| Author | Post |
|---|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 05:03 pm |
|
Making a Monkey Out of Darwin
by Patrick J. Buchanan
06/30/2009
"You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."
As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.
He is quoted above for two reasons.
First is House passage of a "cap-and-trade" climate-change bill. Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths -- or a fearmongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.
The second is publication of "The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold," by Eugene G. Windchy, a splendid little book that begins with Huxley's lament.
That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.
"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."
"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.
Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.
"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed
and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire."
Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.
Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens -- all of them, when appeals
to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."
Yet a theory can produce evil -- and still be true.
And here Windchy does his best demolition work.
Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."
"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.
Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.
Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?
Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as "Nebraska Man" -- an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig -- and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.
Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.
Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.
Other myths are demolished. Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles. There are no gills in human embryos.
For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists," admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.
Darwin ruled out such "miracles."
And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.
The most delicious chapter is Windchy's exposure of the Scopes Monkey Trial and Hollywood's Bible-mocking movie "Inherit the Wind," starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.
The trial was a hoked-up scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tenn. Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury. And William Jennings Bryan held his own against the atheist Darrow in the transcript of the trial.
In 1981, Gould had this advice for beleaguered Darwinists:
"Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism ... a kind of old-time religion on our part."
Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 05:28 pm |
|
manonfire wrote: Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.
So does that make it a bad this? This conclusion seems to bite the entire article in its own ass.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 05:32 pm |
|
yoki wrote:
manonfire wrote: Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.
So does that make it a bad this? This conclusion seems to bite the entire article in its own ass.
Uh?
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 05:39 pm |
|
| Alcohol?
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 06:26 pm |
|
Well, this article seems to basically define "Darwinism" as "A worship of Charles Darwin and a belief that he's infallible."
And it points out - correctly - that worshiping Darwin would be silly. Darwin was a man, with flaws, and he made mistakes.
But the Theory of Evolution isn't "Darwinism" - it's the collective work of thousands of scientists over more than a century. It's a mountain of evidence, terabytes of data, and it's cross-disciplinary - geneticists, anthropologists, geologists, archaeologists, ornithologists, paleontologists, and many more are all reaching the same conclusion.
The evidence is clear and unequivocal that both the genotype and phenotype of species changes as a result of selective pressures.
Trying to dispute that mountain of evidence by raising the question of whether Darwin plagiarised Alfred Wallace is utterly asinine. That would be like trying to falsify the theory that planetary orbits are affected primarily by gravitational forces by pointing out that Newton used to voluntarily ingest mercury.
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 08:17 pm |
|
The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact. Genetics has proved Darwin to be correct, as have the breding of Pit Bulls and roach spray.
Sounds like your science courses were taken at the Crossroads Baptist Church with a preacher who failed the 5th grade.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 09:02 pm |
|
JackFlash wrote: The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact. Genetics has proved Darwin to be correct,
Oh! We who are skeptical about Darwin's beliefs were unaware of that. Thank you for stating it. Now we know it is true.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 09:47 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: JackFlash wrote: The term "scientific theory" is misleading; it is actually pretty much a fact. Genetics has proved Darwin to be correct,
Oh! We who are skeptical about Darwin's beliefs were unaware of that. Thank you for stating it. Now we know it is true.
Glad I could help.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 11:20 pm |
|
We who are skeptical about Darwin's beliefs were unaware of that.
I'm sure you're unaware of a lot of things...reality being among them, it would seem...
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 12:10 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: We who are skeptical about Darwin's beliefs were unaware of that.
I'm sure you're unaware of a lot of things
Lots. Particularly why Jack Flash would state as a fact that for which he has no empirical evidence.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: We who are skeptical about Darwin's beliefs were unaware of that.
I'm sure you're unaware of a lot of things
Lots. Particularly why Jack Flash would state as a fact that for which he has no empirical evidence.
Yes, it would appear that the empirical evidence for evolution would be among those things of which you're unaware...
Now you can be aware.
Ain't knowledge grand?
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 03:43 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: We who are skeptical about Darwin's beliefs were unaware of that.
I'm sure you're unaware of a lot of things
Lots. Particularly why Jack Flash would state as a fact that for which he has no empirical evidence.
Yes, it would appear that the empirical evidence for evolution would be among those things of which you're unaware...
Now you can be aware.
Ain't knowledge grand?
Yes, it is far too grand to be encapsulated in a mere website address, whether that website be the one you just typed, or ones typed by skeptics of evolution.
But to state that it is a "fact" is simply mule-headed, wrong and highly unscientific.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 04:43 am |
|
Yes, it is far too grand to be encapsulated in a mere website address, whether that website be the one you just typed, or ones typed by skeptics of evolution.
However, there are plenty of facts and examples of the "lacking" empirical evidence at that website...which is more than just a collection of URLs. If you'd bothered to look at it, you would have known that.
But to state that it is a "fact" is simply mule-headed, wrong and highly unscientific.
Nonsense. Evolution is most certainly a "fact". It has been observeed, directly and indirectly, on countless occasions. If you'd bothered to read the information on the "mere website address" I typed you would know this.
In fact, I'll save you searching around. Have a look here for an article explaining this very concept. No, I'm not going to copy-and-paste it here, nor am I going to paraphrase it. If you're too lazy to click once on the mouse and then read, that's your problem, not mine.
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 04:55 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Nonsense. Evolution is most certainly a "fact". It has been observeed, directly and indirectly, on countless occasions. If you'd bothered to read the information on the "mere website address" I typed you would know this.
Bullshit. No one has ever obvserved a human being evolving from anything.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 05:28 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: Nonsense. Evolution is most certainly a "fact". It has been observeed, directly and indirectly, on countless occasions. If you'd bothered to read the information on the "mere website address" I typed you would know this.
Bullshit. No one has ever obvserved a human being evolving from anything.
Really?
I've been watching my baby daughter evolve from a newborn to a toddler to a prescooler for years now. In a few weeks, she'll evolve into a second grader.
And I look forward to watching, proudly, as she evolves into the beautiful, intelligent, wonderful person my wife and I are trying to help her become.
As to evolution of a species, well, obviously you can't observe the whole of that in a single individual.
-- A2SG, surely you knew that already, though....
Last edited on Tue Aug 4th, 2009 05:30 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 05:34 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: Nonsense. Evolution is most certainly a "fact". It has been observeed, directly and indirectly, on countless occasions. If you'd bothered to read the information on the "mere website address" I typed you would know this.
Bullshit. No one has ever obvserved a human being evolving from anything.
We you under the impression that one has to watch a human being evolve from something else in order to observe evolution?
You've heard of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)? It is a new species of s. aureus that has evolved over the last 50 years or so of profligate and incorrect use of antibiotics. It was predicted back in the 1950s, and the predictions were ignored. Those predictions were based on evolutionary theory, which allowed microbiologists to make a prediction that later became an observed fact: s. aureus evolved, right before our very eyes, Stiggy.
Like I said: go and read the links I've provided you. They provide plentiful examples of speciation and observed evolution.
Stamping your feet and sticking your fingers in your ears whilst demanding to observe something that, in humans, takes hundres of thousands of years, isn't going to make it going away.
____________________
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 05:40 am |
|
surely you knew that already, though
Of course he knew it. But he responded with the typical creationist tap-dance. If an evolution-supporter can't show pictures of an e. coli bacterium turning into a human being, they smugly claim victory.
And it is a victory, of sorts: it's a victory for their bizarre strawman version of evolution, gleaned from moronic pastors or the idiots that author aritcles on Answers in Genesis, as opposed to the version of evolution put forward by actual evolutionary biologists.
I'm fairly certain which version of evolutionary theory I hold to...and it has nothing to do with watchmakers, tornados in junkyards or "bacteria-to-bears".
I'm betting Stiggy's next tactic will be to try to switch to "micro-" vs "macro-evolution", and claim the first is feasible while the second isn't. Which is kind of like arguing that falling a metre ("micro-gravity") is qualitatively different from falling 2 kilometres ("macro-gravity").
____________________
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 05:48 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: surely you knew that already, though
Of course he knew it. But he responded with the typical creationist tap-dance. If an evolution-supporter can't show pictures of an e. coli bacterium turning into a human being, they smugly claim victory.
And it is a victory, of sorts: it's a victory for their bizarre strawman version of evolution, gleaned from moronic pastors or the idiots that author aritcles on Answers in Genesis, as opposed to the version of evolution put forward by actual evolutionary biologists.
I'm fairly certain which version of evolutionary theory I hold to...and it has nothing to do with watchmakers, tornados in junkyards or "bacteria-to-bears".
I'm betting Stiggy's next tactic will be to try to switch to "micro-" vs "macro-evolution", and claim the first is feasible while the second isn't. Which is kind of like arguing that falling a metre ("micro-gravity") is qualitatively different from falling 2 kilometres ("macro-gravity").
Nah. That'd be arguing a point.
No doubt Stiggy will run true to form and put on a show instead! Dancing bears, trained elephants and tap dancing!
-- A2SG, now That's the Stiggy show in action! Greatest show on earth!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 08:34 am |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Aldaron wrote: surely you knew that already, though
Of course he knew it. But he responded with the typical creationist tap-dance. If an evolution-supporter can't show pictures of an e. coli bacterium turning into a human being, they smugly claim victory.
And it is a victory, of sorts: it's a victory for their bizarre strawman version of evolution, gleaned from moronic pastors or the idiots that author aritcles on Answers in Genesis, as opposed to the version of evolution put forward by actual evolutionary biologists.
I'm fairly certain which version of evolutionary theory I hold to...and it has nothing to do with watchmakers, tornados in junkyards or "bacteria-to-bears".
I'm betting Stiggy's next tactic will be to try to switch to "micro-" vs "macro-evolution", and claim the first is feasible while the second isn't. Which is kind of like arguing that falling a metre ("micro-gravity") is qualitatively different from falling 2 kilometres ("macro-gravity").
Nah. That'd be arguing a point.
No doubt Stiggy will run true to form and put on a show instead! Dancing bears, trained elephants and tap dancing!
-- A2SG, now That's the Stiggy show in action! Greatest show on earth!
But, as always, my argument isn't to convince Stiggy of anything...I seriously doubt that's possible. My argument is to try to prevent a "free ride" for people like Stiggy or Hiram in the event there is someone lurking, reading the threads, and not convinced either way.
If I can prevent one mind being destroyed by the intellect-eating virus that is creationism, I consider my work to be done. 
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2009 02:45 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: Nonsense. Evolution is most certainly a "fact". It has been observeed, directly and indirectly, on countless occasions. If you'd bothered to read the information on the "mere website address" I typed you would know this.
Bullshit. No one has ever obvserved a human being evolving from anything.
Really?
Yes, really. No one has ever watched a human being evolve from anything.
I've been watching my baby daughter evolve from a newborn to a toddler to a prescooler for years now.
That would be called growth. Let me know when you see a human being evolve from another species. That should make news.
As to evolution of a species, well, obviously you can't observe the whole of that in a single individual.
And yet the obviousness of that fact somehow does not prevent declin from calling evolution itself a fact.
-- A2SG, surely you knew that already, though....
Yep. I did indeed know already that you could give no empirical evidence whatsoever for a human being evolving from another species.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Current time is 04:31 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
