Albuquerque hosts Charles Darwin at Museum this Sunday

How do you get the nickname "Fox"? I so want that. I bet he named himself that. Not cool, Foxy.

Will this darwin be bringing up to the audience about his idea that women are biologically intellectually inferior to men? r is just about ideas that are still accepted by some.?

Well, let's see. A 6.55, I think. 5 for the outright lie, and 3 for the totally unintelligible second sentence, but discounted 1.5 by the fact that the first, while irrational, senseless, prolix and ungrammatical, can actually be parsed for meaning.

Must do better, Byers.

I saw Ellis perhaps a year and a half ago. The presentation is excellent, with some teaching interactivity. Highly recommended.

I will be there tomorrow unless I get hit by a bus or something of the sort. It's odd, but I've been to the museum many times over the past few years and I haven't really had a chance to go wonder around and look at the exhibits.

his idea that women are biologically intellectually inferior to men?

harold said: 1. Women were treated as inferiors in Victorian society; Darwin was not at all misogynistic or sexist by the standards of his time. However, life evolves; this would be true even if Darwin actually had been a raving male chauvinist. 2. Of course the event will mainly be about his ideas that are still accepted.

The outright lie of Byers, Joe, was that misogyny was Darwin's idea. It wasn't by any stretch his idea.

Dave Luckett said: The outright lie of Byers, Joe, was that misogyny was Darwin's idea. It wasn't by any stretch his idea.

By our standards today, Darwin was a misogynist and a racist. Almost all (white) males of Darwin’s time were.

Women were treated as inferiors in Victorian society; Darwin was not at all misogynistic or sexist by the standards of his time. However, life evolves; this would be true even if Darwin actually had been a raving male chauvinist.

I'd actually be prepared to defend Darwin on the charge of misogyny. Not on the charge of sexism, mind, of which he stands guilty, as did practically every man of his time (and many of ours), but he did not hate, fear or loathe women, and that's what misogynists do.

Dave Luckett said: I'd actually be prepared to defend Darwin on the charge of misogyny. Not on the charge of sexism, mind, of which he stands guilty, as did practically every man of his time (and many of ours), but he did not hate, fear or loathe women, and that's what misogynists do.

I'm the one who introduced the word misogyny, but in the context of pointing out that, contrary to the assertion of Robert Byers, the description does not apply to Darwin, at least according to the historical record.

harold said: Robert Byers - Your comment is coherent enough that I can respond to it.

his idea that women are biologically intellectually inferior to men?

1. Women were treated as inferiors in Victorian society; Darwin was not at all misogynistic or sexist by the standards of his time. However, life evolves; this would be true even if Darwin actually had been a raving male chauvinist. 2. Of course the event will mainly be about his ideas that are still accepted. 3. What is the view of your religion with respect to the appropriate role of women in society? Creationists claim to "take the Bible literally"; however, the Bible is full of condemnations of hypocrisy, and they don't take those literally at all.

Joe Felsenstein said:

harold said: 1. Women were treated as inferiors in Victorian society; Darwin was not at all misogynistic or sexist by the standards of his time. However, life evolves; this would be true even if Darwin actually had been a raving male chauvinist. 2. Of course the event will mainly be about his ideas that are still accepted.

By our standards today, Darwin was a misogynist and a racist. Almost all (white) males of Darwin's time were. Yes, you can find statements by him that were misogynistic and racist. His view of race was quite similar to his contemporary Abraham Lincoln (in fact, he was a bit more consistent than Lincoln was in his opposition to slavery). Do we think of Lincoln as a major proponent of racism? No, because of the role he played in ending slavery, and because so many of his contemporaries were much worse. It is worth keeping this in perspective and not engaging in foolish denials that Lincoln, or Darwin, ever made a racist or misogynistic statement. They were men of their time. Point 2) above is important too. To some extent concentrating on the (large) part of Darwin's thinking that has not only survived, but is the foundation of modern biology, may lead to a nonhistorical hero-worship. I wish there were an easy way to get the fuller picture across in a re-enactment like Brian Ellis's.

the bible gave full equality to woman in society except to recognize the reality of men over women

Robert Byers said: The "descent of man" has quite detailed discussion from Darwin on women. "Thus man has ultimately become superior to women" "...the present inequality in mental power ..." or "...the averageof mental power in man must be above that of woman". In fact Darwin said that if the "...law of equal transmission of characters..." was not operative then the intellectual biological differences between men/woman would be as high a contrast as between a full plumaged peacock and a peahen. It goes on like this. In fact the whole book rightly is not read today as it alone would discredit Darwinism. No excuses. First Victorian society was to that date the highest level women ever had. Nothing wrong with it. The men were not bad to women. Thats modern accusations from prideful feminism. The people did not believe women were innately inferior to men. That was suggested by evolutionism. Off thread but the bible gave full equality to woman in society except to recognize the reality of men over women. However its never taught there is to be a difference save within marriage in a minor way. Darwins ideas on women are not from his society but firmly within the ideas of evolution. Completely based on the principals he uses for everything else he says. Read his book! Another point is why was he wrong?! The atomic reasoning here is the same as in his other stuff. The other stuff simply is about untestable past events.

Robert Byers said: The "descent of man" has quite detailed discussion from Darwin on women. "Thus man has ultimately become superior to women" "...the present inequality in mental power ..." or "...the averageof mental power in man must be above that of woman". In fact Darwin said that if the "...law of equal transmission of characters..." was not operative then the intellectual biological differences between men/woman would be as high a contrast as between a full plumaged peacock and a peahen. It goes on like this. In fact the whole book rightly is not read today as it alone would discredit Darwinism. No excuses. First Victorian society was to that date the highest level women ever had. Nothing wrong with it. The men were not bad to women. Thats modern accusations from prideful feminism. The people did not believe women were innately inferior to men. That was suggested by evolutionism. Off thread but the bible gave full equality to woman in society except to recognize the reality of men over women. However its never taught there is to be a difference save within marriage in a minor way. Darwins ideas on women are not from his society but firmly within the ideas of evolution. Completely based on the principals he uses for everything else he says. Read his book! Another point is why was he wrong?! The atomic reasoning here is the same as in his other stuff. The other stuff simply is about untestable past events.

Robert Byers said: Off thread but I must defend white men and dArwin here. Hogwash. There was nothing wrong with ideas on sex/race if they are honestly reached and without malice. Nope. This is a usual attack against the old ones with no reference or accuracy as to character and motives of mankind. Its opinions change then its just opinions and not anything more. There is no such thing as racism/sexism/ etc. All there is in the world is ideas about other identities that are right or wrong from sincere opinion or from malice. By the way. You said white men are racist etc. Well that means your saying people of this identity are bad. By your standard that would make it a racist/sexist opinion.? Yet it isn't. Its just a honest opinion of peoples character/motives based on group think. You can opine on people groups. Test. Replace white men with ,Jewish, black, Asian, Gay, women, and you would be accused of 'ism. Would they be right? Just a thoughtful aside.

Robert Byers -

I don't understand why you evaded my question.

What is the view of your religion with respect to the appropriate role of women in society?

For the record...

1) I know you will never provide a straight answer.

2) Your true views on gender and race are obvious to me, although you try to conceal them.

harold--

Byers made himself absolutely clear above; "the bible gave full equality to woman in society except to recognize the reality of men over women."

Well, maybe not ABSOLUTELY clear. In fact, "full equality" and "reality of men over women," is sort of exactly contradictory. But it can't really be a contradiction because it's in the bible and all. So if it looks totally contradictory, it just means you LACK FAITH!!!

There, is that straight now? ;)

hoary puccoon said: Byers made himself absolutely clear above; "the bible gave full equality to woman in society except to recognize the reality of men over women."

What's interesting to me about Byer's blather is that I've NEVER heard or read a biologist or geologist (another group of scientists with a vested interest in evolution and long periods of time) say anything remotely like "evolution shows that men are superior to women". On the other hand, I've repeatedly heard and read of people using the Bible to justify such an opinion. I've also repeatedly heard and read creationists invoke the meme that evolution also justifies that opinion.

The question is, why? It's certainly possible that creationists misunderstand that aspect of evolution; after all, they misunderstand so much of evolution. But sometimes I wonder whether they just hope that at least this part of their belief system will be upheld by evolution as well. Or could it be that they simply hope that by blaming (what to most scientifically literate people is) an abhorrent idea on evolution, those people will reject evolution?

hoary puccoon said: harold-- Byers made himself absolutely clear above; "the bible gave full equality to woman in society except to recognize the reality of men over women." Well, maybe not ABSOLUTELY clear. In fact, "full equality" and "reality of men over women," is sort of exactly contradictory. But it can't really be a contradiction because it's in the bible and all. So if it looks totally contradictory, it just means you LACK FAITH!!! There, is that straight now? ;)

GvlGeologist, FCD said: What's interesting to me about Byer's blather is that I've NEVER heard or read a biologist or geologist (another group of scientists with a vested interest in evolution and long periods of time) say anything remotely like "evolution shows that men are superior to women". On the other hand, I've repeatedly heard and read of people using the Bible to justify such an opinion. I've also repeatedly heard and read creationists invoke the meme that evolution also justifies that opinion. The question is, why? It's certainly possible that creationists misunderstand that aspect of evolution; after all, they misunderstand so much of evolution. But sometimes I wonder whether they just hope that at least this part of their belief system will be upheld by evolution as well. Or could it be that they simply hope that by blaming (what to most scientifically literate people is) an abhorrent idea on evolution, those people will reject evolution?

Robert Byers said: What I mean is that full equality is given by the bible however in some of the old testament there is a recognition of the man over women reality in that world. so on minor points God allows things. Yet the bible is the greatest teaching ever on the great equality of the sexes regarding all important things. Salvation, life and limb, and how either sex can be seen as holy and righteous with no difference. The origin of modern womens status is from the closer attention to the bible and human relationships in the Anglo-American world because of a greater influence from the Puritan/Evangelical Protestant continous percentages. As it is today.

Robert Byers said: Modern evolution doesn't talk about womens evolutionary intellectual status either because they see no difference from men, or politics interfering, or a desire to hide a embarrassment. My point was about what Darwin taught and those following him. Another point was how it was firmly within and substained by his evolutionary ideas. Not a aside. the error here is the same error in all his ideas. In fact I always tell everyone to read the 'Descent of man" to understand how wildly off base Darwin was in observations of nature and how laughable are his conclusions. The women thing is just a grabber. There's more in the cookie jar.

Robert Byers said: What I mean is that full equality is given by the bible however in some of the old testament there is a recognition of the man over women reality in that world. so on minor points God allows things. Yet the bible is the greatest teaching ever on the great equality of the sexes regarding all important things. Salvation, life and limb, and how either sex can be seen as holy and righteous with no difference. The origin of modern womens status is from the closer attention to the bible and human relationships in the Anglo-American world because of a greater influence from the Puritan/Evangelical Protestant continous percentages. As it is today.

Robert Byers said: Modern evolution doesn't talk about womens evolutionary intellectual status either because they see no difference from men, or politics interfering, or a desire to hide a embarrassment. My point was about what Darwin taught and those following him. Another point was how it was firmly within and substained by his evolutionary ideas. Not a aside. the error here is the same error in all his ideas. In fact I always tell everyone to read the 'Descent of man" to understand how wildly off base Darwin was in observations of nature and how laughable are his conclusions. The women thing is just a grabber. There's more in the cookie jar.

I cannot let this one slide-- Byers says, "The origin of modern womens status is from the closer attention to the bible...."

Excuse me, but being of a certain age, and not being, as another poster recently called me, a 'sir' I know a great deal about the "origin of modern womens [sic] status," and I can tell you it did not come from "closer attention to the bible."

I was in South Carolina when we were trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified, and in the thick of the struggle. I am proud to say, I was personally denounced from the podium of the South Carolina state senate. And I know for an absolute fact that the biblical literalists were fighting us tooth and nail, with the kind of vicious distortions they are now using against gays. (Yes, we were going to "destroy the American family", too.)

The improvement in modern women's status came because the Supreme Court finally woke up and realized the 14th amendment already guaranteed us equal protection under the law. The bible thumpers did nothing to help. They did everything they could to block the ERA, and they would have blocked the new interpretation of the 14th amendment if they could have.

Sorry, everyone, for this flame. Pretty much until now, I've found Byers amusing. But the hypocrisy of holding up the very people who attempted (not very successfully, it's true) to humiliate me in public as my supposed benefactors is simply beneath contempt.

(Byers, I will not respond to anything you write further on this topic. You may have the last word. I already know it will be another lie.)

1.666

"Let your women keep silence in the church, for it is not permitted for thm to speak."

nuf said.

P.S. Sorry about that Hoary.

DS--

No problem. My husband is not under the slightest confusion, which is all that matters on that topic. :)

hoary puccoon said: (Byers, I will not respond to anything you write further on this topic. You may have the last word. I already know it will be another lie.)

hoary puccoon said: I cannot let this one slide-- Byers says, "The origin of modern womens status is from the closer attention to the bible...." Excuse me, but being of a certain age, and not being, as another poster recently called me, a 'sir' I know a great deal about the "origin of modern womens [sic] status," and I can tell you it did not come from "closer attention to the bible." I was in South Carolina when we were trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified, and in the thick of the struggle. I am proud to say, I was personally denounced from the podium of the South Carolina state senate. And I know for an absolute fact that the biblical literalists were fighting us tooth and nail, with the kind of vicious distortions they are now using against gays. (Yes, we were going to "destroy the American family", too.) The improvement in modern women's status came because the Supreme Court finally woke up and realized the 14th amendment already guaranteed us equal protection under the law. The bible thumpers did nothing to help. They did everything they could to block the ERA, and they would have blocked the new interpretation of the 14th amendment if they could have. Sorry, everyone, for this flame. Pretty much until now, I've found Byers amusing. But the hypocrisy of holding up the very people who attempted (not very successfully, it's true) to humiliate me in public as my supposed benefactors is simply beneath contempt. (Byers, I will not respond to anything you write further on this topic. You may have the last word. I already know it will be another lie.)

Getting up there, Byers. A 7 for another piece of self-contradicting logical mayhem. How do you do it?

Have a nice day, everyone.

Robert Byers said: ...This is off thread and so I understand i have the last and best word.