Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

You know that he had concentrated more on geology and such at the time of his voyage, yes? He was also recommended as naturalist on the Beagle by George Peacock (along with someone else), and I'm fairly certain Darwin's interests in exploration and science were a large part of the deal.

Not at all. An agreeable companion was the only thing FitzRoy was interested in. And he claimed that he had friends who could command him to return to base in any manner he thought fitting. Perhaps Fitzroy had a particularly trying wife. Socrates was in such a situation they say.

And Darwin dumped on Fanny Hope, la belle, who wanted to play the postillion/housemaid game forever and that's a definite sign of having a talent for something or other the nature of which has so far eluded me.

0 Replies

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

I will predict that you've involved both the genetic fallacy and fallacious ad hominem, though. Both are common and unless you're a complete incompetent, you can look them up without complaining about whatever invented personal reasons I could possibly have for listing them.

That is totally without meaning from a scientific point of view. Even a load of crap has a meaning.

0 Replies

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

Concerning 'AIDsers', there is no such thing. The implication pertains to a horrific disease.

I hadn't thought of that. But now you mention it my whole position is that atheism actually is a horrific disease. As is artificial insemination by donor.

I think that the reason no candidate in the electoral process, from the beginning, has come out for atheism is that the American people think it is a horrific disease as well.

It is wittier than I had thought.

0 Replies

The topic of "who was the naturalist on board the BEagle ?" was a matter of significant scholarly interest in recent years. Robert McKormick, as ships surgeon WAS, the Beagles naturalist

As SJ Gould stated in EVER SINCE DARWIN,1977.Norton Pubs

*" McKormick was an adequate, if not brilliant naturalist,trained as a naturalist as well as surgeon." (The Admiralty had no official title as "naturalist'.However there was a place name for ships surgeon / naturalist in the crew list and McKormick is the name listed)

*McKormick later served with Ross as Surgeon /naturalist on the South Pole Expedition

*An informational letter sent by R Jameson and addressed to the "naturalist,HMS Beagle" was clearly identified with McKormicks name on the "Redwell"

Peacocks letter via Henslow, was not an invitation for a job interview but for a "companion to the Captain" and one who is trained and interested in all things of the natural philosophy, was preferred. Darwin , with a little help from his friends, was granted an interview and<Although Fitzroy was immediately put off by Darwins higher "breeding", they soon warmed and DArwins enthusiasm was quite infectious. The position of companion was the captains choice, wereas the Surgeon/naturalist was the Admiralty's

Several sources , besides Gould, develop the point from different data and biographical information. These include,

Browne, E J (1995) Charles Darwin Voyaging: A Biography. Princeton University Press

Zimmer, C.(2001),Evolution, theTriumph of an Idea.Harper Collins

Burkhardt,F.H. and Sydney Smith (1985) Correspondence of Charles Darwin:volume 1 [1821-1836], Cambridge Press.

0 Replies

That's what you read fm.

It probably represents a caricature and, as such, is easy to understand, but it is nowhere near what actually happened which is impossible to describe unless one had been there.

Surgeons, in those days, were thought of as a menial grade by the officer class and, as such, not invited to the captain's table which is what agreeable companions were invented for.

0 Replies

If you read my post with the comprehension skills of a third grader, perhaps youd understand better. FActs are facts.

Youre attempting to make the same argument via the style of RL who appeals regularly to the "you werent there so it did not happen" school, Such a klempfer and a chazer you are

0 Replies

It's an irony of sorts that spendi would make the claim "you were not there," but often uses quotes by dead authors as his authority. Quite funny, really!

0 Replies

No c.i. You misunderstand quotes. They stand alone. It doesn't matter where or when they were written or by whom.

If Hitler had said to look both ways before you cross the road I wouldn't go arguing with it because it was Hitler who had said it.

If Hitler had asked how many years must a mountain exist before it is washed to the sea I would never think that mountains weren't washed to the sea just because it was Hitler who asked.

A quote is different from an appraisal of events seen through the rose-coloured spectacles of one's own image.

Like chalk and cheese are different which is easily proved by trying a chalk butty.

So it is quite funny really that you have had an expensive education and been all round the world to widen your horizons and don't know that simple distinction.

0 Replies

I always thought quotes had to have the support of some form of evidence (witness) or repeatability (by others); therefore, all quotes do not "stand alone."

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

How can anything possibly be funny to an American chap who doesn't appreciate it? The whole point of "funny" is that only a few appreciate it.
Apart from custard pie and foxed bloomers jokes I mean.

Meh, let's not get into a theory of comedy right now. The basic point is that Americans do just fine understanding irony and sarcasm.

spendius wrote:

Not at all. An agreeable companion was the only thing FitzRoy was interested in. And he claimed that he had friends who could command him to return to base in any manner he thought fitting. Perhaps Fitzroy had a particularly trying wife. Socrates was in such a situation they say.

From the book you've been citing:

p101 wrote:

The hour was late, his body exhausted, but Charles leapt at the offer. Henslow was adamant: 'You are the very man they are in search of.' The Admirals were scouting out someone to accompany Capt. Robert FitzRoy on his two-year survey of coastal South America. FitzRoy, only twenty-six himself, wanted a young companion, a well-bred 'gentleman' who could relieve the isolation of command, someone to share the captain's table. Better still if he were a naturalist, for there would be unprecedented opportunities. The ship was equipped for 'scientific purposes' and a 'man of zeal & spirit' could do wonders, Henslow enthused. Charles might not be a 'finished naturalist,' but taking 'plenty of Books' would help, and he was the obvious choice.

So like I said, he was a companion, recommended for the job, and part of what's listed to convince him is the promise of naturalist stuff. It's actually an even better job than an official naturalist, as he was essentially at his leisure to go exploring and learn what he wanted to..

spender wrote:

That is totally without meaning from a scientific point of view. Even a load of crap has a meaning.

lol @ "from a scientific point of view".

spender wrote:

It is wittier than I had thought.

You mean more offensive and stupid. I'll help you translate 'witty' to 'stupid' if you're having trouble Very Happy

.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

FActs are facts.

That statement has been argued over.

But I'll accept it provisionally.

You are clued up on all this fm so tell me--who was the friend who turned down FitzRoy's offer and what were his qualifications?

I'm not arguing about this. I don't really know as I said. It's all conjecture based on various bits of circumstantial evidence.

We are left to specuate on whether the Theory would have appeared at all had the friend accepted and Darwin took orders and married.

Could it have been Henslow's theory and he didn't fancy taking the heat.

The prospect of that heat could well be the cause of Darwin's many illnesses. Psychosomatic illnesses I'm suggesting. There are expressions of nervousness in Darwin's writings concerning the disputes he knew he was unleashing. Fame beckoned but so did ridicule and worse.

What the female Darwins and Wedgewoods thought of the cartoons is anybody's guess.

I notice you have passed over the "City" grabbing the body off the "country" folks for cash with massive help from media which itself was "city" based. Look how much they missed by not grabbing Emily Bronte's body.

0 Replies

The Vicar of Swaffham-Bulbeck, the REv Leonard Bloomfield (ne: Leonard Jenyns)

An interesting added point was that McKormick, the actual ships surgeon and naturalist, left the Beagle expedition near Rio, because he felt that DArwin had usurped his own authority as "OFFICIAL" naturalist.

0 Replies

That's not quite how D&M see it fm-

They describe it as a bit of a mix up. Darwin thought he had been offered the post and sent a letter of acceptance. He rushed to Henslow.

Quote:

The botanist, recovering from Charles's precipitate appearance, briefed him about the offer. True, he was not the first to receive it. The old-boy network had been buzzing for weeks: Jeynes had turned it down on account of his parish duties. Henslow himself had flirted with going, but his wife 'looked so miserable' that he withdrew. Both men then nominated Darwin, neither married nor ordained.

No sooner had Charles begun savouring his 'good fortune' than a courteous message came from FitzRoy. Regrettably, Peacock had misrepresented the offer. The Captain had already promised the place to a friend, but if this fell through Charles would have first claim. FitzRoy hoped no one had been inconvenienced.

Charles was crushed. It had been a 'tremendous, hard week,' an emotional turmoil, and all apparently in vain. He slept fitfully again that night and went to London first thing on Monday. There were contingency plans to make in case the offer was renewed, and an appointment to keep with FitzRoy. But he was no longer sanguine about the voyage. Frankly, he and Henslow had 'entirely given it up.'

At the meeting with FitzRoy the Captain---"came to the point at once. His friend had just refused the offer, not five minutes before. Was Mr Darwin still interested?"

I don't think the friend could have been Jeynes. So who was he and why did he refuse? It is possible, though unlikely, as somebody would have arrived at the Evolution theory I feel sure, that without FitzRoy's friend refusing the offer, I would guess because of a woman or a few women, we would not now be having this debate on A2K and in the courts and organs of media. We might now, instead, be polishing our shoes for Evensong where we might have seen the ladies in all their finery rather than in the fat-bottomed jeans and baggy pullovers tramping dolefully around the malls.

Which should give any man of science pause for thought. From little acorns mighty oak trees go. (Which stands alone c.i. .Timeless and unlabelled but peer-reviewed by history itself. )

Somebody once said, it matters not who, that if there's trouble there's a woman behind it somewhere. That stands alone too.

After all, Lytton Strachey portrayed Florence Nightingale in his "Eminent Victorians" as a "dominatrix, a vampire, who sucked energy from men and left withered hulks behind."

A sentiment which some of the lads in the pub often express although not quite in such strident terms.

Can you believe that? Florence Nightingale, our secular saint, who was as mad as mad gets.

0 Replies

Such is the tale of Destiny.

Going at the same speed as these hours we are now in it is something of an irreducible complexity. To reduce it in order to think one comprehends it requires resort to cartoon and caricature.

To think that all this sound and fury is resting on the pin-point of FitzRoy's friend's girlfriend being a "necessity of life" and hence on what her qualities were is just mind-blowing IMHAHO.

A famous football manager here has recently complained that he cannot buy the players he wants to buy because their wives refuse to live in the north-east where he is based.

The hand that rocks the cradle eh. Like Spengler says--"Man makes Destiny--woman IS Destiny."

And you liberal, lily-livered, sold-out jellybabies wish to see this tender white hand be given more power than it inherited from evolutionary selection and which Mr Ted Hughes, a poet laureate, treated of in his fabulous book Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being, at the behest of a steam-roller of about a couple of thousand media "women" who seek "equality" with men assuming, of course, just in the office where they work I mean, where Daddy has carefully placed them on discovering that they had no talents other than being able to copy out bits from NCSE and ACLU handouts and be given a by-line.

" 'er as reets in't paper", I once heard onesuch described. It was a striking phrase which I will always remember. I had asked my pals who the lady was in the corner sat with a friend. "Oh, that's 'er who reets in't paper", one replied. He had never read a word she had written mind you and neither had anyone else I asked in my attempt to discover some pointers to her mental state.

I represent these men. The ladies in the offices of Media would not wish "equality" with those guys I feel sure but they are going to see that the ordinary girls get it and there's millions of them. You've been ramped.

And these ladies who are bent on promoting Darwin in schools because it's science and science should be all there is in science lessons (another impossible figment) are fully paid up to-

Quote:

...the male possesses certain organs of sense or locomotion, of which the female is entirely destitute, or has them more highly developed, in order that he may readily find or reach her; or again the male has special organs of prehension for holding her securely.

And if that isn't sufficient to show that they have no clue of what they say they are also paid up to Darwin's dismissal of equality, a foundation stone of the Constitution, as an "impossible figment" much as ros's FSM is.

Jesus's message is Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And these ladies are chewing their pencils with furrowed brows to replace Him in the schools with a bloke who dismissed such notions and justified stalking and rape.

Maybe they have an urge to get back to the stalking and raping days. That at least would make sense. But I wouldn't know about that. I'm merely speculating there to square the circle to avoid them looking stupid.

I don't understand women.

0 Replies

Spendi,

Even though you wax eloquently, some of your quotes and opinions leave to be desired:

Spendi wrote:

Like Spengler says--"Man makes Destiny--woman IS Destiny."

Looks like a forged Descartes - Man makes Destiny, woman IS Destiny, therefore man makes woman? Rolling Eyes

Spendi wrote:

I represent these men.

Were you elected? Or is it by the natural selection? Or by divine right?

Spendi wrote:

I don't understand woman.

Is that an absolute necessity? Or are you just upset by this unsurmountable mystery?

0 Replies

Francis, my friend -- Spendi is the antithesis of anything Cartesian, even when he borrows the superficial formalisms associated with it. Smile

0 Replies

Don't worry, George, I can deal with antis, I even like some of them.. Cool

0 Replies

Well--my theory, and it gets intricate more yet, is that without Fitzroy's friend's girlfriend's character we might have had Darwin as a cuntry parson chasing butteflies with a net and we might have to discuss the shambles at the Canadian Grand-Prix instead of what we are discussing and Mr Dawkins running around from gig to gig claiming football is only 22 men chasing a ball around a field which is, from a scientific point of view, exactly what it is.

But Pringle Stokes's suicide is another "key moment" as is the raid on the boat by some cunning Tierra del Fuegians which resulted in FitzRoy bring four of them back to England to teach them Christian manners and ways of thinking. One of them died from a smallpox injection so there's a chance the other three nearly did.

After a year or so in England FitzRoy was about to take them home at his own expense when some funny stuff to do with string theory inside the Admiralty furnished him with another way of doing it on full pay. He had influence.

But what an irreducible complex of ironies to weep over.

FitzRoy's evangelical Christianity and missionary zeal is what sets Darwin on the road to glory, and all our tongues awagging, combined with his friend's girlfriend's attractions or, to be more accurate, his friend's personal predilictions, a matter for Freud & Co, as girlfriends are all much of a muchness, Admirality skullduggery, no overwhelming storms or cholera outbreaks on board, Darwin's ambition overcoming the major impulse of evolution for five years at such a promising and fulfilling age,( might one suspect, George, as you have been to sea, a more physical attraction between D and F), an unusual family trait, and (is there any more of this bullshit--Ed.?)

There's lots more mate.

( Well can it for now. They must have got the picture. Ed.)

Just a couple more please.

(Oh--very well. Ed.)

His old man. He opposed the trip. Without his okay Darwin was not going.

And there's the --ahem- conception of the lad. See Laurence Sterne.

(That's enough!!Ed.)

Well-the only answer I can see is that the Theory of Evolution would be here even if Darwin had never lived or else all the palavar would not be happening if the cookie had crumbled in any of the above in a different fashion in all of which it likely would have.

In which case the trip was a waste of time like most trips are.

Had Mr Darwin been a devout Catholic he would have submitted his manuscripts to the Papal scrutiny and the whole affair would have been handled with decorum and taste.

So what say you--AIDsers? Would the theory be here without Darwin on the Beagle?

0 Replies

Francis wrote-

Quote:

Looks like a forged Descartes - Man makes Destiny, woman IS Destiny, therefore man makes woman?

No. It's a chicken and egg situation. And I meant Christian man, of course.

Quote:

Were you elected? Or is it by the natural selection? Or by divine right?

No. It has just fallen to me. The spirit seems to have failed my companions. I suppose that's natural selection but only on one small island. I'm here to be knocked off my perch.

Quote:

Or are you just upset by this unsurmountable mystery?

I used to be sometimes in the old days but I've accepted it now as I found I had no other choice. And it really wouldn't do if we did understand them. It might be borderline homosexuality in that case.

You have seen Brass haven't you? Or Coronation St in which they are abrasive as well as incomprehensible.

I just don't rate uni-sex. It's so boring.

0 Replies

George-

Able us 2 know, with your vast experience of the sea, what it might have felt like in a bark 90ft long and 26 ft wide at its widest on a 5 year long trip with 70 odd men aboard divided into a rigid caste system reflecting the stratification in the wider English class system with a High Tory Captain who could hang a man and have him flogged.

Felt like.

Suppose it was Henslow's theory and he had told Darwin what evidence to look for.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know