except as a result of complete and total
> > separation
Free Lunch
> You have chosen not to understand and then repeat a
> false statement as a > substitute.
I made several statements above - which one do you dispute?
James A. Donald
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:14:12 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> We don't call the theory of Evolution "Darwinism" for
> the same reason that we don't call physics
> "Newtonism".
We do however, call Newtonian physics Newtonian physics.
Most non political mainstream biologists such as Dawkins
call themselves Darwinists - indeed if someone
pussyfoots around evading the use of the terms "Darwin",
"Darwinian", "Darwinist", "Darwinism", and so forth, you
immediately know his politics.
There is, of course, a post newtonian physics - quantum
physics and relativistic physics, also called
Einsteinian physics - but there is no post Darwinian
biology.
> A lot has been discovered since Darwin's day, and
> while his central insight holds, he'd have to do quite
> a bit of studying before he could understand today's
> "Darwinism".
Genes have been discovered. The rest is pretty much
carrying out the research program described by Darwin:
For a review of Darwin in the light of modern biology, I
recommend "Blogging the Origin" which tells us:
<http://scienceblogs.com/bloggingtheorigin/2009/01/chapt
er_2_variation_under_natu.php> Which tells us:
Here's a project for a playful biology grad
student with some time on his or her hands. Take
chapter 2 of the Origin of Species, 'Variation
Under Nature', and modernize the language. Toss
in a few figures and some contemporary
citations. Give the result a title like 'A
routemap for biodiversity research 200 years
after Darwin', put your name on it and submit to
Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
The point being that 200 years later, we are still for
the most part following Darwin's routemap.
> > leaving out the
> > brutality implied by "survival", and implication
> > that some are better than others implied by "of the
> > fittest". They prefer Gould's evolution, where all
> > surviving kinds are equal, where speciation results
> > from the random chance of separation, not natural
> > selection,
> No, this is totally untrue. Natural selection remains
> important, and there are arguments over just how
> important, but it is not the only agent of evolution,
> as Darwin himself pointed out when he discussed sexual
> selection.
Sexual selection is natural selection.
Minimizing the role of selection, and maximizing the
role of chance, has political implications
James A. Donald
> > Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that
> > liberals don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word
> > gives them the willies - they prefer "evolution",
Michael Stemper:
> In exactly the same way that physicists don't say
> "Einsteinism",
Instead physicists say "Einsteinian", "Copernican:,
"Galilean", etc.
Liberals like "Darwinian" even less than they like
"Darwinism"
Here is the New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html>
whining about "Darwinism": Notice that they object to
"Darwinian" also.
Further, though physicists do not say "Einsteinism",
biologists *do* say "Darwinism", as well as Darwinian,
Darwinist, and so on and so forth. In particular,
Dawkins calls himself a Darwinist, not an
"evolutionist". Language is what the best and most
widely read use it to mean. If Dawkins says
"Darwinist", Darwinist it is.
> Having observed such cranks for many years, I've come
> to the conclusion that they are projecting onto others
> a mind-set that views scientific or mathematical
> theories as some form of Holy Scripture. That's
> evident from the nature of the article that started
> this whole thread. It's an attempt to attack evolution
> by attacking Darwin.
Seems to me it made Darwin look like the great man that
he is, and the politically correct look like ignorant,
rude, intolerant assholes. You notice that the moderns
depicted in the story don't make any rational objection
to Darwin, they are just offended by his heresy.
Trumpet, of course, wanted to argue that for liberals to
be liberal, they had to give up on Darwin, but I think
the original writer had the opposite intention - that
for Britain to be great, had to give up on liberalism.
Trumpet appears to be an American. The author is
clearly a Briton, and I suspect a Briton disgusted by
Britain's recent humiliations in Basra, the Persian Gulf,
and Helmut Province.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
Alexey Romanov
We don't say "Galoisism", however.
--
Alexey Romanov
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>James A. Donald
>> > Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that liberals
>> > don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
>> > the willies - they prefer "evolution", leaving out the
>> > brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
>> > some are better than others implied by "of the fittest".
You really don't understand this bit at all. People who object to the
way that anti-science folks use the word Darwinism do so because of the
way they use it. Scientists do not use names the way the anti-science
folks want to use them. They do not conflate theories with facts,
either.
>> > They prefer Gould's evolution, where all surviving
>> > kinds are equal, where speciation results from the
>> > random chance of separation, not natural selection,
>> > where species do not develop differing kinds within a
>> > species except as a result of complete and total
>> > separation
Thank you for showing us that you have never read The Origin of Species
and have misrepresented what it and Gould say. I will take your
ignorance into account the next time you decide to lecture me on
something that you are proudly ignorant of.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> --
>On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:14:12 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>> We don't call the theory of Evolution "Darwinism" for
>> the same reason that we don't call physics
>> "Newtonism".
>
>We do however, call Newtonian physics Newtonian physics.
>Most non political mainstream biologists such as Dawkins
>call themselves Darwinists - indeed if someone
>pussyfoots around evading the use of the terms "Darwin",
>"Darwinian", "Darwinist", "Darwinism", and so forth, you
>immediately know his politics.
>
>There is, of course, a post newtonian physics - quantum
>physics and relativistic physics, also called
>Einsteinian physics - but there is no post Darwinian
>biology.
Are you lying or proudly ignorant or both?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:16:28 +1000, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
>wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>> --
>>On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:14:12 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>>> We don't call the theory of Evolution "Darwinism" for
>>> the same reason that we don't call physics
>>> "Newtonism".
>>
>>We do however, call Newtonian physics Newtonian physics.
>>Most non political mainstream biologists such as Dawkins
>>call themselves Darwinists - indeed if someone
>>pussyfoots around evading the use of the terms "Darwin",
>>"Darwinian", "Darwinist", "Darwinism", and so forth, you
>>immediately know his politics.
>>
>>There is, of course, a post newtonian physics - quantum
>>physics and relativistic physics, also called
>>Einsteinian physics - but there is no post Darwinian
>>biology.
>
>Are you lying or proudly ignorant or both?
Both. And he's not just lying - he's proud of it because he's lying in
the service of his religion.
--
Free Lunch
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:31:27 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:16:28 +1000, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
>>wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>> --
>>>On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:14:12 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>>>> We don't call the theory of Evolution "Darwinism" for
>>>> the same reason that we don't call physics
>>>> "Newtonism".
>>>
>>>We do however, call Newtonian physics Newtonian physics.
>>>Most non political mainstream biologists such as Dawkins
>>>call themselves Darwinists - indeed if someone
>>>pussyfoots around evading the use of the terms "Darwin",
>>>"Darwinian", "Darwinist", "Darwinism", and so forth, you
>>>immediately know his politics.
>>>
>>>There is, of course, a post newtonian physics - quantum
>>>physics and relativistic physics, also called
>>>Einsteinian physics - but there is no post Darwinian
>>>biology.
>>
>>Are you lying or proudly ignorant or both?
>
>Both. And he's not just lying - he's proud of it because he's lying in
>the service of his religion.
How sad. Too bad that he worships a god that is so weak and pointless
that he has to tell lies to defend that god.
Timothy 1:4a
leaning atheist; James sounds to me like a right-leaning libertarian
atheist, am I wrong?
Gene
$.1hxigwsf...@40tude.net:
>> Or like we don't say "Galois theory" but "field automorphism theory".
>
> We don't say "Galoisism", however.
True, but you do see "Galoisian" and see "Galois" treated as an adjective.
PV
>Only if we paved it and filled it with supermarkets.
>I just meant not 5 out of any given 100 are physically fit enough.
Let me guess - you know exactly who one of the five is.
Homo Sapiens isn't well suited to an environment that they haven't
primarily lived in for ten thousand years. This is supposed to be
insightful? *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>have a materialist world view and a politically correct
>world view.
A) Darwin himself *loathed* and condemned anyone attempting to apply the
principles of natural selection to politics.
B) "Politically correct" is a meaningless noise. *
PV
>don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
>the willies - they prefer "evolution", leaving out the
>brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
Hey stupid - people don't use the term "Darwinism" because science isn't
religion. Evolution is not a cult of personality.
Please be less stupid. *
PV
>there are arguments over just how important, but it is not the only
>agent of evolution, as Darwin himself pointed out when he discussed
>sexual selection.
Yup. Sexual Selection, in the context of mates being chosen for traits that
outside of sex made the organism less viable, drove Darwin freaking nuts -
he could just not wrap his head around animals like Peacocks, and it's one
of many reasons why he took so much time before publishing. *
Bill Snyder
(to the Duck):
>Please be less stupid. *
Are you sure you know whom you're addressing?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
PV
>> Or like we don't say "Galois theory" but "field automorphism theory".
>
>We don't say "Galoisism", however.
Thank goodness, or mathematicians would have to wear spit shields to
conferences. *
P.S. Actually, I have no idea how up-to-date a topic of professional
discussion automporphism is - the wikipedia article made a vein
in my head burst. But hey, joke.
William December Starr
pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) said:
> "Timothy 1:4a" <canfa...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Only if we paved it and filled it with supermarkets. I just
>> meant not 5 out of any given 100 are physically fit enough.
>
> Let me guess - you know exactly who one of the five is.
>
> Homo Sapiens isn't well suited to an environment that they haven't
> primarily lived in for ten thousand years. This is supposed to be
> insightful? *
"Overall, my genes are adapted to a short life on the savannah--
I prefer a longer life in my apartment."
-- Michael S. Schiffer, in rec.arts.sf.tv, 2002
-- wds
William December Starr
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> said:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> William Hyde:
>>
>>> We don't call the theory of Evolution "Darwinism" for the same
>>> reason that we don't call physics "Newtonism".
>>
>> We do however, call Newtonian physics Newtonian physics. Most
>> non political mainstream biologists such as Dawkins call
>> themselves Darwinists - indeed if someone pussyfoots around
>> evading the use of the terms "Darwin", "Darwinian", "Darwinist",
>> "Darwinism", and so forth, you immediately know his politics.
>>
>> There is, of course, a post newtonian physics - quantum physics
>> and relativistic physics, also called Einsteinian physics - but
>> there is no post Darwinian biology.
>
> Are you lying or proudly ignorant or both?
This is The Duck -- "both" is a good bet.
-- wds
Timothy 1:4a
> "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Only if we paved it and filled it with supermarkets.
> >I just meant not 5 out of any given 100 are physically fit enough.
>
> Let me guess - you know exactly who one of the five is.
Not me, that's for sure. I'm not in the top 50.
> Homo Sapiens isn't well suited to an environment that they haven't
> primarily lived in for ten thousand years. This is supposed to be
> insightful? *
It doesn't take much insight, but not many people take the
implications. As a species we have more genetic weaknesses every
generation, and our only 2 opportunities to turn things around are
science or disasters.
It's nothing new. Whenever a species has an easy ride and its
population is increasing, natural selection slows or stops. The only
new thing is the chance to prevent the crash.
James A. Donald
> >> > Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that liberals
> >> > don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
> >> > the willies - they prefer "evolution", leaving out the
> >> > brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
> >> > some are better than others implied by "of the fittest".
Free Lunch:
> You really don't understand this bit at all. People who object to the
> way that anti-science folks use the word Darwinism do so because of the
> way they use it.
My first hit for a liberal protesting the use of the word Darwinism is
the New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html>
Which complains about "scientists and science writers" using the word
Darwinism, not anti science people.
> Scientists do not use names the way the anti-science
> folks want to use them.
Correct, though not in the meaning you intended: Scientists and
science writers, Dawkins being both, use the words "Darwinist",
"Darwinism", "Darwinian", and so on and so forth, which gives anti
science people, such as the politically correct, the horrors, which
was of course the point of the essay.
James A. Donald
> > "Einsteinism", but "relativity", and the same way
> > that mathematicians don't say
> "Cantorianism",
> > but say "set theory".
>
> Or like we don't say "Galois theory" but "field
> automorphism theory".
We do however say "Copernican astronomy", compernicanism,
Galilean transformation, Newtonian physics, Einsteinian
physics, Galilean kinematics, and so on and so forth.
When we work within Newton's paradigm, we use his name.
In biology everyone works in Darwin's paradigm, except
for a handful of howling nutcases such as Gould, so they
use Darwin's name.
As "Blogging the Origin" tells us
<http://scienceblogs.com/bloggingtheorigin/>
The Origin is biology's hub -- all the routes
that the science has taken since seem to pass
through it. This, I think, is partly because
Darwin had such a complete vision of the living
world, and partly because his ignorance of some
areas was so great that he had to hedge his
bets, and mention everything in just in case.
<http://scienceblogs.com/bloggingtheorigin/2009/01/post.php>
Ecologists in particular will see their
scientific life flash before their eyes. As I
read, I scribbled the contemporary jargon for
the concepts that Darwin raises in the margin.
Here's that list (if you don't know what they
all are, don't worry; the point is that there
are A Lot):
intraspecific competition, population biology,
invasive species, r & K selection, diversity
gradients, top-down vs bottom-up population
control, niches, abiotic vs biotic population
control, epidemiology, density dependence,
parasitology, predator satiation, minimum viable
population size, succession, food webs,
pollination ecology, coevolution, interspecific
competition, competitive exclusion, convergent
evolution.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
James A. Donald
> > Both. And he's not just lying - he's proud of it
> > because he's lying in the service of his religion.
Free Lunch
> How sad. Too bad that he worships a god that is so
> weak and pointless that he has to tell lies to defend
> that god.
I am an atheist, with lots of atheist posts. You guys
assume that anyone who contradicts your favored religion
must be an advocate of some other religion, hence most
likely a Christian: not so, anyone who has some faint
contact with reality is apt to contradict your religion.
Gene
news:vnn3q4t6bqrm4skkd...@4ax.com:
>> Or like we don't say "Galois theory" but "field
>> automorphism theory".
>
> We do however say "Copernican astronomy", compernicanism,
> Galilean transformation, Newtonian physics, Einsteinian
* physics, Galilean kinematics, and so on and so forth.
Irony deficiency anemia.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>James A. Donald
>> >> > Nonetheless, the essay's point is correct - that liberals
>> >> > don't like Darwinism - indeed the very word gives them
>> >> > the willies - they prefer "evolution", leaving out the
>> >> > brutality implied by "survival", and implication that
>> >> > some are better than others implied by "of the fittest".
>
>Free Lunch:
>> You really don't understand this bit at all. People who object to the
>> way that anti-science folks use the word Darwinism do so because of the
>> way they use it.
>
>My first hit for a liberal protesting the use of the word Darwinism is
>the New York Times
><http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html>
>
>Which complains about "scientists and science writers" using the word
>Darwinism, not anti science people.
>
I see that you cheerfully and mendaciously ignored the reason that this
person complained.
>
>> Scientists do not use names the way the anti-science
>> folks want to use them.
>
>Correct, though not in the meaning you intended: Scientists and
>science writers, Dawkins being both, use the words "Darwinist",
>"Darwinism", "Darwinian", and so on and so forth, which gives anti
>science people, such as the politically correct, the horrors, which
>was of course the point of the essay.
You really have chosen to be stupid.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>Christopher A. Lee
>> > Both. And he's not just lying - he's proud of it
>> > because he's lying in the service of his religion.
>
>Free Lunch
>> How sad. Too bad that he worships a god that is so
>> weak and pointless that he has to tell lies to defend
>> that god.
>
>I am an atheist, with lots of atheist posts.
If you don't want to be confused with the unthinking, knee-jerk,
anti-science theists, don't acf like one.
>You guys
>assume that anyone who contradicts your favored religion
>must be an advocate of some other religion, hence most
>likely a Christian: not so, anyone who has some faint
>contact with reality is apt to contradict your religion.
I don't have a religion.
Free Lunch
Starr) wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
At least some people understand nature.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:38:23 +1000, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
If he were the atheist he lied about being he would know that.
Gene
news:8ps3q49ledb5e8a7c...@4ax.com:
>>I don't have a religion.
>
> If he were the atheist he lied about being he would know that.
Using his special atheist mind powers?
James A. Donald
> A) Darwin himself *loathed* and condemned anyone attempting to apply the
> principles of natural selection to politics.
I, and the person who wrote the article, have actually read Darwin.
You, transparently, have not.
Darwin was entirely aware that Darwinism had disturbing political
implications - which he regarded as a distraction from the important
stuff, the important stuff being biology.
Gene
> Darwin was entirely aware that Darwinism had disturbing political
> implications - which he regarded as a distraction from the important
* stuff, the important stuff being biology.
Cite?
Jim Lovejoy
news:4413q45crghsftpl8...@4ax.com:
As near as I can tell, the god he worships is 'neo-conservatism' or
something like it. And you are correct, his god is weak and pointless and
he has to tell lies to defend that god.
Oops, from looking some of his other posts, it's clear that he's a
polytheist. He also believes that he's never wrong.
PV
>> primarily lived in for ten thousand years. This is supposed to be
>> insightful? *
>
>It doesn't take much insight, but not many people take the
>implications. As a species we have more genetic weaknesses every
*whoosh* *
PV
>> A) Darwin himself *loathed* and condemned anyone attempting to apply the
>> principles of natural selection to politics.
>
>I, and the person who wrote the article, have actually read Darwin.
>
>You, transparently, have not.
Bullshit. If you read even the cliff's notes version, I'll eat my own face.
You don't understand a bit of it.
>Darwin was entirely aware that Darwinism had disturbing political
>implications - which he regarded as a distraction from the important
>stuff, the important stuff being biology.
And you would be very, very wrong. *
PV
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:59:11 -0600, pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote
>(to the Duck):
>
>>Please be less stupid. *
>
>Are you sure you know whom you're addressing?
Point taken. I apologize for letting Donald's faux-intellectual horseshit
get the better of me again. *
PV
>the New York Times
><http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html>
Because an article from 2009 clearly has set the agenda for all time.
The article is actually 100% correct - Evolution is more than Darwin. Of
course, working scientists in the field know this.
The *only* people who refer to evolution as "Darwinism" and mean it are
cdesign proponentists. There is no other time this term is used. *
Christopher A. Lee
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>>My first hit for a liberal protesting the use of the word Darwinism is
>>the New York Times
>><http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html>
>
>Because an article from 2009 clearly has set the agenda for all time.
>
>The article is actually 100% correct - Evolution is more than Darwin. Of
>course, working scientists in the field know this.
As does everybody except religious lunatics in serious denial about
reality.
Doonesbury sums it up:
http://galtroarc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1218doonesbury_lg.gif
>The *only* people who refer to evolution as "Darwinism" and mean it are
>cdesign proponentists. There is no other time this term is used. *
The Liars For God who pretend that it is an ideology in competition
with theirs.
Christopher A. Lee
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>>On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:57:10 -0600, pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>>> A) Darwin himself *loathed* and condemned anyone attempting to apply the
>>> principles of natural selection to politics.
>>
>>I, and the person who wrote the article, have actually read Darwin.
>>
>>You, transparently, have not.
>
>Bullshit. If you read even the cliff's notes version, I'll eat my own face.
>You don't understand a bit of it.
He's a serial liar, too stupid to grasp that people might actually
know something about what he bullshits about.
>>Darwin was entirely aware that Darwinism had disturbing political
>>implications - which he regarded as a distraction from the important
>>stuff, the important stuff being biology.
Anybody who uses the term "Darwinism" instead of evolution is being
deliberately dishonest.
Both lying through their teeth and showing they have no interest in
discussion because they refuse to use the correct words..
>And you would be very, very wrong. *
Darwin wasn't a biologist but an amateur naturalist (somebody who
studied wild plants, insects, birds, animals etc) and geologist. He
only studied for the ministry because he felt that a job as a country
parson would give him time for this.
Evolution was already known by people with these interests, as well as
in scientific circles.
He simply came up with the first scientifically derived explanation
for it.
Which James knows. All he can do is bullshit and lie to people who
know far more about it than he does.
James A. Donald
> Anybody who uses the term "Darwinism" instead of
> evolution is being deliberately dishonest.
Dawkins is being deliberately dishonest?
I am unsurprised that none of you lot have read Darwin.
I am a little surpised that you have not read Dawkins.
"Darwinism", "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" is the language
that non political biologists use, for example Dawkins.
Heard of him? Probably not.
If someone does not like that language, for as example
Gould does not like that language, he dislikes it for
political reasons - he dislikes the political and moral
implications of Darwinism - hence Gould's dislike of
speciation driven by differential selection rather than
physical separation.
James A. Donald
> "Darwinism" and mean it are cdesign proponentists.
> There is no other time this term is used. *
Dawkins, the great opponent of intelligent design, calls
himself a Darwinist and uses the words Darwinism and
Darwinian regularly: For example:
<http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm>
"As a Darwinian, the aspect of religion that
catches my attention is its profligate
wastefulness, its extravagant display of baroque
uselessness. "
Most non political biologists use the word regularly and
routinely. Those who reject Darwinism, reject it for
political and religious reasons, and reject not only the
word, but also the theory because of its disturbing
political and moral implications - thus, for example,
Gould rejects speciation through differential selection,
James A. Donald
> > You guys assume that anyone who contradicts your
> > favored religion must be an advocate of some other
> > religion, hence most likely a Christian: not so,
> > anyone who has some faint contact with reality is
> > apt to contradict your religion.
Free Lunch
> I don't have a religion.
You believe in socialism, a belief system that serves
the functions of religion.
You believe that Jews have a special pipeline from god,
implying that you believe in Judaism - Judaism as a
religion, not necessarily Jews as a people - indeed,
like most socialists, you seem pretty allergic to Jews
as a people.
James A. Donald
> Hey stupid - people don't use the term "Darwinism" because science isn't
> religion.
Biologists use the word "Darwinism", and use it a great deal. Rather,
the people who don't like it being used have a religion, and the moral
and political implications of Darwinism disturb them.
James A. Donald
> > I don't have a religion.
Christopher A. Lee
> If he were the atheist he lied about being he would
> know that.
Look up Free Lunch's posts on cheese and meat - it is
manifest he believes that Judaism has a special pipeline
from God - therefore he is not an atheist, but a
believer in Judaism - he opposes not religion, but
Christianity.
I, on the other hand, oppose religion, which is why you
lot get so enraged.
James A. Donald
> At least one of us is confused about what James said.
> I'm a left- leaning atheist; James sounds to me like a
> right-leaning libertarian atheist, am I wrong?
Glad to see that someone is actually reading my posts
instead of waiting for the voices in their head to
explain what I really said.
I find this is a fairly reliable indication of who is
actually an atheist, as distinct from those who claim to
be atheist, but are actually attacking a religion that
differs from their own because they are Jewish, or
Islamic, or communist, or Gaia worshippers, or Wiccan,
or some such. You can tell the non believers because
they don't confuse the voices in their head with
external reality.
James A. Donald
> >there are arguments over just how important, but it is not the only
> >agent of evolution, as Darwin himself pointed out when he discussed
> >sexual selection.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:04:27 -0600, pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
> Yup. Sexual Selection, in the context of mates being chosen for traits that
> outside of sex made the organism less viable, drove Darwin freaking nuts
You are both ludicrously ignorant. Darwin's book the "descent of man"
is largely about sexual selection, not the descent of man, and all
modern work on sexual selection rests on it, except to the
(considerable) extent that it rests on mendelian genetics.
Mike Schilling
>
> "Darwinism", "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" is the language
> that non political biologists use, for example Dawkins.
> Heard of him? Probably not.
Dawkins, non-political? Sure he is.
Bill Snyder
Viewpoint is everything. IMO you can make a damn' good case that
he's every bit as non-political as the Duck.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
William Hyde
> William Hyde <wthyde1...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > >there are arguments over just how important, but it is not the only
> > >agent of evolution, as Darwin himself pointed out when he discussed
> > >sexual selection.
> > Yup. Sexual Selection, in the context of mates being chosen for traits that
> > outside of sex made the organism less viable, drove Darwin freaking nuts
>
> You are both ludicrously ignorant.
Such an assertion is a badge of honour, coming from you.
> Darwin's book the "descent of man" is largely about sexual selection,
Are you suffering from the delusion that I claimed otherwise? Did I
not point out that Darwin discussed sexual selection? It's quoted
above, see?
In fact he says, in "The Descent of Man"
"Sexual selection acts in a less rigorous manner than natural
selection".
He makes a similar contrast in "origin", though he doesn't spend much
time on sexual selection in that book.
But he is clearly treating natural and sexual selection as different
processes, which was my point, above.
William Hyde
PV
>is largely about sexual selection, not the descent of man, and all
>modern work on sexual selection rests on it, except to the
>(considerable) extent that it rests on mendelian genetics.
So what? It's the founding book in the field. That doesn't make it the
entire field, and of course it isn't.
You are either a liar or a fool, which one is it? *
PV
>But he is clearly treating natural and sexual selection as different
>processes, which was my point, above.
Of course, and I was seconding it by pointing out that he spent a large
part of his late life reconciling the two, hence "Descent of Man".
Donald hasn't read these books past jacket blurbs. *
PV
You lie. Period. *
James A. Donald
> > "Darwinism", "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" is the
> > language that non political biologists use, for
> > example Dawkins. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Mike Schilling"
> Dawkins, non-political? Sure he is.
He uses Darwinxxx words a lot. Do you think he secretly
a right wing Christian fundamentalist?
All of Dawkin's books are about evolution, some of his
essays are against religion - non of them are primarily
political, whereas everything Gould writes, even
articles ostensibly about evolution appearing in
refereed journals, was primarily political. In this
sense, Dawkins is non political.
He is obviously uncomfortable with the political and
moral implications of Darwinism, and says so often
enough, and in this sense is political, but not enough
to write on it endlessly, not enough to go on Jihad to
excise Darwin's name.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Viewpoint is everything. IMO you can make a damn' good case that
> he's every bit as non-political as the Duck.
Dawkins is left, and never writes about politics. I am libertarian,
some people reasonably say "right libertarian", and like Gould, even
when writing on non political topics, what I say is based on political
view. But to those to left of Mao, everyone who disagrees with them
looks the same.
Bill Snyder
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:07:34 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>wrote:
>> Viewpoint is everything. IMO you can make a damn' good case that
>> he's every bit as non-political as the Duck.
>
>Dawkins is left, and never writes about politics. I am libertarian,
>some people reasonably say "right libertarian", and like Gould, even
>when writing on non political topics, what I say is based on political
>view. But to those to left of Mao, everyone who disagrees with them
>looks the same.
And of course, everyone who laughs at you or points out your lies
is to the left of Mao, and all those ChiComs look alike.
Mike Schilling
> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> "Darwinism", "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" is the
>>> language that non political biologists use, for
>>> example Dawkins. Heard of him? Probably not.
>
> "Mike Schilling"
>> Dawkins, non-political? Sure he is.
>
> He uses Darwinxxx words a lot. Do you think he secretly
> a right wing Christian fundamentalist?
That's a huge non-sequitur, even for you. But what I really want to know is
that Dawkins's dog has to say.
Mike Schilling
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:07:34 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
> wrote:
>> Viewpoint is everything. IMO you can make a damn' good case that
>> he's every bit as non-political as the Duck.
>
> Dawkins is left, and never writes about politics. I am libertarian,
> some people reasonably say "right libertarian", and like Gould, even
> when writing on non political topics, what I say is based on political
> view. But to those to left of Mao, everyone who disagrees with them
> looks the same.
Yeah, Bill, you commie homo-loving son of a gun.
Bill Snyder
I'm also "Muslim-fearing," "anti-Darwinian," "academic," and
"politically correct," and probably a bunch of others. Oh, and a
charter member of You Lot, Inc.
PV
You're talking about *Richard* Dawkins, not bloody Martin Dawkins from
Croydon, right? *
Michael Stemper
>James A. Donald wrote:
>> "Mike Schilling"
>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>> "Darwinism", "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" is the
>>>> language that non political biologists use, for
>>>> example Dawkins. Heard of him? Probably not.
>>
>>> Dawkins, non-political? Sure he is.
>>
>> He uses Darwinxxx words a lot. Do you think he secretly
>> a right wing Christian fundamentalist?
>
>That's a huge non-sequitur, even for you. But what I really want to know is
>that Dawkins's dog has to say.
"Mine!"
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Have you demonized Chagnon *lately*?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>Free Lunch
>> > I don't have a religion.
>
>Christopher A. Lee
>> If he were the atheist he lied about being he would
>> know that.
>
>Look up Free Lunch's posts on cheese and meat - it is
>manifest he believes that Judaism has a special pipeline
>from God - therefore he is not an atheist, but a
>believer in Judaism - he opposes not religion, but
>Christianity.
>
>I, on the other hand, oppose religion, which is why you
>lot get so enraged.
You need to learn how to understand what you are reading.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>James A. Donald:
>> > You guys assume that anyone who contradicts your
>> > favored religion must be an advocate of some other
>> > religion, hence most likely a Christian: not so,
>> > anyone who has some faint contact with reality is
>> > apt to contradict your religion.
>
>Free Lunch
>> I don't have a religion.
>
>You believe in socialism, a belief system that serves
>the functions of religion.
No
>You believe that Jews have a special pipeline from god,
>implying that you believe in Judaism - Judaism as a
>religion, not necessarily Jews as a people - indeed,
>like most socialists, you seem pretty allergic to Jews
>as a people.
No.
Do you ever bother to understand what you read?
James A. Donald
> >> Viewpoint is everything. IMO you can make a damn' good case that
> >> he's every bit as non-political as the Duck.
James A. Donald:
> > Dawkins is left, and never writes about politics. I am libertarian,
Bill Snyder
> And of course, everyone who laughs at you or points out your lies
> is to the left of Mao, and all those ChiComs look alike.
If I and Dawkins look the same to you, or similar, you are pretty far
out in la la land.
James A. Donald
> I'm also "Muslim-fearing," "anti-Darwinian,"
> "academic," and "politically correct," and probably a
> bunch of others. Oh, and a charter member of You Lot,
> Inc.
If you think that Dawkins and I are similar, you are
indeed a charter member of "you lot" - holding a
position so far out in the lunatic fringe, that to any
normal person it is indistinguishable to that of all the
other people out in the lunatic fringe.
I and Dawkins are at opposite ends of the mainstream.
If you are so far out of the mainstream that we blur
together, that is far indeed.
James A. Donald
> > > > "Darwinism", "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" is the
> > > > language that non political biologists use, for
> > > > example Dawkins. Heard of him? Probably not.
"Mike Schilling"
> >> Dawkins, non-political? Sure he is.
James A. Donald:
> > He uses Darwinxxx words a lot. Do you think he
> > secretly a right wing Christian fundamentalist?
"Mike Schilling"
> That's a huge non-sequitur, even for you.
So tell us what you imagine Dawkins political position
to be.
Bill Snyder
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Bill Snyder:
>> I'm also "Muslim-fearing," "anti-Darwinian,"
>> "academic," and "politically correct," and probably a
>> bunch of others. Oh, and a charter member of You Lot,
>> Inc.
>
>If you think that Dawkins and I are similar, you are
>indeed a charter member of "you lot" - holding a
>position so far out in the lunatic fringe, that to any
>normal person it is indistinguishable to that of all the
>other people out in the lunatic fringe.
It's interesting that you consider yourself competent to pronounce
on how things look to "any normal person." Have you had this
particular delusion long?
>I and Dawkins are at opposite ends of the mainstream.
>If you are so far out of the mainstream that we blur
>together, that is far indeed.
So if I say "Hitler and Stalin were both dictatorial," or "Billy
Graham and the Ayatollah are both religious," or "The Duck and
Dawkins are both political," I'm blurring together types at
opposite ends of the mainstream, and must therefore be far out in
the lunatic fringe. Got it.
And as long as I'm out here anyway, "The Duck and a shithouse rat
are both bywords for craziness."