eugenic and racial underbelly of noosphere and Omega Point?

[*Hemidactylus*]

A rabbit hole has led me to a disturbing revelation on some stuff Jesuit
paleontologist and visionary Teilhard thought regarding the practice of
eugenics and the alleged inequality of the races. Another rabbit hole
toward Julian Huxley as an afterthought below...

https://religiondispatches.org/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-legacy-of-eugenics-and-racism-cant-be-ignored/

Wow some of the quotes author John Slattery provides for stuff Teilhard had
written are news to me. I had not expected that.

One such quote: “From this there follows, as a first priority, a
fundamental concern to ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by
selection) an ever more advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on
the surface of the earth. At the same time, however, and even more
markedly, there must be an ever more intense effort directed towards
discovery and vision, animated by the hope of our gradually, as one man,
putting our hands on the deep-seated forces (physico-chemical, biological
and psychic) which provide the impetus of evolution….There is no future for
man, I repeat, without the neo-sense of the species.”

And: “What fundamental attitude…should the advancing wing of humanity take
to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? The earth is a closed
and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate, racially or
nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how should we
judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving what is so
often no more than one of life’s rejects?…To what extent should not the
development of the strong…take precedence over the preservation of the
weak?”

Slattery’s work is criticized by John Haught where he tries to distance
“stray citations” or “passages cherry-picked” from the basic gist of
Teilhard’s vision.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

To which Slattery responds:

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics

It is of interest that: “T.H. Huxley in his Romanes Lectures spoke
stridently against social selection...” but this article addresses
Teilhard’s buddy and Bulldog’s grandson Julian’s connection to eugenics:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366572/

Here’s a tidbit: “Huxley’s advocacy of “reform eugenics” meant a break with
an old guard of racist imperialists among eugenicists like Leonard Darwin
and Cora Hodson of the Bureau of Human Heredity.16 He ceased to speak of
racial deterioration during the 1930s.17 This is fundamental understanding
for Huxley’s position during the 1950s and 60s.”

Leonard Darwin?

And: “As co-author with the pioneer of science fiction, H.G. Wells and
Wells’ son of The Science of Life (1931), he popularised biology and
eugenics with the support of major newspapers.18 Their Science of Life
coincided with his brother Aldous’ futuristic Brave New World... Julian
Huxley’s brother, the novelist Aldous, as the author of the prescient novel
Brave New World (1931) portrayed both the possibilities of an ordered
rationalised society based on cloning, and its defects.”

Yeah that book. “Julian Huxley was untroubled by this post-Orwellian 1984
nightmare – instead he continued to proselytize for the opposite: the idea
of an evolutionary religion, based on objective science rather than
revelation.”

Oh: “Whereas his grandfather, T.H. Huxley, separated ethics from science,
grandson Julian saw ethics as part of the wider natural processes. This
monistic outlook set Huxley apart from conventional dualistic thinking on
the separation of the natural world from the moral and psychological.
Huxley defied any idea of the “two cultures” that C.P. Snow diagnosed as
characterising intellectual thought in twentieth-century Britain.”

Good grandpa!

“Huxley’s “humanism” meant evolution and eugenics, and culture was a
component part of the evolutionary process.” Ok I was once fond of
noogenetics as a precursor to memetics but humanism and eugenics linked!
Egads!

“Huxley’s humanism remained firmly founded in evolutionary theory.63 It was
at this juncture that Huxley coined the term “transhumanism”, a term that
he used only intermittently.”

Yeah transhumanism is a bit problematic especially post-Kurzweil.

Teilhard and Julian Huxley have quite a problematic connection to
futuristic thought.

[Martin Harran]

Your post title is a simple mirror image of those creationists who try
to take isolated quotes from Darwin that could be argued as racist and
claiming that the theory of evolution is therefore founded on racism.

I'm genuinely disappointed in you, Hemi, I thought you were so much
better than that.

[Öö Tiib]

It can be easily shown if only to wish that Bible is rather homophobic,
racist and chauvinist piece of art. It is full of places that are hard to
interpret otherwise than extreme bigotry of that kind. Not isolated
quotes but whole stories are such. Also people only few generations
ago had totally different views about such things (and have also
currently in some countries). Darwin was considering himself to be
orthodox Christian so he was like everybody else. To me (as to
atheist) it is explained by Bible being collection of Semitic folklore.
However creationist who considers Bible to be divine message should
deal with that puzzle, not to be angry at or "disappointed in" others
who point it out.

[RonO]

On 1/22/2021 12:55 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> A rabbit hole has led me to a disturbing revelation on some stuff Jesuit
> paleontologist and visionary Teilhard thought regarding the practice of
> eugenics and the alleged inequality of the races. Another rabbit hole
> toward Julian Huxley as an afterthought below...
>
> https://religiondispatches.org/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-legacy-of-eugenics-and-racism-cant-be-ignored/
>
> Wow some of the quotes author John Slattery provides for stuff Teilhard had
> written are news to me. I had not expected that.
>
> One such quote: “From this there follows, as a first priority, a
> fundamental concern to ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by
> selection) an ever more advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on
> the surface of the earth. At the same time, however, and even more
> markedly, there must be an ever more intense effort directed towards
> discovery and vision, animated by the hope of our gradually, as one man,
> putting our hands on the deep-seated forces (physico-chemical, biological
> and psychic) which provide the impetus of evolution….There is no future for
> man, I repeat, without the neo-sense of the species.”

Over a decade ago the Methodist church apologized for supporting
Eugenics early in the 20th century. I had never heard about the issue
even though I had been a member of the church for around 30 years at
that time. When I looked into it I found out that it was the young
earth creationist Biblical literalist faction of the Methodist church
that had gotten it involved in the Eugenics movement. They convinced
the church leaders that it was something that they should support. The
YEC faction was against biological evolution, but they claimed that we
could maintain the human race by selection against bad genetics. It was
sold as better people through genetic selection. The expressed goals
likely hid the racist aspects that fueled the project, and the Methodist
church eventually decided to apologize for the effort long after they
had quit supporting it.

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

I did pose it in a questioning manner citing Slattery’s articles and
Haught’s rebuttal especially in how the latter tried to shift the quoted
views from the core of Teilhard’s thought. I also wound up focused more on
Huxley’s view wrt eugenics which are even more relevant to evolution theory
history given his stature in the Modern Synthesis. Teilhard was sorta
marginalized from mainstream thought in evolution and Catholic theology.

I do think it important to consider what Teilhard’s views on eugenics and
race may have been. I would have expected better approach to the topic from
you than disappointment and comparing it to what creationists do. I guess
contemplating Julian Huxley in a parallel manner wasn’t as big a deal? Or
was that what creationists do? Darwin’s Bulldog comes out looking OK.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 11:32:24 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 12:55:01 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> A rabbit hole has led me to a disturbing revelation on some stuff Jesuit
>>> paleontologist and visionary Teilhard thought regarding the practice of
>>> eugenics and the alleged inequality of the races. Another rabbit hole
>>> toward Julian Huxley as an afterthought below...
>>>
>>> https://religiondispatches.org/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-legacy-of-eugenics-and-racism-cant-be-ignored/
>>>
>>> Wow some of the quotes author John Slattery provides for stuff Teilhard had
>>> written are news to me. I had not expected that.
>>>

>>> One such quote: ?From this there follows, as a first priority, a

>>> fundamental concern to ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by
>>> selection) an ever more advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on
>>> the surface of the earth. At the same time, however, and even more
>>> markedly, there must be an ever more intense effort directed towards
>>> discovery and vision, animated by the hope of our gradually, as one man,
>>> putting our hands on the deep-seated forces (physico-chemical, biological

>>> and psychic) which provide the impetus of evolution?.There is no future for
>>> man, I repeat, without the neo-sense of the species.?
>>>
>>> And: ?What fundamental attitude?should the advancing wing of humanity take

>>> to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? The earth is a closed
>>> and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate, racially or
>>> nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how should we
>>> judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving what is so

>>> often no more than one of life?s rejects??To what extent should not the
>>> development of the strong?take precedence over the preservation of the
>>> weak??
>>>
>>> Slattery?s work is criticized by John Haught where he tries to distance
>>> ?stray citations? or ?passages cherry-picked? from the basic gist of
>>> Teilhard?s vision.

>>>
>>> https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard
>>>
>>> To which Slattery responds:
>>>
>>> https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
>>>

>>> It is of interest that: ?T.H. Huxley in his Romanes Lectures spoke
>>> stridently against social selection...? but this article addresses
>>> Teilhard?s buddy and Bulldog?s grandson Julian?s connection to eugenics:
>>>
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366572/
>>>
>>> Here?s a tidbit: ?Huxley?s advocacy of ?reform eugenics? meant a break with

>>> an old guard of racist imperialists among eugenicists like Leonard Darwin
>>> and Cora Hodson of the Bureau of Human Heredity.16 He ceased to speak of
>>> racial deterioration during the 1930s.17 This is fundamental understanding

>>> for Huxley?s position during the 1950s and 60s.?
>>>
>>> Leonard Darwin?
>>>
>>> And: ?As co-author with the pioneer of science fiction, H.G. Wells and
>>> Wells? son of The Science of Life (1931), he popularised biology and

>>> eugenics with the support of major newspapers.18 Their Science of Life

>>> coincided with his brother Aldous? futuristic Brave New World... Julian
>>> Huxley?s brother, the novelist Aldous, as the author of the prescient novel

>>> Brave New World (1931) portrayed both the possibilities of an ordered

>>> rationalised society based on cloning, and its defects.?
>>>
>>> Yeah that book. ?Julian Huxley was untroubled by this post-Orwellian 1984
>>> nightmare ? instead he continued to proselytize for the opposite: the idea

>>> of an evolutionary religion, based on objective science rather than

>>> revelation.?
>>>
>>> Oh: ?Whereas his grandfather, T.H. Huxley, separated ethics from science,

>>> grandson Julian saw ethics as part of the wider natural processes. This
>>> monistic outlook set Huxley apart from conventional dualistic thinking on
>>> the separation of the natural world from the moral and psychological.

>>> Huxley defied any idea of the ?two cultures? that C.P. Snow diagnosed as
>>> characterising intellectual thought in twentieth-century Britain.?
>>>
>>> Good grandpa!
>>>
>>> ?Huxley?s ?humanism? meant evolution and eugenics, and culture was a
>>> component part of the evolutionary process.? Ok I was once fond of

>>> noogenetics as a precursor to memetics but humanism and eugenics linked!
>>> Egads!
>>>

>>> ?Huxley?s humanism remained firmly founded in evolutionary theory.63 It was
>>> at this juncture that Huxley coined the term ?transhumanism?, a term that
>>> he used only intermittently.?

>>>
>>> Yeah transhumanism is a bit problematic especially post-Kurzweil.
>>>
>>> Teilhard and Julian Huxley have quite a problematic connection to
>>> futuristic thought.
>>
>> Your post title is a simple mirror image of those creationists who try
>> to take isolated quotes from Darwin that could be argued as racist and
>> claiming that the theory of evolution is therefore founded on racism.
>>
>> I'm genuinely disappointed in you, Hemi, I thought you were so much
>> better than that.
>>
>>
>I did pose it in a questioning manner

Ah, you are applying the Dale school of logic where your reckon that
adding a question mark to an inane statement somehow removes the
inanity. Well, I'm sorry, it doesn't. If you are going to portray
eugenics and racism as the "underbelly of noosphere and Omega Point,
then ou need to produce something that actually supports your claim.

>citing Slattery's articles and
>Haught's rebuttal

Slattery's article is about what he sees a specific aspects of
Teilhard de Chardin's personal views - he makes no claim whatsoever
about noosphere and Omega Point have a eugenic or racial underbelly -
that is simply your made up bullshit.

>especially in how the latter tried to shift the quoted
>views from the core of Teilhard's thought. I also wound up focused more on
>Huxley's view wrt eugenics which are even more relevant to evolution theory
>history given his stature in the Modern Synthesis. Teilhard was sorta
>marginalized from mainstream thought in evolution and Catholic theology.
>
>I do think it important to consider what Teilhard's views on eugenics and
>race may have been.

That's where we clearly differ; when I consider the value of new ideas
and explanations, I consider them on their own merits, the strengths
and weaknesses of the arguments for and against; any possible personal
failings of the people putting forward the ideas are irrelevant to my
conclusions unless there is a clear link between those failures and
the ideas they are producing. That applies whether it is Teilhard de
Chardin, Charles Darwin or Julian Huxley.

>I would have expected better approach to the topic from
>you than disappointment and comparing it to what creationists do.

Well, we all have our own flashpoints and I've made no secret here of
my total intolerance for people who hypocritically adopt the same
tactics for which they disparage their opponents.

>I guess
>contemplating Julian Huxley in a parallel manner wasn't as big a deal? Or
>was that what creationists do? Darwin's Bulldog comes out looking OK.

Sorry, but trying to create the illusion of some double standard in my
views does not take away from your own performance in that regard. As
I said, it doesn't matter to me whether it is Teilhard de Chardin,
Darwin or Huxley - in sporting parlance, I believe in "playing the
ball, not the man." Clearly, your mileage varies.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Um the cited article???? Jeez. The notion that Teilhard had eugenic views
set off a dissonant aporia in my mind. I guess you might be reducing
dissonance by attacking the messenger and setting up barriers against the
message. I instead found Slattery’s article and Haught’s rebuttal. You’re
not exactly being helpful by making this an interpersonal thing based
perhaps on an intrapersonal thing.

>
>> citing Slattery's articles and
>> Haught's rebuttal
>
> Slattery's article is about what he sees a specific aspects of
> Teilhard de Chardin's personal views - he makes no claim whatsoever
> about noosphere and Omega Point have a eugenic or racial underbelly -
> that is simply your made up bullshit.
>

Really?

Here’s Slattery:
https://religiondispatches.org/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-legacy-of-eugenics-and-racism-cant-be-ignored/

“Two years later in 1936, he clarifies that his Omega Point—the divine
unification of the whole universe—specifically rests upon the inequality of
races:


Slattery quoting Teilhard:
“The philosophical or ‘supernatural’ unity of human nature has nothing to
do with the equality of races in what concerns their physical capacities to
contribute to the building of the world.…As not all ethnic groups have the
same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean they must be
despised—quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the same time there
should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of the earth
over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races. Now the second point
is currently reviled by Communism…and the Church, and the first point is
similarly reviled by the Fascist systems (and, of course, by less gifted
peoples!).”

So I somehow got into Slattery’s head and had him make the connection
between Omega Point telos and racial inequality based on a quote by
Teilhard?

And: “in a 1949 essay entitled “The Sense of the Species of Man,” Teilhard
closely ties his conception of the Noosphere to a deliberate “neo-sense” of
the species that necessitates forced biological advancement.”

How can you read those words by Slattery and call it my made up bullshit?

And his provided image of “Teilhard’s Perspective” didn’t frame the
article?:

https://religiondispatches.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/teilhardfinal.jpg

I think you are arguing from blinding preconceptions. I was merely
expressing surprise as I had not expected this sort of possibility from
Teilhard. I do leave it open that Haught was able to pull these quotes of
Teilhard away from the core of his views.

And I presume eugenic engineering or racial disparity are not necessary for
some theistic goal driven Omega point process to take place.

>
>> especially in how the latter tried to shift the quoted
>> views from the core of Teilhard's thought. I also wound up focused more on
>> Huxley's view wrt eugenics which are even more relevant to evolution theory
>> history given his stature in the Modern Synthesis. Teilhard was sorta
>> marginalized from mainstream thought in evolution and Catholic theology.
>>
>> I do think it important to consider what Teilhard's views on eugenics and
>> race may have been.
>
> That's where we clearly differ; when I consider the value of new ideas
> and explanations, I consider them on their own merits, the strengths
> and weaknesses of the arguments for and against; any possible personal
> failings of the people putting forward the ideas are irrelevant to my
> conclusions unless there is a clear link between those failures and
> the ideas they are producing. That applies whether it is Teilhard de
> Chardin, Charles Darwin or Julian Huxley.
>

So actual history or relevant biographical points are unimportant then? I
consider myself progressive and technocratic politically, but I’m not about
to twist myself in a pretzel to disown the nasty eugenic connections to
early 20th century progressivism. It was there. Maybe it came with the
territory at the time. Teilhard and Huxley would be more symptom than
cause.

>
> >I would have expected better approach to the topic from
>> you than disappointment and comparing it to what creationists do.
>
> Well, we all have our own flashpoints and I've made no secret here of
> my total intolerance for people who hypocritically adopt the same
> tactics for which they disparage their opponents.
>

Openminded reflection on flaws of heroes? I feel similarly toward New
Atheists for different reasons.

>
>> I guess
>> contemplating Julian Huxley in a parallel manner wasn't as big a deal? Or
>> was that what creationists do? Darwin's Bulldog comes out looking OK.
>
> Sorry, but trying to create the illusion of some double standard in my
> views does not take away from your own performance in that regard. As
> I said, it doesn't matter to me whether it is Teilhard de Chardin,
> Darwin or Huxley - in sporting parlance, I believe in "playing the
> ball, not the man." Clearly, your mileage varies.
>

Well my rabbit hole started with:

https://julesevans.medium.com/conspirituality-the-overlap-between-the-new-age-and-conspiracy-beliefs-c0305eb92185

“Scientific authority can be awfully, horribly wrong sometimes — many
ecstatic globalists in the 20th century really did support eugenics (
including HG Wells, Annie Besant, Julian Huxley, Alexis Carrel and Teillard
de Chardin). They thought the world should be run by an elite of
spiritually enlightened scientists who would decide who was enlightened and
who was ‘unfit’ and therefore deserved to be sterilized, locked up, or
exterminated.”

Seeing Teilhard on that list prompted me to follow up.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:03:38 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

Well, as I said, I have no interest in what people did or did not
think about eugenics, I'm only interested in how well their scientific
ideas stand up to scrutiny. As has been pointed out here multiple
times, even if Darwin held racist views, even if such views influenced
his conclusions (which I don't think or one minute they did), none of
that affects the accuracy or relibility of his conclusions - they
stand or fall on their own merits. The same thing applies to the other
people on that list.


>
>
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Be that as it may we still have the matters of my alleged “made up
bullshit” and Slattery’s treatment of Teilhard’s quotes vis a vis his
corpus “consider them on their own merits, the strengths and weaknesses of
the arguments for and against”...

Are you backpedalling on your attack on me for perceived shattering of the
golden calf? And Teilhard’s views on noosphere and Omega were philosophical
and theological respectively at best. From what I recall the only science
he was involved in was in human paleontology.

IMO noosphere can be removed from its theistic context, where Omega
(Christogenic) cannot. Noosphere still has a noetic ring which more than
rhymes with poetic for a reason. Carried away it’s as if he was a prophet
of the web more so than Vannevar Bush.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 05:09:36 -0600, *Hemidactylus*

>>> message. I instead found Slattery?s article and Haught?s rebuttal. You?re

>>> not exactly being helpful by making this an interpersonal thing based
>>> perhaps on an intrapersonal thing.
>>>>
>>>>> citing Slattery's articles and
>>>>> Haught's rebuttal
>>>>
>>>> Slattery's article is about what he sees a specific aspects of
>>>> Teilhard de Chardin's personal views - he makes no claim whatsoever
>>>> about noosphere and Omega Point have a eugenic or racial underbelly -
>>>> that is simply your made up bullshit.
>>>>
>>> Really?
>>>

>>> Here?s Slattery:
>>> https://religiondispatches.org/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-legacy-of-eugenics-and-racism-cant-be-ignored/
>>>
>>> ?Two years later in 1936, he clarifies that his Omega Point?the divine
>>> unification of the whole universe?specifically rests upon the inequality of
>>> races:
>>>
>>>
>>> Slattery quoting Teilhard:
>>> ?The philosophical or ?supernatural? unity of human nature has nothing to

>>> do with the equality of races in what concerns their physical capacities to

>>> contribute to the building of the world.?As not all ethnic groups have the

>>> same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean they must be

>>> despised?quite the reverse?In other words, at one and the same time there

>>> should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of the earth
>>> over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races. Now the second point

>>> is currently reviled by Communism?and the Church, and the first point is

>>> similarly reviled by the Fascist systems (and, of course, by less gifted

>>> peoples!).?
>>>
>>> So I somehow got into Slattery?s head and had him make the connection

>>> between Omega Point telos and racial inequality based on a quote by
>>> Teilhard?
>>>

>>> And: ?in a 1949 essay entitled ?The Sense of the Species of Man,? Teilhard
>>> closely ties his conception of the Noosphere to a deliberate ?neo-sense? of
>>> the species that necessitates forced biological advancement.?

>>>
>>> How can you read those words by Slattery and call it my made up bullshit?
>>>

>>> And his provided image of ?Teilhard?s Perspective? didn?t frame the

>>> article?:
>>>
>>> https://religiondispatches.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/teilhardfinal.jpg
>>>
>>> I think you are arguing from blinding preconceptions. I was merely
>>> expressing surprise as I had not expected this sort of possibility from
>>> Teilhard. I do leave it open that Haught was able to pull these quotes of
>>> Teilhard away from the core of his views.
>>>
>>> And I presume eugenic engineering or racial disparity are not necessary for
>>> some theistic goal driven Omega point process to take place.
>>>>
>>>>> especially in how the latter tried to shift the quoted
>>>>> views from the core of Teilhard's thought. I also wound up focused more on
>>>>> Huxley's view wrt eugenics which are even more relevant to evolution theory
>>>>> history given his stature in the Modern Synthesis. Teilhard was sorta
>>>>> marginalized from mainstream thought in evolution and Catholic theology.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do think it important to consider what Teilhard's views on eugenics and
>>>>> race may have been.
>>>>
>>>> That's where we clearly differ; when I consider the value of new ideas
>>>> and explanations, I consider them on their own merits, the strengths
>>>> and weaknesses of the arguments for and against; any possible personal
>>>> failings of the people putting forward the ideas are irrelevant to my
>>>> conclusions unless there is a clear link between those failures and
>>>> the ideas they are producing. That applies whether it is Teilhard de
>>>> Chardin, Charles Darwin or Julian Huxley.
>>>>
>>> So actual history or relevant biographical points are unimportant then? I

>>> consider myself progressive and technocratic politically, but I?m not about

>>> to twist myself in a pretzel to disown the nasty eugenic connections to
>>> early 20th century progressivism. It was there. Maybe it came with the
>>> territory at the time. Teilhard and Huxley would be more symptom than
>>> cause.
>>>>
>>>>> I would have expected better approach to the topic from
>>>>> you than disappointment and comparing it to what creationists do.
>>>>
>>>> Well, we all have our own flashpoints and I've made no secret here of
>>>> my total intolerance for people who hypocritically adopt the same
>>>> tactics for which they disparage their opponents.
>>>>
>>> Openminded reflection on flaws of heroes? I feel similarly toward New
>>> Atheists for different reasons.
>>>>
>>>>> I guess
>>>>> contemplating Julian Huxley in a parallel manner wasn't as big a deal? Or
>>>>> was that what creationists do? Darwin's Bulldog comes out looking OK.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but trying to create the illusion of some double standard in my
>>>> views does not take away from your own performance in that regard. As
>>>> I said, it doesn't matter to me whether it is Teilhard de Chardin,
>>>> Darwin or Huxley - in sporting parlance, I believe in "playing the
>>>> ball, not the man." Clearly, your mileage varies.
>>>>
>>> Well my rabbit hole started with:
>>>
>>> https://julesevans.medium.com/conspirituality-the-overlap-between-the-new-age-and-conspiracy-beliefs-c0305eb92185
>>>

>>> ?Scientific authority can be awfully, horribly wrong sometimes ? many

>>> ecstatic globalists in the 20th century really did support eugenics (
>>> including HG Wells, Annie Besant, Julian Huxley, Alexis Carrel and Teillard
>>> de Chardin). They thought the world should be run by an elite of
>>> spiritually enlightened scientists who would decide who was enlightened and

>>> who was ?unfit? and therefore deserved to be sterilized, locked up, or
>>> exterminated.?

>>>
>>> Seeing Teilhard on that list prompted me to follow up.
>>
>> Well, as I said, I have no interest in what people did or did not
>> think about eugenics, I'm only interested in how well their scientific
>> ideas stand up to scrutiny. As has been pointed out here multiple
>> times, even if Darwin held racist views, even if such views influenced
>> his conclusions (which I don't think or one minute they did), none of
>> that affects the accuracy or relibility of his conclusions - they
>> stand or fall on their own merits. The same thing applies to the other
>> people on that list.
>>
>Be that as it may we still have the matters of my alleged "made up
>bullshit" and Slattery's treatment of Teilhard's quotes vis a vis his
>corpus "consider them on their own merits, the strengths and weaknesses of
>the arguments for and against"...

Sorry, I missed that bit. Ok, it wasn't *you* making up bullshit, it
was simply you endorsing Slattery's bullshit - I'm sorry for getting
that part wrong. There is, of course, a very simple way for you to
show it's not bullshit - just explain how any eugenic or racist views
that might or might have been held by Teilhard de Chardin impact on
the credibility of his ideas about noosphere and Omega Point.

>
>Are you backpedalling on your attack on me for perceived shattering of the
>golden calf? And Teilhard's views on noosphere and Omega were philosophical
>and theological respectively at best. From what I recall the only science
>he was involved in was in human paleontology.

His ideas went far beyond theology and philosophy - they were built on
a foundation of an extremely high level of scientific knowledge and
understanding and were developed to embrace the things that science
had established. That makes them every bit as scientific as things
like multi universes. Funny enough, as someone who finds those ideas
somewhat intriguing (not the "Golden calf" that you seem to think they
represent to me), I have asked here several times in the past if
someone can give me or point me in the direction of a decent
scientific rebuttal of those ideas. No one has taken up the challenge
so far, would you like to?