An editorial in the “The News Record,” a student newspaper associated with the University of Cincinnati by Scout Foust was brought to my attention late in the afternoon on 15 Feb. I was both insulted, and saddened at the gross incompetence and ignorance it represents. Mr. Foust, a fourth year student in German Literature, titled his editorial, Evolution perpetuates racist ideologies: Blacks shouldn’t back evolution.
Scout Foust was allowed to publish a baseless slander of not evolution, which as a science will take no notice, but of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who work and teach in disciplines related to evolutionary theory. Evolution is such a powerful truth that this encompasses nearly every science discipline. The Editors of “The News Record” have failed their responsibility to their readers. Further, such an incompetent article reflects very badly on their newspaper, the University of Cincinnati, and the Department that had the dubious task of educating Mr. Foust. Nor have the Editors done Mr. Foust personally any favor, as he now is exposed as an incompetent on a national level. A few hours of internet research reveals that Mr. Foust’s editorial is little more than a string of creationist sites’ propaganda weakly edited together and presented without attribution. In other words, Mr. Foust is not only incompetent on matters relating to history and science, he is also exposed as a plagiarist.
I am reminded of Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine to some), who wrote in his work “The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim),
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. … Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” [ italics referred to 1 Timothy 1:7](translation is by J. H. Taylor in “Ancient Christian Writers,” Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.)
Mr. Foust’s ‘argument’ is that evolutionary biology is the origin and justification for racism and genocide, and that by studying evolution one will promote racism. Mr. Foust’s screed makes not one single true statement of fact, and many false statements of fact, and he commits little more than one long error of reasoning, and of history. His historical error is blatant; racism is far older than the theory of evolution. And hisorically, the Bible has been used far longer as justification of slavery and racism and religious persecutions and murders than any science. His first logical error is ad hominem, reasoning that if he could link something vile with individuals he can then discredit any other idea associated with them. His second is that finding unpleasant- even horrible- application of a scientific theory or philosophical argument invalidates the theory. If this were true, nuclear physics which leads to nuclear weapons, or the germ theory of disease which leads to biological warfare would be discredited. This is incompetent sophistry.
Mr. Foust doesn’t Know Black History or Evolution
SF, “If evolution is to be believed, black history would include the notion that blacks are still an inferior race - still evolving, but far behind the evolution of white people.”
False, evolutionary theory, particularly those subdisciplines directly involved with human evolution make no such claim. This is a lie. There are biological differences that can be found between human populations. The smaller the biologically related group, the greater are their similarities. Families very often share medical problems that are genetically linked. Humans reproductively isolated within small geographic regions will share many genes. But, every time that anyone tries to extend the analysis to large geographic scales, or to truly significant numbers of variables, the concept of human races fails as a biologically valid concept. I can only offer a brief view of the current understanding of modern evolutionary biology, and anthropology’s understanding of human “race.” Richard Lewontin (1974), “The Genetic Basis Of Evolutionary Change.” New York: Columbia University Press, concluded, “Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.” pg. 397 A few additional highlights from Lewontin’s study are worth careful consideration. Only 6.3 percent of the total genetic variation of 17 human polymorphic traits is explained by race, i.e. the between-group variance. Nearly ninety-four percent of human genetic variation occurs as WITHIN-GROUP variation. In other words, for the variables measured individuals within socially determined categories of “race” were more biologically dissimilar from one another than they were between supposedly seperate “races.” Twenty years later Jia, and Chakraborty (1993) found nearly identical results in a study of DNA markers from 12,000 individuals within 59 ethnic groups. They found that up to 98.5 percent of the observed variance occurred WITHIN subpopulations at the individual level. ( Jia, L and R. Chakraborty 1993 “Extent of Within Versus Between Population Variations of VNTR Polymorphisms in Five Major Human Groups.” American Journal of Human Genetics, 53: Abstract #75). See also Michael Cummings, 1994. “Human Heredity: Principles and Issues. 3rd Edition.” St. Paul:West/Wadsworth “These results indicate that individual variation in DNA profiles overwhelm any interpopulational differences, no matter how the populations are ethnically or racially classified.” (1994, pg. 500. (The fourth edition, 1997, has different pagination).
Strikingly, all this was anticipated by Charles Darwin, who considered all human biological variation he observed in his worldwide travels merely due to differences in climate and diet. For example Darwin, wrote in “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex” (John Murray, London, 1871), “It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”
Mr. Foust doesn’t Know Charles Darwin
This leads us to Mr. Foust’s next very ignorant and false statements regarding Darwin’s first major evolutionary text, “Origin of Species.” Darwin’s work did not “popularize the notion of “social evolution.” He did not say that Europeans were the “fittest to survive.” Nor did Darwin refer to humans at all in the title of his 1859 book, nor was he a racist. Four more lies, Mr. Foust.
Darwin in the 1850s wrote in what could be called a dated academic style which without practice can be rather thick reading. Ignorant creationists like to draw sinister conclusions from the title of Darwin’s opus, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” They are apparently clueless that “Race” in Darwin’s use meant formally a grouping below species. This is how it is used by botanists today for local variations found in plants growing in slightly different soils, or varied amounts of sunlight. As there are no extant human subspecies, there is no scientific reference intended by Darwin to human races. Darwin in fact made virtually no mention of humans at all in “The Origin of Species” Further, popular political writing 150 years ago and even later commonly used “race” to mean nationality; we read from those times about the “Irish race” and the “English race.” A literature student should be ashamed to have so little appreciation of how the usage of words changes between formal and informal usages, let alone over the centuries.
Further, Charles Darwin was an ardent abolitionist at a time when many used the Bible to justify slavery. In 1833 he wrote,
“I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negro’s character.” Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313
In a letter to American Asa Gray, a Christian, noted botanist, and one of Darwin’s scientific supporters, Darwin refered to the Civil War:
“But I suppose you are all too overwhelmed with the public affairs to care for science. I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. N. America does not do England Justice: I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, & I am one, even and wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in. Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God how I should like to see the greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished. ” — Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (June 5, 1861) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 9 1861 (1994), p.163.
I recommend the selection of Darwin’s comments regarding race and slavery compiled for the internet by my colleague Troy Britain which I used in part: Darwin on Race.
From “Descent of Man,” Chapter 4, Section 2:
“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, [See Mr. Bagehot, ‘Physics and Politics,’ 1872, p. 72.] is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. “
Mr. Foust doesn’t Know Thomas Huxley
Next, regarding Thomas Huxley, Mr. Foust, and “The News Record” published a heavily redacted ‘quote,’ Foust most likely copied from some creationist website. This practice known as ‘quote mining’ is very popular with creationists. It is also plagiarism by Mr. Foust, who fails to provide his actual sources. They are most certainly not from Huxley (whom I doubt that Mr. Foust has ever read) as this pseudo-quote is from an essay titled, “Emancipation - Black and White” where Huxley is arguing against discrimination toward blacks and women.
SF, “After the 13th Amendment freed the slaves, Huxley said, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal… of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed… he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.”
The redacted quote is found on numerous creationist and anti-evolution sites, all of which promote the falsehood that evolutionary biology is inherently racist. The earliest presentation in the form used by Mr. Foust I know of was by Henry M. Morris, “Evolution and Modern Racism” IMPACT No. 7 October, 1973. So for at least 30 years this chopped up text has been offered as an ‘evidence’ that evolutionary biology is racist.
Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) was considered a radical reformer and anti-racist for his era. Happily, today his views would be challenged. As a young man (unlike Charles Darwin), Huxley had even supported the institution of slavery. In this he was in agreement of such terrible men as Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. In this essay, Huxley is arguing against slavery, and positively for the proposition that whatever the innate capacities of Negros or Caucasions, of males or females, social oppression is inexcusable. Actually the majority of the essay regards the question of women’s emancipation. Below is the quotation in context, it is from an 1865 essay “Emancipation - Black and White”, where Huxley is arguing against social discrimination toward blacks and women. His remarks must be understood in terms of the times they were made, and in the context of his argument. Namely, that even if on average Negros were of lessor ability than Caucasians this could not be used as a justification for slavery, or discriminatory laws.
The bold text is that which is discarded by the creationists :
It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.
Huxley concluded his remarks on the abolition of slavery with,
“The doctrine of equal natural rights may be an illogical delusion; emancipation may convert the slave from a well-fed animal into a pauperised man; mankind may even have to do without cotton-shirts; but all these evils must be faced if the moral law, that no human being can arbitrarily dominate over another without grievous damage to his own nature, be, as many think, as readily demonstrable by experiment as any physical truth. If this be true, no slavery can be abolished without a double emancipation, and the master will benefit by freedom more than the freed-man. (Huxley “Emancipation-Black and White” 1865, pp. 17-18, from “Collected Essays, vol. III”)
I think that perhaps the best qualified commentor on Thomas Huxley’s attitudes toward racial equality is a contemporary, and strongly partisan abolitionist who certainly would have been highly aware of prejudice on Huxley’s part. Mrs. P. A. Taylor, president of the Ladies London Emancipation Society 1864, wrote for the scoiety, “Professor Huxley on the Negro Question.” There she reviews a series of lectures delivered by Huxley to the Royal College of Surgeons on “The Structure and Classification of the Mammalia.” Two of the nine lectures related to humans. Taylor reports Huxley’s possition that,
“The important question now remains-What is the value of the differences which have been shown to exist in the structure of human beings? This question resolves itself into two others. 1. Are these differences sufficient to justify us in supposing them to indicate distinct species of men? 2. Can any of the deviations be considered as transitional towards the lower forms of animals? In respect to the first, it is certain that well-defined types occur in different geographical localities, so distinct that any zoologist, taking a single example of each, without any other evidence, would probably pronounce them to be distinct species; but the fact that every intermediate form can be found between the most typical, and the absence of any proof of their infertility inter se, conclusively show that there is no sufficient ground for the doctrine of the diversity of species among men. As to the second question, it can be answered equally positively.
And she concluded with this summary,
“”Clearly the high scientific authority of Professor Huxley is against the favourite notion of the partisans of slavery that there are signs about the negro that he has a place of his own in nature inferior to that of the normal man, and against the desired inference that he may fairly have a treatment corresponding to that place, and be excluded from rights and franchises that are agreed upon amongst men. Professor Huxley might have stopped here-for it was not necessary for him to say, as a man of science, what be might consider these rights and franchises to be. He might have vindicated the title of the Negro physiologically to whatever treatment is proper for human beings as such, and yet he might have believed in the necessity and expediency of slavery within that common society of human beings in which he had declared the Negro to be included. But be steps beyond the circle of the physiologist, and speaks strongly and generously his faith as a man. He believes in the doctrine of freedom, or equal personal rights for all men, and he pronounces the system of slavery to be root and branch an abomination-thus making his physiological definition of the Negros place among men equivalent to an earnest plea for Negro emancipation. Nay, as will have been noted, be goes farther, and, in virtue of the strength of his feeling with respect to slavery, avows a state of opinion regarding the American War in which many who share his feeling with respect to slavery will refuse to go along with him.” (Note: Huxley admired the courage of the Southerners in battle, but urged victory of the North when most British viewed a Southern victory as being in Britain’s economic interest.)
Mr. Foust doesn’t Know Amalie Dietrich
The next lie told by Mr. Foust smeared a woman whoes contributions to 19th century science are quite properly highly regarded, Amalie Dietrich. Mr. Foust repeats a lie he picked up I surmise from the creationist organization “Answers in Genesis.” Typically lacking in honest scholarship, they in turn relied merely on a popular Australian television program and freely mixed fact with popular fictions.
SF: “German evolutionist Amalie Dietrich would even visit Australia, asking train station owners to shoot Aborigines so she could “keep the specimens.” It was through this that she received the nickname the “Angel of Black Death.” (Compare with AiG Open season on Aborigines)
Amalie Dietrich, a largely self trained German naturalist, spent the years 1863-1872 in northern Queensland, Au. collecting for the Museum Godeffroy in Hamburg, Germany. Amongst her many accomplishments, she collected, and is credited as the discoverer of many species of plants, insects, and vertebrates. She was the first European (1886) to collect a taipan snake, generally considered today as the most deadly in the world. Her Australian bird collection is still the one of the largest generated by an individual, and contains many holotype specimens.
The entire issue of human remains as specimens with a particular focus on Australian Aboriginal remains and their late 20th century repatriation and destruction is addressed by Paul Turnbull, in “Ancestors, not Specimens: Reflections on the Controversy over the Remains of Aboriginal People in European Scientific Collections,” 1997 The Electronic Journal of Australian and New Zealand History. He comments on the small collection of human remains (eight skeletons, one skull, and one dried skin) sent to Europe by Dietrich.
She travelled coastal Queensland between 1863 and 1872, as a naturalist for the Godeffroy Museum, Hamburg. Oral testimony collected by historian Ray Sumner tells of Dietrich having shocked William Archer, a local pastoralist, by asking his help to obtain the “pelt” of an Aborigine. Archer had his overseer immediately drive his guest back to Rockhampton (Sumner, 1985, pp. 127)
Turnbull continued, “The story passed into local legend, surfacing in H.L. Roth’s 1908 History of Mackay as follows:”
The celebrated Godeffroy Museum…had a collector on the coast from 1863 to 1873, who made several ineffectual efforts to induce squatters to shoot an aboriginal, so that she could send the skeleton to the Museum! On one occasion she asked an officer of the Native Police what he would take to shoot so and so, pointing to one of the Native Black Troopers. She got no human skins nor skeletons from the Mackay district.. (Roth, 1908, p. 81).
It seems unlikely that Dietrich asked Archer or one of his workers to kill an Aborigine. What probably so offended Archer, a humanitarian who had good relations with local Aboriginal people, was Dietrich’s utter insensitivity to mortuary custom. In all probability, Aboriginal people of the Rockhampton district posthumously removed skin, dried it and for some time thereafter reverently carried it about their country. Nonetheless, whatever Archer told Dietrich, she sought and finally managed to procure a dried skin from an unknown location, and a skull from the Rockhampton district. And after befriending the Birri Gubba, she procured eight complete skeletons from near Bowen. Back at the Godeffroy Museum, Dietrich was keen to stress to a fellow worker, Alexander Sokolowsky, how hard it had been to procure the various remains, as the Aboriginal people “practised ancestor worship” (Sumner, 1985, p. 328, see also Sumner 1993 gh) From Turnbull 1997.
Nearly all early anthropologists received at least some medical training in human anatomy. And while we might be surprised today, the dissection of human cadavers was illegal in many parts of the world. The medical students of the early 18th century typically robbed recent graves in order to procure bodies for study. In one instance of personal interest to me, the Medical College of Georgia went so far as to purchase a slave who’s sole duty was to go at night to cemeteries in order to procure bodies. He preserved them in barrels of whiskey which he also sold (the whiskey) on the side. These activities generally created a dismissive attitude, and even disdain of funeral practices. Nor did this promote reverence for the decaying tissues of the dead by medical men and scienists. Nearly every museum in the world had supplied itself with human skeletons removed from graves. Christian missionaries supplied these just as often as anyone, since after all, they were not interfering with Christian burials or Christian burial practices. There can be little doubt that Dietrich acquired the human remains in the same manner.
Paul Turnbull
1997 “Ancestors, not Specimens: Reflections on the Controversy over the Remains of Aboriginal People in European Scientific Collections.”
The Electronic Journal of Australian and New Zealand History.
Roth, H.L. 1908. “History of Mackay,” Halifax: King.
Sumner, R. 1985 “Amalie Dietrich in Australia”, Brisbane: unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Queensland
_________ 1993 “WOMAN IN THE WILDERNESS: THE STORY OF AMALIE
DIETRICH,” The University of New South Wales Press
Mr. Foust doesn’t Know German History!
Mr. Foust asserted that , “… true evolutionists should praise Hitler’s efforts.” This is personally insulting and outrageous. If I thought that Mr. Foust possessed any honor or was capable of shame, I would demand an apology. And for a ‘student’ of German literature, his claim is remarkably incompetent. If Hitler tried to draw rhetorical support from Social Darwinism or evolution, this position is little evident from the text of “Mein Kampf,” and in any event, was merely a twig on the trunk of his anti-Semitism. Hitler’s opposition to what he considered a Marxist threat is not drawn from Darwin, and in any event was more a rationalization of his religious bigotry than its origin. Further, direct evidence from multiple statements by Hitler supports the observation that the theoretical inspiration Hitler drew from was not evolution, but the Germ Theory of Disease, and Christianity. For example, consider the following where we have Hitler, in his argument to Hungary’s Admiral Horthy, invoking not a bermench racist position, but an anti-Bolshevik, and nationalist one,
“The minutes [taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt] for the second day’s meeting, on 17 April 1943, recorded a statement by Ribbentrop, in Hitler’s presence, to a point made by Horthy: “On Horthy’s retort, what should he do with the Jews then, after he had pretty well taken all means of living from them— he surely couldn’t beat them to death— the Reich Foreign Minister [Ribbentrop] replied that the Jews must either be annihilated or taken to concentration camps. There is no other way.”
Hitler almost immediately confirmed Ribbentrop’s explicitly murderous statement at some length: Hitler: “Where the Jews were left to themselves, as for example in Poland, gruesome poverty and degeneracy had ruled. They were just pure parasites. One had fundamentally cleared up this state of affairs in Poland. If the Jews there didn’t want to work [in Third Reich concentration camps], they were shot. If they couldn’t work they had to perish. They had to be treated like tuberculosis bacilli, from which a healthy body could be infected. That was not cruel, if one remembered that even innocent natural creatures like hares and deer had to be killed so that no harm was caused. Why should one spare the beasts who wanted to bring us Bolshevism more? Nations who did not rid themselves of Jews perished.” (pg. 92-93, references and footnotes are found in Evans, Richard J. 2001 “Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and The David Irving Trial” New York:Basic Books).
In 1938 the Nazi “Office of Racial Policy” publication Inromationsdienst Martin Luther’s advice on the “proper” treatment of Jews was given prominent display:
… to put their synagogues and schools to fire, and what will not burn, to cover with earth and rubble so that no-one will ever again see anything there but cinders … Second, one should tear down and destroy their houses, for they do also in there what they do in their schools and synagogues … And third, one should confiscate their prayer books and Talmud, in which idolatry and lies, slander and blasphemy is taught” Pg. 88, Proctor, Robert N. 1988 Racial Hygene:Medicine Under the Nazis Boston: Harvard University Press.
The founder of Protestant Christianity was a greater inspiration to the Nazis than any scientist. The Nazi Office of Racial Policy held thousands of public meetings a month promoting anti-semitism and attacking “muddle-headed humanitarianism” (Humanittsduselei) or, what we call “liberalism” today. Science, politicized in Germany by the same conditions that radicalized both Left, and Right, was used as justification for actions long advocated as “Christian.” The political philosophy called Social Darwinism (divorced in reality from evolutionary biology) through the efforts of Alfred Poletz and to a lesser degree Ernst Haeckel and others was infuential in the organization of the Society for Racial Hygiene (Gesellschaft fr Rassenhygiene). But more significantly, Poletz was a believer in Nordic superiority, and he quciky formed a secret group of racists active within the Society who were strongly influenced by the racial theories of Arthur Comte de Gobineau published in the early 1850s (well before Darwin’s books). Gobineau’s complimented the creationist theories of the “pre-Adamites” who went so far as to claim that Negroes had been created on the Genesis fifth day with “other beasts of the field.”
The false notion that there were, or could be single issues determining complex social phenomena such as the rise of the Nazis, and the Holocaust is well explored by Goldhagen (1996), and Friedlander (1997). The interested reader should consult their work for insights on the general anti-Semitism of the Europeans and its direct influence on the Holocaust.
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah
1996 “Hitlers willing Executioner’s: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” New York: Random House
Friedlander, Saul
1997 “Nazi Germany and the Jews: Vol 1: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939” New York: HarperCollins
Mr. Foust doesn’t Know Recent History
With the Hutu-Tutsi slayings Mr. Foust reaches for a new low. There were documented instances where the ethnically motivated murderers had to ask their victims to identify themselves. Further, while the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal indicted and convicted Christian ministers for their crimes agains humanity, no biologists had commited atrocities. False claims of racism, or logic tortured to indict biology have no traction.
Mr. Foust next makes some asinine suggestions to “Black people” in the most arrogant and demeaning way. The average educated person, Black, White, or spotted, can see through the trivialized evolution=racism, but Mr. Foust wants to warn all the po’ Black people what to expect. When I taught at the Medical College of Georgia, we all knew that the KKK and their RFR (religious far-right) allies were part of our past, and probable future. Mr. Foust, your warnings are a revolting arrogance that someone of your callow years and obvious lack of ability should not make.
Mr. Foust is Even Weak on Apologetics
Allow me one further observation, Mr. Foust tells us, “Society says it is far-fetched to believe that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” as the book of Acts says.
And he is at last partially correct. The sciences of evolutionary biology and anthropology have established, without reservation or retreat into superstition or any temporary political enthusiasm that we are “of one blood, all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” The rest is still in question.
Dr. Gary S. Hurd
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Ian F. Musgrave and Sheryl L. Anderson for their helpful suggestions. All errors of fact or interpretation are my very own.
Scott Foust is a fourth-year German literature student. Contact him at
.
133 Comments
PvM · 17 February 2005
Nice research. Too bad it had to be done.
Ken Willis · 17 February 2005
Dr. GH, what a pleasure to read what you wrote here. You are a learned man.
Gary Hurd · 17 February 2005
Thanks for your kind words. It turned into merely locating one creationist web site after another. Then doing some reading to find how they had lied. Mr. Foust's "editorial" had very little, if anything, that was original with him. The Dembskis are more obscure, and the Hovinds more bizarre.
My only real personal complaint was missing the window for fishing yesterday. Oh, and the few bucks on the phone bill when I chewed out the newspaper's editor. (CUE VIOLINS!) heh heh
nit picker · 17 February 2005
Abolitionist, not "abolutionist."
Gary Hurd · 17 February 2005
Abolitionist, not "abolutionist."
DoHHH
Thanks!
Richard · 18 February 2005
I've managed to steer clear of the science/creationist conflict for many months, but (as a former Cincinnatian myself) this particular screed really irked me... and I felt compelled to respond to this fellow's hate-mongering garbage:
"Though evolution=racism is an oft-deployed creationist canard, I'm still surprised (and saddened) whenever I see it appear... whether in a newspaper article (written by a student who, one would think, should no better), or on the floor of a state legislature (a bill condemning Charles Darwin as racist was introduced... and defeated... last year in Louisiana, for example).
If anything, the study of evolution shows the superficiality of what popular culture thinks of as "race." so much so as to make "race" a completely vacuous notion from an evolutionary standpoint. Those traits which distinguish our species... language, intelligence, ability to use tools, adaptability to widely varying environments, etc. are common to us all, and were established in our species long before such recent (and relatively trivial) adaptations such as skin color or epicanthic eye folds appeared.
Leaving aside his many errors of fact, the author of this article clearly has no understanding of evolutionary biology whatever, and should be ashamed of himself for perpetuating this kind of creationist nonsense."
Soren K · 18 February 2005
Well Gary
What a tour de force - I agree with the other poster that it is sad that your articel was necessary in the first place - but Damn you nailed him!
I guess when one follows the creationism stupidity from the side line it is easy sometimes to get accustomed to their strange claims. Mr Fousts article *was* insulting to not only scientists but to "black" people - and since all us pale skins are no different from the darker types to all of humanity.
Your articel is the best I've seen for quite a while!
/Søren
jeff-perado · 18 February 2005
Foust...Foust.... Hmmm, sounds familiar, ahh yes, Dr. Faust, the man who sells his soul to the devil. From Wikipedia
After reading this, I am left with the impression that this character's goal was not to inform or convince but solely to incite. So many errors, in so few words; it boggles the mind.
It can only be intentional. Only, I fear, in this case it wasn't the devil young foust sold his soul to, it was Ken Ham.
Soren K · 18 February 2005
Dave · 18 February 2005
This is the best I've read since the stuff about Stalin's regime and Lamarckianism.
Good show, GH!
jonas · 18 February 2005
GH,
great article, especially the well sourced and worded part on the often touchy issue conerning use of christian and pseudo-scientific rhetorics by the Nazis.
Just to add my two cents, the only place I have seen explicitely evolutionary (as opposed to social darwinist) Nazi propaganda has been concerning euthanasia and forced sterilisation of handicapped people. And even there it is nothing but a pretty thinly veiled appeal to fear. On the whole the Nazis seemed to have used anything that produced the right effect - in the case of antisemitism ranging from historic anti-Judaism in Christianity to modern anticommunist and anticapitalist propaganda as well as some strange social darwinist claims about ethnical parasitism. So, everybody's fears and resentments could be targeted.
Thomas Palm · 18 February 2005
Nice article, but I wonder about that qoute from St Augustine. Do you know what position he was arguing against? Was it the belief in a flat Earth that was held by a few early Christians? It was far too early to refer to the geocentric/heliocentric debate.
Since this is an article about scientific errors, I should correct one of yours. Einstein's general theory of relativity doesn't lead to nuclear weapons, it is a theory about gravity with few practical applications. I suspect you think about the special theory and the famous equation E=mc^2, but that doesn't lead to nuclear weapons either. This equation is as true for a stick of dynamite as for a nuclear bomb, and as useless for building either. It's merely a coincidence that relativity was discovered at the same time as nuclear fission. Einstein's sole contribution to the nuclear bomb was the letter he wrote to Roosevelt, suggesting that USA ought to build one before the Germans. I suspect the reason for this myth about Einstein being important for the nuclear bomb is simply because he is the one superstar in physics everyone has heard of so he *ought* to have been out in Los Alamos.
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Cary · 18 February 2005
"...E=mc^2, but that doesn't lead to nuclear weapons either. This equation is as true for a stick of dynamite as for a nuclear bomb..."
No, not true. In a nuclear bomb matter is converted into energy. In dynamite, the reaction is purely chemical. No mass is converted.
Cary · 18 February 2005
" . . . E=mc^2, but that doesn't lead to nuclear weapons either. This equation is as true for a stick of dynamite as for a nuclear bomb . . . "
Heh, well, technically, yes this is true, special relativity is always 'in effect' - I'm just seeing an implication that matter is converted to energy when you touch off some dynamite that maybe you didn't even intend.
jonas · 18 February 2005
Thomas,
as far as I can tell the Augustinos cite is so important, because the final sentence in it is the first on the book to make the point, that trying to treat 'holy scripture' not as mythological stories and theological essays, but as factual information on the natural world, does nothing but show the bull-headed ignorance of those doing so, both regarding knowledge about the world and the theological intent of the scripture.
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Augustine believed that creation was instantaneous. This is a useful point in the debate between old-earth Christians and young-earth Christians, since the the man generally regarded by both Protestants and Catholics as the greatest Christian theologian of the first millenium (if not all time) did not take a strictly literal view of the Genesis creation account. After all, instantaneous is just as non-literal as 14.5 billion years.
DaveScot · 18 February 2005
Hey Gary,
How many black guys you know with PhD's in biology?
DaveScot · 18 February 2005
Dan · 18 February 2005
DaveScot:
Hey Gary,
How many black guys you know with PhD's in biology?
At long last, DaveScot reveals his true character. While I can't speak for the management here at PT, I'd be quite content if you'd just crawl back under whatever rock you've emerged from, and not return here. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute, and, indeed, you reveal your stunning ignorance with every comment.
Flint · 18 February 2005
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Aggie Nostic · 18 February 2005
Joe Shelby · 18 February 2005
on the various side topics so far:
more specifically, in a nuclear *fission* bomb (fusion is its own beast), the energy is released by splitting the atom -- and the mass increases in the two remaining smaller nucleii. Energy is contained in the nucleus in the form of the "Strong Force", fighting the natural tendency for protons to magnetically push themselves apart. That energy comes by the loss of mass of the neutrons.
when split, less energy is needed to hold the remaining nucleii together, and that energy is released (and there is a LOT of it...the speed of light squared is a rather large number).
dynamite and similar reactions (even basic "fire") are strictly chemical ones, and work on the the "weak" force of molecular bonding. this is not the same thing as e=mc^2, and in no way is mass lost in a chemical reaction of this nature. the atoms don't change at all, only their molecular bonds. trust me, if even one instance burning oxygen with carbon in your cells released energy at the e=mc^2 level, you would cease to exist...and so would most of the things around you in a 20 foot radius.
(though yeah, I think it was special relativity, 15 years before general relativity, that introduced the infamous equation)
--
i also tire of complaints like those of Mr. Heddle, that take the actions of recent christianity, circa the enlightenment and beyond, and try to use them to assert that christians were never wrong in the past or that christian and biblical writings were never used out of context or for supporting morally reprehsensive policies.
as posted, there were a LOT of sources (in effect, their own variation of quote-mining) that were used to justify publically the atrocities of the nazi period. but Luther and other christian writings (though not the bible directly) were very common even as germany was converted from a nation worshipping the christian God into a nation worshiping itself.
there may be for less anti-semitism in the united states *now*, but that doesn't solely come from being christians. it comes from the recognition that racial discrimination is morally wrong, regardless of how individuals came to that conclusion. many athiests, including every one I know, are extremely anti-discriminatory (in spite of creationist rhetoric). most are that way because its simply the right thing, not because of any modern (meaning post-enlightenment) interpretation of "love your neighbor as yourself".
the golden rule simply is, regardless of how it is expressed. in this, the bible speaks a philosophical truth, but it is not the only (nor was it even the first) work to speak that.
Joe Shelby · 18 February 2005
Ed Darrell · 18 February 2005
Enigma · 18 February 2005
I actually contacted Mr Foust via e-mail upon reading his article. I argued with him about his points for several messages, and was not impressed. Quite sad that a senior in college has so little grasp of reality. (Me being a junior in college, lol)
Flint · 18 February 2005
Matt Young · 18 February 2005
In 1845, both the Baptist and Methodist churches split into northern and southern factions over the issue of slavery. For every northern abolitionist motivated by religion, there was a southern supporter of slavery motivated by religion.
No major religion condemned slavery until after the Enlightenment; arguably, it was Enlightenment thinking or its effect on religious thinking, not religious thinking as such, that led to abolition.
In the American south, religious leaders used passages such as Genesis 9:24-27 (... Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren...) in support of enslaving black people. The Bible supports enslaving people other than your own. I would not want to overstate this thesis, but biblical literalism and hence creationism in the United States may be a direct result of religious leaders supporting slavery in the American south.
Mike Walker · 18 February 2005
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Mike Walker · 18 February 2005
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Mike Walker · 18 February 2005
Flint · 18 February 2005
Andrea Bottaro · 18 February 2005
Andrea Bottaro · 18 February 2005
Sorry, this was left out of my previous post (#16840):
So, if the inane point of DaveScot's post was that Black students specifically shun biology because of the "racist implications" of evolutionary theory, it appears to be wrong.
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Mike,
The post, in my mind, as a whole, sends the message "Nazis did not use evolution, but they did use Chritianity."
Flint:
You missed the boat. No doubt every Christian denomination claims to understand the "real" truth. That's not the point. The Nazis did not believe themselves to be the true Christians--they were knowingly counterfeit. And in fact, they didn't even play that card very much.
Gary Hurd · 18 February 2005
Thank you for all your kind words.
Jonas: Just to add my two cents, the only place I have seen explicitely evolutionary (as opposed to social darwinist) Nazi propaganda has been concerning euthanasia and forced sterilisation of handicapped people.
I would quibble that even eugenics programs were not competent applications of evolutionary theory. Otherwise we are completely in agreement. The early German euthanasia campaigns were "medical" programs that Jews were in fact legally excluded! I highly recommend Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygene:Medicine Under the Nazis 1988, Harvard University Press.
Thomas Palm: Nice article, but I wonder about that qoute from St Augustine. Do you know what position he was arguing against? ..... Einstein's general theory of relativity doesn't lead to nuclear weapons, it is a theory about gravity with few practical applications.
The particular falsehoods that concerned Augustine seem to have been astronomical. This is best revealed in his "Confessions" particularly Book 5, were he discussed his eventual rejection of the Manichee religion.
Regarding Einstein, I'll yield to your superior knowledge, particularly given the subsequent discussion. I'll change the offending passage to : "If this were true, nuclear physics which lead to nuclear weapons, or the germ theory of disease which lead to biological warfare would be discredited." Better?
David Heddle: It conveniently neglects the fact that Christians played a large role in abolishing slavery and in fighting racism.
The wind from my point passing you by must have knocked you down. The historical point was that the Bible was cited in support of slavery and discriminatory laws longer than evolutionary biology. The Quakers were at the start and at the core of both the abolitionist movement, and the civil rights movement. I have always been happy in that fact. But, this is irrelevant to the topic which was a refutation of Mr. Foust's bit of trash.
Nice going "Dr." You have attacked an essay of sophomoric, unsubstantiated generalizations in kind. Kudos.
You seem to have (typically) missed the point. Read the comments left above by Joe Shelby, and Mike Walker and see if is gets any clearer. (Thanks Joe and Mike).
DaveScot: "How many black guys you know with PhD's in biology?"
Personally one. And also M.D.s and Ph.D. chemists. Why do you think that is rare or worth comment? Your question is absurd unless viewed as some veiled racist assertion that their aren't or shouldn't be Blacks in the sciences. Non-white students are seriously under represented in higher education, and this is even worse in the sciences. There is in my oppinion much need to improvement. What does this have to do with evolution?
Uber · 18 February 2005
This David Neddle fella is a riot. He is actually on here, honestly trying to present to people the 'No True Scotsman fallacy' meaning everyone who doesn't practice his brand of Christianity is apparently misguided. Hmmmm 10,000 sects all different and he has solved the puzzle. Now on to his absurditites.
He said:'don't forget it at all, although do you know that the type of slavery that is discussed (for example by Paul) was a form of indentured servitude not anything like slavery in the southern U.S. It was both voluntary (although no doubt cruel and exploitive at times) and limited to a finite duration'.
This is just freaking stupid. Do you think Americans just invented our style of slavery. Most ancient forms of slavery were even more brutal. And it wouldn't matter anyway, any type of slavery is immoral and pathetic, the only thing more pathetic is your attempt to rationalize it with a belief system indoctrinated into you.
'Matt, if you think they were motivated by religion, you are naïve. To first order it was economics (on the part of the plantation owners) and nationalism on the part of poor whites---who at a certain level were against slavery because it took away jobs and gave great advantage to the rich plantation owners.'
True, but religion and the bible was used to buttress all claims, much like todays political right. As if Jesus would have attacked Iraq.
'Once again, anyone who uses evolution to support a claim of racial superiority is no different from someone who uses the bible to promote slavery. In both cases they should be condemned and not taken as representatives the group in which they claim membership. This post played both sides of that street.'
True on the evolution end as they are using a scientifc theory that makes no moral statements. However the bible, to some, is Gods word. It also clearly, clearly is filled with slavery from the old to the new. So this is apples and oranges. One doesn't make a moral claim, one does.
The problem with what you state is that evolution is not a group. Being a Christian is a group, just a scattered and discontinous group wih conflicting theologies. As Ann Rayd said 'Anytime you have contradictions one or more premises is flawed'.
Jim Harrison · 18 February 2005
Blaiming or praising Christians for anything is easy to do. It's a little like having a theory that brunettes are all villains (heroes) and we can prove it because of all the brunettes who did the following horrible (wonderful) things. Since an awful lot of people have been Christians, it's easy to line up long lists of bad ones and good ones, which doesn't mean that their religion was the crucial factor. Anyhow, because they are unconstrained by reality, religions can easily be recast to suit anybody's prejudice. If you don't like what Christianity is, just wait a while. It will presently become something else. Demonizing Christianity assumes facts not in evidence, i.e. that there is something more or less unchangable to denounce.
It's more to the point that the Christian denominations who are most upset about evolution also happen to be the same ones that supported slavery and antisemitism. The Southern Baptists in particular have a long track record of signing up for every available bad cause.
Eller · 18 February 2005
'. The Nazis did not believe themselves to be the true Christians---they were knowingly counterfeit. And in fact, they didn't even play that card very much.'
I call B******t.
The use of profanity will result in Panda's Thumb becoming blocked from many public schools and other public access ports. Nor does it contribute significantly to the discussion. Thanks, GH.
Most Nazi's felt they were doing Gods work. Of course there you go again, the 'true Christians' baloney.
I guess that precludes all of the religious right.
And on another front I have sat in Sunday school classes in baptist churches in Texas where the question has been raised if it is ok for blacks and whites to marry based on the bible. Thank goodness for the skeptics.
And the previous poster is correct- the Quakers led the abolisionist movement. Not the majority of Christians. And Quakers do not see the bible as a literal book but believe we all possess God inside. We are our own revelation.
Aggie Nostic · 18 February 2005
Aggie Nostic · 18 February 2005
Hanno Wertal · 18 February 2005
Regarding the Augustinus quote: I think it reflects a time where christianity (despite being official church in the Byzantine Empire) was not the undisputed leading religion in Europe. You get the feeling that the christian had to persuade people to join his belief. And given the rational thought shown in Augustinus' writing, I can understand why this religion was and is so successful. On the other hand, these reservations, this need to persuade is not so necessary if the religion/confession is firmly established. Then the devout christian/religious man can take the easy way and simply take the literal view as dogma.
I don't know if Augustinus held these views, but this piece reminded me of the fact that the same people who call for fair treatment as long as they are the minority seldomly grant this their opponents as soon as they are in charge.
And - wasn't Augustinus a black man from northern Africa?
Brian · 18 February 2005
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Eller · 18 February 2005
'And given the rational thought shown in Augustinus' writing, I can understand why this religion was and is so successful.'
I really don't think that has anything to do with it.:-)
Dave Snyder · 18 February 2005
Don't forget one of the Nazi popular slogans: "Kinder, Keuken, Kerken. [children, kitchen, church]
One of the issues to discuss here is the way that a belief system, whether Christianity or something else, can be manipulated by elites (who know better, often) to corral public opinin behind some nefarious object.
Matt Young · 18 February 2005
Uber · 18 February 2005
Why I'm doing this is beyond me but-
David neddle said:'I get the feeling that nobody here has any actual knowledge of Christian history or the modern Christian landscape.'
Oh we have knowledge of it. You assume you know more without knowing who you are talking to, kinda sad really.
you said:'What? you believe in moral absolutes? Will you confirm that, that you believe there is an absolute morality?'
I believe all slavery and tyranny of man is immoral, if you want to translate that into every area of human endeavor that is up to you. We are discussing slavery no reason to create straw men.
you said:'I tend to avoid taking seriously Ayn Rand, who worshipped on the altar of individuality, yet encouraged and thrived off her cult following. The incongruity makes the mind reel.'
So shoot the messenger, I'm no fan of her lifestyle either, but that doesn't change the fact that the mentioned statement is correct in practice.
you said:-' Provide some legitimate references that demonstrate that most Nazis felt they were Christians and that Nazism was supported by the bible. (You slyly transitioned from Christians to "God's work." Islamic-terrorist mass murderers believe they are doing "Gods" work. Back up you claim visa vis Christianity.'
I didn't slyly do anything, Many Nazis, via their own writings and that of Hitler himself, thought they were doing the CHRISTIAN Gods work. This is a stupid argument. Who freaking cares? The point is people have done terrible things in the Christian Gods name, they thought they were real Christians, they were opposed by people who felt they were real Christians. What the germans 80 years ago thought is irrevelant.
But to answe your other ignorant comment, our own President thinks he is doing the Christian Gods work using the American military. And every muslim child who dies because of that action is just as dead as the millions of jews. Bu I guess that killing is ok to you.
you said:-'First of all, the type of person who today we call a liberal Christian did not really exist in numbers in America until late in the 19th century and really not until the 20th century. '
Bu****it, Profanity adds nothing to the discussion, and will cause some public schools to block access to PT.
most Christians then and now hold to a more liberal view of the religion. Any poll should prove this to you. Only around 10-20 believe in the fundy view of the bible-and they disagree on most of that, another 30% or so think it was inspired, and the rest are all over the board. Christianity from it's origins has always been a hodgepodge of ideas. Which is why it is successful in the religion marketplace- it has something for everyone.
'Secondly, there are many denominations who are conservative Christians but not fundamentalist (such as myself). We do not fall into the Bob Jones/Falwell category'
True, as denominations go. But in each of these denominations are liberal christians. Once you go to the land of Dobson and Falwell you are no longer really a conservative but something else entirely.
And exactly what do you mean by a conserative? small government, less goverment intrusion? lower taxes? None of which are currently evident in those who call themselves conservative.
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Keller · 18 February 2005
' I have not denied that the bible was invoked in support, what I deny is that it was invoked sincerely. Do you know what a rationalization is?'
Yeah I just read one!
To say that they were not sincere is to know the mind of every man, woman, and child at the time. I suspect Hitler was very sincere as well as mad.
Dave Snyder · 18 February 2005
Perhaps, given the conversations above, it would be better to think of religion (in this case, Christianity) not as a set of doctrines that may or may not be "true" according to the lights of one or another believer.
Perhaps better to think of religion as a large quarry of belief-resources, able to be mined by any given set of interests, for whatever historical purposes present themselves.
The fact is, many Nazis called themselves Christian and based their ideology on Christianity, even if we don't recognize it as such.
Slaveholders did base their claims on Christianity, even if we don't recognize it as such.
The KKK and any number of other hatemongers both great (John Birchites, Bob Jonesians, etc.) and small (my parents and many of their white suburban neighbors) base their racist claims on their own Christianity, even if I don't recognize it as such.
And as well opponents of slavery, liberal proponents of a social gospel (variations of which have been around a lot longer than the late 19th century) and advocates of a kinder, gentler contemporary foreign policy also base their idea(l)s on their own reading of Christian doctrine, even if many others don't see things this way.
Because Christianity can be all things to all people, claims made on its behalf of scientific-like, objective "truth" are absured. There can be no "truth" in the doctrines when they are able to be pressed into service at cross-purposes, each purpose finding equal support in the doctrine. Claims of truth, therefore, should be seen as political gambits that may or may not succeed depending on the rhetorical strength of the truth-claim, the credulity of the audience, particular configurations of political and social power, and a host of other factors.
One cannot reasonably base any one scientific or political claim on Christian doctrines, because one can reasonably find support for ANY scientific or political claim in those doctrines. This is why Christianity will never provide any useful scientific insight. And this is why too our founders had the wisdom to insist on the separation of church and state. Whether any individual is able to locate useful moral or spiritual guidance from the scriptures is another matter entirely, of course.
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Uber · 18 February 2005
Dave that was truly an excellent post.
Uber · 18 February 2005
No david the one not getting it is you.
One is a belief system, one is a scientific theory that has no comment of the previous.
Rilke's Grand-daughter · 18 February 2005
Mr. Heddle, apparently you fail to realize that the support for various forms of murder, torture, slavery were supported by Christians using the Bible as their justification - and unless you actually know for a fact that every single one of those individuals was a hypocrite, then you have NO basis whatever for your belief that they were not sincere. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. We have the documents of their statements; you have personal opinion and nothing more.
Which is actually evidence?
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
RGD
I already presented evidence that the Nazis were not sincere when they invoked Christianity. Their real plan was to eliminate it. Of course, I cannot refute the sincerity of any nutjob who kills in the name of Christianity. I'm sure some are sincere, just like some racists sincerely use evolution to justify their beliefs.
Ed Darrell · 18 February 2005
Roger Tang · 18 February 2005
Mr. Heddle, I am amazed at the obtuseness of your rhetoric. When a man claims his beliefs are based on his religion, I'll take him at his word. It is NOT equivalent to a third party imputing racism to a professor's teaching of evolution.
You're muddying the waters; you're saying that they didn't say what they said.
I don't find that a useful position to take.
Flint · 18 February 2005
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
So Roger, you absolutely DENY the possibility that anyone in the history of the world will co-opt something for their own purposes. Nobody would ever claim, for example, "slavery is supported by the bible so it is okay" while not, at the same time, really believing the bible is fiction, just realizing that it is a useful strategy? All racists, according to you, should be afforded the courtesy that they would never distort their positions?
Gary Hurd · 18 February 2005
Mr. Tang, You are quite correct. But, there is no other position for mister Heddle to take, other than to acknowledge that the essay by Scott Foust claiming that teaching biology promotes racism and genocide is hoplessly wrong.
What he and Mr. Scot are apparently doing successfully is distracting the discussion into the bootless argument that Christianity caused racism or genocide. I disavow that claim as well. Genocides are described in the Bible, and were commanded by God (according to the Bible). At the same time, such killing was forbidden unless directly commanded by God- this precluded any general encouragement of the practice.
Of course, to an athiest biblical genocides are neither sanctioned or commanded, merely promoted and falsely justified. But, this is still irrelevant to the question of evolutionary theory and race.
Douglas Theobald · 18 February 2005
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Douglas Theobald · 18 February 2005
Gary Hurd · 18 February 2005
Thomas Palm · 18 February 2005
Gary, your revised sentence removing Einstein but keeping the core of the message is much better, but as you can see from the discussion it is a controversial subject where only about half the people get it right. People just don't think that E=mc^2 applies to all mass and energy. Heat a cup of coffee and it will be just a tiny bit heavier than before.
The analogy between a chemical and a nuclare explosion is that in dynamite you have molecules formed by collections of atoms held together by the electromagnetic force, and when you rearrange the atoms you change the binding energy, which can release energy. In a nuclear bomb you instead have atoms formed by collections of nucleons (protons and neutrons) held together by the strong force, and when you rearrange the nucleons you change the binding energy, which can release a lot more energy energy since the strong force is a lot stronger. In both cases the final products will be lighter than the original if the energy is allowed to dissipate, but only in the nuclear case is it large enough to be easily measurable.
Gary Hurd · 18 February 2005
David Heddle · 18 February 2005
Ph.D, physics, Carnegie Mellon, why?
Gary Hurd · 18 February 2005
Very well Doctor Heddle, I see you are in the Baumgardner creationist category.
Douglas Theobald · 18 February 2005
Stuart Weinstein · 18 February 2005
GH: And historically, the Bible has been used far longer as justification of slavery and racism and religious persecutions and murders than any science.
>This is the same kind of stupid, junior high school caricature you are supposedly trying to attack. It conveniently neglects the fact that Christians played a large role in abolishing slavery and in fighting racism.
THey arguably played an equal role increating and maintaining it in the first place. Lets not sugarcoat history either.
The point is, you can't make an argument that evolution is behind racism. The purpose here is not to indict Christianity, but to note, that philosophies as well as technology can used for purposes other than for which they were intended.
>This is evident today. There is, for example, less anti-Semitism in the U.S. when compared to Europe not in spite of the fact that the U.S. is more Christian but because of it. You just couldn't make your point without the little juvenile swipe, could you?
Which has little to do with the origins of racism. Try and stay on topic.
>The founder of Protestant Christianity was a greater inspiration to the Nazis than any scientist.
>More of the same. This kind of statement is the moral equivalent of what you are attacking. And I would love to debate you at length on this statement, in any venue, at anytime.
Not really. The 3rd Reich drew much of their inspiration for there treatment of Jews from the writing of Martin Luther.
I suggest you read, Martin Luther's "The Jews and THere Lies". From your reaction, one may think you enver heard of it.
>Nice going "Dr." You have attacked an essay of sophomoric, unsubstantiated generalizations in kind. Kudos.
GH:Einstein's general theory of relativity which leads to nuclear weapons
Um, sorry, not unless nuclear weapons are designed on the basis of the curvature of space-time near massive objects.
I have to agree with you there. Special Relativity would have been more appropriate
Gary Hurd · 18 February 2005
Ah, I actually haven't read enough of Dr. Heddle's material.
{edited to correct "have" to "haven't"}
He seems fairly angry. I am fairly angery at the lies creationists spout. It helps motivate sometimes. I was angry at Baumgardner when I wrote Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths.
Oddly, Dr. Heddle's needle fails to prick.
Douglas Theobald · 18 February 2005
Note, in the quote from Darwin's letter to his future wife there is a typo:
"I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negro's character."
options should be opinions
Gary Hurd · 18 February 2005
Got it thanks. I also changed the "general relativity" to "nuclear physics."
Terry Karney · 18 February 2005
Dr. Heddle has also misrepresented Roman Slavery (which was what Paul, and those of the time of the NT writings) had for a model, with the semi-indentured servitude of the Hebrew who put himself into slavery (there is some question about the relative freedoms of battle-gained slaves, as the period of the expansionist Kingdom of Israel was short there is little in the biblical record, and nothing in the talmudic; to the best of my, limited knowledge on the latter).
A Roman master owned his slaves outright. They had more freedoms and more chances at freedom; though this was limited to the discresion of the owner, than the chattel slaves of the ante-bellum south, but they were still property. An owner was required to show some cause when killing one, but barring another citizen, of standing, bringing a case, or testifying, in practice his sway was absolute.
With the rise of the latifundia (which paralleled the rise of Christianity in the slaves of Rome) the institution changed to a state very like the chattel slavery of the U.S., with the slaves unable to earn money for their freedoms, children born into the condition, and slaves sold, pawned and mortgaged.
The use of slaves in the gladitorial games puts a plain and simple lie to the claim of indentured servitude.
This is relevant, because this was the condition which Paul, who, as a citizen of Rome was well aware of, was telling the slave to be obedient to his master in.
TK
DaveScot · 19 February 2005
Pardon the heck out of me for causing you to think an uncomfortable thought. Please forgive me and go ahead and stick your head back in the sand. You'll need to keep it there in any case if you want to retain your faith in the all-powerful mutation/selection dogma.
Ed Darrel - why do I ask how many black guys Gary knows with PhD's in Biology?
To make you confront uncomfortable realities. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
DaveScot · 19 February 2005
Joe Shelby,
You're wrong. Removing energy from any closed system reduces its mass according to the formula e=mc^2.
There's no getting around it. Repeat 1000 times "mass and energy are equivalent".
Perhaps you're forgetting that even when something like an electron, or a molecule in Brownian motion, slows down or speeds up, its mass changes with the change in velocity. Usually we deal with the rest mass of objects in chemistry because they aren't travelling near enough to relativistic velocities to make any practical difference. But that doesn't mean there is no difference. So even in a chemical reaction when energy is removed from a closed system there must be a commensurate decrease in mass, however small that mass loss might be. It has to be that way because mass and energy are equivalent.
If you can manage to remove energy from a closed system without decreasing its mass you will have falsified e=mc^2. Good luck with that. You'll be the first and very famous for it.
DaveScot · 19 February 2005
Andrea,
I implied nothing. Here's another interesting, related factoid: there's a dearth of women in computer science/engineering roles that probably isn't reflected, or at least not as stark, in life sciences. Again, I imply nothing. It's merely an observation. You are free to speculate why this situation exists. You are even free to deny it if you wish. Denying the facts seems to be common in The Church of Darwin so I shan't be surprised.
DaveScot · 19 February 2005
Theobald,
As far as I know, Christ never intentionally killed a single living thing in his entire life. He didn't even eat meat. He preached kindness, charity, love, and salvation. No destruction or killing of any kind can be reconciled with Christ's preaching or the example he set with his life. Interestingly, Christ's gentle nature by itself would have made him a Buddhist or Hindu in good standing. Personally, I find the mandate to be kind & gentle to all living things to be the common thread uniting all the world's great religions and a number of lesser known religions.
In any case, any individual or identifiable group that calls itself Christian yet attempts to justify death and destruction is perverting the theme that Christ taught.
DaveScot · 19 February 2005
Andrea Bottaro · 19 February 2005
DaveScot:
as I have shown above, there is no more dearth of Blacks in Biology than there is in Physics, Astronomy or Mathematics (in fact, the opposite). Unless you also want to suggest that Blacks find "newtonism" and advanced calculus also racist, your point that biology as a scientific discipline is specifically avoided by Blacks is simply contradicted by the facts, and any conclusions you may want to attach to it is meaningless.
As for the racist undertones that transpire from your own posts, I don't think they are really worth addressing - given your track record for patently thought- and content-free pronouncements, you are by far the best spokesman against your own ideas.
Marcus Good · 19 February 2005
DaveScot said:
"As far as I know, Christ never intentionally killed a single living thing in his entire life."
Depends on if you're familiar with the New Testament Apocrypha. One tale dropped from Thomas was about how a child running into the boy Jesus dropped dead. When the parents of the dead boy complain to Joseph, Jesus blinded his accusers. And a playmate who annoyed Jesus was turned into a tree.
Of course, as the Crisis On Infinite Earths taught us, canon is retroactive.
(The Gospel of the Nazareans is best, because it has Laser-Beam-Eye Jesus.)
Dave S. · 19 February 2005
Andrea Bottaro · 19 February 2005
Uhm... didn't Jesus at some point perform a miracle where he allowed his disciples, after an unsuccessful night fishing, to catch more fish than their boat could hold? He may not have pulled the net up himself, but he certainly made the fish swim right into it, to their death. That must be good enough for at least a charge of accessory in fish-killing.
Enough · 19 February 2005
Aren't plants living things? Wouldn't his no meat diet still have to include killing something?
Russell · 19 February 2005
Here's a couple of interesting factoids for DaveScot:
There's a high correlation between intelligence measures ("IQ" to take one example) and level of education, and acceptance of evolutionary theory.
There's a high correlation between allegiance to fundamentalist christianity and rejection of evolutionary theory.
Of course, I imply nothing. Merely an observation. DaveScot is free to ignore it. Or deny it. Fortunately, we're free to ignore him. I suggest we exercise that freedom.
Roadtripper · 19 February 2005
Ed Darrell · 19 February 2005
DaveScot, I urge you to read the story of the withered fig tree, told in Mark 11.12-14 and 11.20-25, and Matthew 21.18-22. Also, read the story of the "demoniac" whose cure involved the drowning of a herd of swine, in Mark 5.1-15, and also in Matthew 8.28-34, and Luke 8.26-39.
Ed Darrell · 19 February 2005
DaveScot said:
To make you confront uncomfortable realities. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
I'm uncomfortable with institutional racism that has prevented people of color from achieving what they might. And I agree that American society has not done all it needs to do to erase those barriers and make restititution (to society, if nothing else) for past transgressions.
But why do you defend those institutions whose record is much worse, while casting stones at those who try?
I also pointed out that there are more African Americans in biology I know than are in the ranks of creationism defense or intelligent design advocacy.
Those who are not without sin AND live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I'm not made nervous by your misobservation. I'm appalled at your thinking that a lack of diversity in advanced degrees in any way supports your position.
mynym · 19 February 2005
"Mr. Foust next makes some asinine suggestions to "Black people" in the most arrogant and demeaning way. The average educated person, Black, White, or spotted, can see through the trivialized evolution=racism...."
Alright, there is a lot of falsehood hidden away in the research of the article written above.
Darwin and racism,
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
--Darwin
(Blacks Less Likely to Accept Charles Darwin's Dethronement of Mankind
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 21. (Autumn, 1998), p.40)
Darwin did take the modern Leftist view on race, a sort of Roussean "noble savage" sort of attitude mixed in with a fair degree of smarmy moral vanity. That is yet typical.
Darwinism and Nazism,
"To be sure, other movements, Marxism and Soviet Communism, for instance, have also claimed scientific validity. But only the Nazis have seen themselves as products and practitioners of the science of life and life processes---as biologically ordained guides to their own and the world's biological destiny. Whatever their hubris, and whatever the elements of pseudo science and scientism in what they actually did, they identified themselves with the science of their time.
.....The contribution of the actual scientific tradition to this ethos was exemplified by the quintessentially German figure of Ernst Haeckel, that formidable biologist and convert to Darwinism who combined with ardent advocacy of the Volk and romantic nationalism, racial regeneration, and anti-Semitism. He was to become what Daniel Gasman has called "Germany's major prophet of political biology." "
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :441)
"Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun particularly around the middle of the last century, by the teachings of Darwin, Mendel, and Galton and afterwards has been advanced by the studies of Ploetz, Schallmeyer, Correns, de Vries, Tschermak, Baur, Riidin, Fischer, Lenz, and others. Though it took decades before the courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings of the natural sciences, to carry on a systematic study of heredity, the progress of the teaching and its application to man could not be delayed any more. It was recognized that the natural laws discovered for plants and animals ought also to be valid for man, and this could fully and completely be confirmed during the last three decades both through family research(Familienforschung) and through the study of bastards and twins."
(Max Weinreich, Hitler's Professors: The
Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
against the Jewish People. (New York:
The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)
It's rather ironic to deny the history of what seems to have brought about NeoDarwinism, the modern synthesis. What seems to have been, "Oopsy....there is the Holocaust with its Nazi biopolicies. Hey, let's change Darwinism into NeoDarwinism now!"
And so, begin the accumulation of evidence to say the exact opposite of what was said in the eugenics movement, etc., all said to be science, science! For the Leftist mind, this means "truth." While at the same time they will deny to be speaking about what is "true" at all and focus on naturalistic explanation....because that's science, which must be true.
That's the general pattern, once you are an effete passive agressive who likes Mother Nature a bit too much.
Gary Hurd · 19 February 2005
Gary Hurd · 19 February 2005
Andrea Bottaro · 19 February 2005
Gary is correct. Two of the three founding books of the Modern Synthesis, Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" (1930), and JBS Haldane's "The Causes of Evolution" (1932) were written before Hitler even came to power (and largely based on work published even earlier). The third, Dobzhansky's "Genetics and the Origin of Species" (1937) also predated the Holocaust by some years.
But hey, why let reality ruin a good storyline, uh?
Stuart Weinstein · 19 February 2005
Dave Scott writes: "The first paragraph of your article contains the line "Blacks shouldn't back evolution".
I asked a simple and obviously related question - how many biology PhD's do you know that are black. If there's a dearth there's a reason. You tell me why there's a dearth and drop the feigned offense that someone dared to point out an uncomfortable fact to you. Deal with it.
Sheesh."
First of all, Dave, learn how to follow a thread. It wasn't Hurd's article, cr*p Profanity adds nothing to the discussion, and will cause some public schools to block access to PT.
for brains, that had the statement "Blacks shouldn't back evolution", that was in the editorial Hurd was responding too.
As far as I am aware, there's an under-representation of blacks in the science, in general.
If you think that has something to do with evolutionary biology, you are hopelessly naive.
It seems you went off half-cocked, not knowing the facts or even being able to figure out who said what.
Gary Hurd · 19 February 2005
Robert Jay Lifton's "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide" looked interesting. I just ordered a copy.
See even "mynym" can have a use. Manure improves the roses, neh?
Russell · 19 February 2005
Ed Darrell · 19 February 2005
Don T. Know · 20 February 2005
Don T. Know · 20 February 2005
Don T. Know · 20 February 2005
mynym · 20 February 2005
"Robert Jay Lifton's "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide" looked interesting. I just ordered a copy.
See even "mynym" can have a use."
Yeah, you might actually learn something that deals in historical patterns, rather than taking the myopic "scientific" view typical to PS.
As you read note when he writes of "medicalizing," as it is little different than naturalizing. Sometimes the simple fact is, seeking a naturalistic explanation is not the correct thing to do. It is not true. Yet there seem to be those who believe it is always true.
mynym · 20 February 2005
"....The neoDarwinian synthesis originated in the research and publications of R. A. Fisher in the 1920s, relating Darwinian natural selection the rediscovered Mendelian genetics. This was senso lato formalized by Thomas Huxley's grandson, Julian, in his 1942 book, "Evolution: the Modern Synthesis." There was nothing about Nazis of the Holocaust involved at all."
I suppose you know that Nazism and an entire pattern of scientism were around before the Nazis comitted the Holocaust. For instance, even America had its eugenics movement, all through the time period you are talking about. To say that scientists drew up NeoDarwinism in a cultural vacuum, is false.
mynym · 20 February 2005
"....The neoDarwinian synthesis originated in the research and publications of R. A. Fisher in the 1920s, relating Darwinian natural selection the rediscovered Mendelian genetics. This was senso lato formalized by Thomas Huxley's grandson, Julian, in his 1942 book, "Evolution: the Modern Synthesis." There was nothing about Nazis of the Holocaust involved at all."
I suppose you know that Nazism and an entire pattern of scientism were around before the Nazis actaully comitted the Holocaust. For instance, even America had its eugenics movement, all through the time period you are talking about. To say that scientists drew up NeoDarwinism in some sort of cultural vacuum, is false.
"The abuse of Darwin's writing is truly breathtaking to behold!"
Why did you edit what I wrote?
"Darwin did take the modern Leftist view on race, a sort of Roussean "noble savage" sort of attitude mixed in with a fair degree of smarmy moral vanity. That is yet typical."
The quote and my summary are accurate, but if you want to challenge something then challenge it. Do not avoid it and then claim "abuse" of poor old Darwin.
To those who like to use context to refute text, why do you make exception by context in one area (Darwin was the helpless victim of 19th Century Europe.) yet in another, you look at his text as such. (Darwin was a revolutionary who wrote the Origin and so had the power to change his own context.) You can no more deny Darwin's racism as some supposed artifact of context than a Christian can deny Luther's anti-Semitism. And you cannot then accept their texts, while simultaneously denying them. Revolutionaries, as much as anyone can be, are responsible for their own writings. They've already demonstrated the capacity to break with their culture, after all. I would not reject anything Darwin wrote because he was a racist, nor what Luther wrote because he was an anti-Semite.
But in each case the truth should be admitted to and the truth on this issue is, Darwin was a racist.
mynym · 20 February 2005
I'll have to remember that posts go through here, even when it gives an error message.
jeff-perado · 20 February 2005
jeff-perado · 20 February 2005
Mynym:
I'll tell you what, let's call a truce, I'll accept that Darwin was a racist, but ONLY if you accept that Jesus was ardently pro-slavery, pro-beating of slaves, and as a result of his created religion, literally millions of humans have been murdered in his name, committed suicide in fear of the "eminant" apocalypse, and all of Christendom has irrevocably splintered due to dogmatic re-interpretations of things they said He said.
If you cannot agree to this truce, then give up your "Darwin was a racist" meme and live with the fact that he was a product of his time period, and had to work within it thusly. Darwin's writings, and other statements, when takin in context of all his other writings, AND THE TIME PERIOD, point undeniably to his being an ANTI-racist!
Andrea Bottaro · 20 February 2005
DonkeyKong · 20 February 2005
You guys are silly.
We evolved to be superior to monkeys. But don't you dare say one gene expression is superior to another gene expression. That is geneism and it makes you an evil person.
Silly Silly Silly.
IF evolution is true then there exist more and less fit specimins among us. Statistically there will be physical differences seperating some of them.
Sorry but its YOUR theory just be honest about it. Evolution IS geneist by nature. And in all likelyhood when the dust settlees it will be racist too.
Sorry but you are the bad guys on this one.
Chip Poirot · 20 February 2005
I suggested the following link a few days ago in the context of another thread. The following article provides some interesting context for a discussion of Darwin's ideas on race and social heirarchy.
http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/Speed_PhilLife.pdf
I have read other accounts that are significantly less flattering to Darwin and Darwinists. Yet I find it hard to believe that Darwinism was a driving force behind Nazism. Notably, as I understand it, it tended to be the non-Darwinians like Haeckel who had the most racist ideas. Furthermore, Nazism and fascism both had complex and deep cultural and historical roots. No doubt Darwinian ideas were misused by the Nazis as were Christianity, Nationalism, Occultism-almost any force that could be harnessed by the Nazis to maintain their ideological hegemony was. That is part of the logic of totalitarian states. That does not make Darwinism responsible for Nazism any more than Nietsczhe or Hegel were directly responsible for Nazism. And of course there was no connection between Heidegger and Darwin and Heidegger was completely coopted by the Nazis.
I find this tactic alarming, though interesting in an odd sort of way. A conservative colleague of mine (a proponent of ID) recently engaged in the same tactic in suggesting that Neo-Darwinism was indirectly (or even directly) responsible for justifying infanticide, murder, racism, Nazism, Marxism and just about any other social ill imaginable. The odd and eerie (and yet also remarkable) trend is for conservatives to pick up on the rhetoric nd tactic of the extreme constructivists on the left.
jeff-perado · 21 February 2005
bcpmoon · 21 February 2005
Donkeykong: I know that I am repeating other posts, but attributing racism or geneism to a scientific theory is meaningless, as these concepts are outside the scope of the theory. A theory just describes or explains in broader scope what is, and nothing more. No moral statements can be derived from that. Racism is the work of politicians and people and is not inherent in science. Otherwise you should abandon Einstein because E=mc2 is a "sexed equation" where c is privileged in regard to other velocities. Or what about the fact that women live longer than men, which can be explained in the light of evolution? Does that fact make evolution sexist?
What counts is the theory, not who worked it out or to what ends it is being used. If that was not the case, we would again end up with Aryan Physics or Lysenko. I think with Christianity it is different, because this is supposed to be a moral system and if it can easily be used to promote racism and more or less everything you want, then it is simply useless.
DonkeyKong · 21 February 2005
bcpmoon.
Do you know what racism is?
Raceism is the belief that different races have differences that are genetic. Usually a difference in intelligence.
Were a business to make hiring decisions based on race for the purpose of hiring the most intelligent employees on average that is called racist. If your theory says that hiring one race or not another race fits this objective then you are supporting that racism.
Why are evolutionsists uncomfertable with the direct consequences of their beliefs?
If you aren't proud of your racism how can you be proud of the rest of evolution?
Grand Moff Texan · 21 February 2005
Why are evolutionsists uncomfertable with the direct consequences of their beliefs?
Why do people name their strawmen silly things like "direct consequence of your beliefs"?
DonkeyKong · 21 February 2005
Jeff-Perado
Intelligence will be the criteria of success in the future. The ability to use intelligence to overcome disease is only a few years from perfection and with steroids the ability to over come a large portion of physically fit has been demonstrated already.
"You see, all have their strengths and weaknesses, and all can make one person more "fit" given a particualr sets of circumstances. But this is a big world and there are many different sets of circumstances. Thus, no one set of "fittest" genes is universally superior.
That is what evolution says, and what science ascribes to."
Dude read more. Evolution clearly says survival of the fittest. The definition of fittest keeps changing I will grant you that but seriously read origion of species or something.
If all genes expressed today were equal then all species would have a equal chance for extinction. I think you would find that Humans are much less likely to go extinct than bald eagles.
The very premis of most fit is key to evolution. If it were survival of the randomly selected then the whole increase in complexity over time argument goes out the window.
Don't be in denial about what evolution is about.
Aggie Nostic · 21 February 2005
Enough · 21 February 2005
The scientific definition of fittest has never changed. The situations in which genes are selected for fitness have changed.
Enough · 21 February 2005
Pointing out there are genetic differences between bald eagles and people amkes you a racist? Evolution explains those differences and why they might have developed, but does not pass judgement. The theory of evolution doesn't judge anything, it explains natures "judgements".
Aggie Nostic · 21 February 2005
bcpmoon · 21 February 2005
jeff-perado · 21 February 2005
jeff-perado · 21 February 2005
DonkeyKong:
You also fall prey to a very common fallacy about evolution: that of "random mutation" and selection.
Let us conduct a hypothetical experiment:
A (human) individual is born (lets say a thousand years ago). This individual is born with two "random" mutations:
1) s/he is born with an intellegence far superior to any human then or now.
2) s/he is born with a abnormally slow metabolic rate.
Now suppose this person was born in the Siberian plains in the middle of winter.
The environment of that child will determine the survivability of that individual, not its inherant intelligence. The environment determines the "fitness" not the "random mutations" of the individual!
Thus while random mutations do occur in the genetic makeup of humans, it alone is not sufficient to determine "fitness"...
Thus your jump from "randomly selected" to "more complexity" is not only moot, but misguided. We are today, where we are on the scale of evolution due to a huge number of factors. Complexity is nothing more than a combination of random mutations/recombinations/duplications and there ability to respond to their environment.
That is what On the Origin of Species is all about. Not some farcical jump from random mutations occurring in a vacuum to denying an increase in complexity. The environment requires an increase in complexity if survivability or fitness is to occur over the long haul.
Now put that in your irony pipe and smoke it!
bcpmoon · 22 February 2005
jeff-perado:
Thanks, feel free to use it. But come to think of it, the phrase sounds very much like hybris, which as a cardinal sin could offend religious people...
jonas · 22 February 2005
Speaking of hybris, both the abuse of religion and the abuse of biology in the name of racism are prime examples of it, namely trying to dictate to an authority one is pretending to submit to.
In the case of evolution and its 'eugenic' use, the definition of fitness has been changed to represent the wishes of a political or philosophical movement to lend an air of biological destiny to its members and the stench of deserved obsolesence to all undesirables, instead of letting the natural conditions decide what and whom to be 'fitter' under the given circumstances. This is one of the reasons, why stating phylogenesis as a teleological process is not only bad science, as an aim can not be demonstrated, but philosophically risky, too.
In the case of digging up prejudice from biblical and ecclesiastic sources, it is again the unwillingless to let the authority, in this case the central teachings of Christianity, speak for itself. In the case of the Nazis, this danger has already been pinpointed in the 1934 declaration of Barmen, where theologians wary of the first attempts to bring the churches under state control 'rejected the false teaching that the gospel should be employed to further any political programme'(cited and translated from memory).
The tragic irony is not only, that anti-evolutionists happily give the religon thus misused the benefit of the doubt, but are loath to extend the same courtesy to equally maltreated scientific concepts, claiming them to actually show their true faces. At least as bad is the lack of respect for the authorities invoked on their part, defining the acceptable outcome of both science and religion, and defining every falsification or dissent as dangerous, unfair, erronous or dogmatic. Thus neither inquiery into the natural world nor into religious documents and personal faith are given anything near the deferrence loudly claimed by proponents of ID and SciCre.
DonkeyKong · 22 February 2005
Stop smoking crack.
"First of all, the concept of race - at least as applied to humans - has long been abandoned in biology. If you deny that "races", for example of dogs, have no genetic differences, well, then this discussion can be ended now. It is a fact that different races are genetically different. That the difference is usually in intelligence, is also wrong, because there are myriads of traits which are relevant for fitness, intelligence being only one."
Biology abandoned race as a concept in humans?? You silly little twit. Humans have genetic differences. Sciencists don't yet fully understand how genes are expressed by gunk DNA. But you with your little mind have spoken for biology that the concept of race is invalid among humans....
Totally at odds with genetic difference among humans and genetic differences being the engine of evolution.
READ forest READ
DonkeyKong · 22 February 2005
Hmm
Science or religion?
"Actually, that business would be called stupid, not racist. At least by people with brains. There is no correlation between skin color and intelligence."
There is a rather striking correlation between nations predominantly of one race being devoloped relative to nations predominantly of another race.
Call me silly names but that is a very clear correlation.
You do understand correlation don't you?
Or do you need to.....
READ forrest READ
DonkeyKong · 22 February 2005
All together now...
"First of all, I NEVER said all genes were equal! What I said was that any given set of genes could be more fit given a particular environment, not that all genes were equal in that same environment."
And by doing the logical thing and selecting job applicants for the set of genes that is in vogue today. Which would maximize profits as they are the most FIT genes.
Is called Racism whenever any of the fit genes is exclusive to a race or at least over represented to the point that racial makeup is a valid predictor.
This is like group denial.
DonkeyKong · 22 February 2005
"The environment requires an increase in complexity if survivability or fitness is to occur over the long haul."
And yet virus persist....and bacteria etc.
The human race is much more likely to fall to these than to a more evolved species.
Maybe they didn't get the memo.
So your hypothesis seems false...
Russell · 22 February 2005
Gary Hurd · 22 February 2005
The comments have degenerated to absurdity. They are serving no purpose other than as a playground for some very silly creationist cant.
Thank you to all those who made cogent remarks, several of whom improved my original post and contributed to the next "Mark IV" version.
Good day.