Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

And then they say I'm obsessed with sex and mammals, and birth tracts and big bottoms.

Shhesh!! They are falling over themselves with them.

But what about lingerie? Why will they not discuss lingerie? It isn't as if it is a form of Spaghetti Monster or a leprechaun from Saturn. It's on every high street and in the pages of a surprisingly large number of publications and staged productions in a wide variety of contexts.

Maybe it's because it impinges on the psychosomatic realm which they fear to enter: trail blazing scientists that they are.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Francis wrote:
Should we envision then some kind of eugenics, in order to satisfy the evolution theory?

Of course we should. The scientific logic is inexorable. Why do you think I fight against it. There's nothing in Darwin to resist.

Just about the stupidest and most revealing thing you've written, spendius.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
women had huge problems with birth in general before proper medicine came about

Where did you get a silly idea like that from? Was it from the medical profession who wanted to scare the ladies into their clutches?

Actually, it would be history books, what I've been taught by teachers, and varied literature from the time periods before modern medicine. I figured at least *you* would know about the literature and the dangers of childbirth in past times.

spendius wrote:

What a gump you are Shira. They have them in taxis. One I read about in a toilet. You haven't read Tolstoy or Howard Hughes. Go and peddle your fearmongering where ladies don't go. Making them nervous is not required.

A gump? I have no idea what that is and what I can find online involves homosexuality.

I have read Tolstoy and Howard Hughes, but that means jackall in this discussion. You should avoid computers when drunk.

1 Reply

Darwin, in "Origin of Species..." mentions man in only one line. From the PEckham variorum text (which is Morris Peckhams text that combines all of Darwins 6 editions of the Origin...) , Darwin states on p 257 that
"In the future,(much) light will be shed on the origins of man and his history".
THATS IT!!, nothing else exists in his entire 6 editions.

If one were to visit "The Descent of Man", it would be a bit more problematic. Several lines that Darwin entered were things that stated that'
In the near future (...) civilized races will certainly be responsible for the extermination of primitive races."

Thats a paraphrase but, in its complete presentation, Darwin sounds more sorrowful about this as an eventuality than he is given credit for. Most all of the silly attachments of Darwin to eugenics are actually done by the Creationists who, looking for some easy fodder, have incorrectly carried the association of Darwin with eugenics. A quick scan of Google with a search term like "DArwin and eugenics" will reveal almost a solid line of references from Creationist organizations who are trying to put out their own agenda.
. AIG , has , joined the fray by quote mining the Darwin biography by Desmond and Moore. By carefully clipping together several lines from their book, these give the appearances that Darwin was the "father of eugenics. Consequently, Desmond and Moore have been forced to do lots of explaining as to how their words were taken largely out of context. Its obvious that most people, when they are searching for some substantive literature to uphold their beliefs, will not take time to read entire scholarly works but will rely on deputees to do the quote mining for them.

.

2 Replies

@Shirakawasuna,

Falling back on the old standby that I was "drunk" again. You don't even know what "drunk" means. And you don't know what "huge" means either.

Quote:

Just about the stupidest and most revealing thing you've written, spendius.

Excellent scientific conclusion. No wonder Fountofwisdom charges Americans with being illogical, evasive and insult bellowers. The Americans who object to her doing that should look to you for the cause. It would be silly for her to think otherwise after reading your posts. You are representing America to some extent when you go on an international site.

There's a Russian proverb Tolstoy quotes which says that the more people who know about a woman's confinement the more trouble the birth will be. It doesn't cover inordinate fussing. With that there is a species of attenuated stagefright involved. A tightening of the musclature results.

On your ideas it's a wonder the human race exists. Do monkeys have "huge problems with birth in general"? We are kin to them you say. Telling women there are "huge problems with birth in general" will cause "huge problems with birth in general". The first thing they tell a woman in childbirth is "relax". How do they relax when your alleged history book reading, your teachers and your alleged study of varied literature from the time periods before modern medicine are assuring her that she can expect "huge problems with birth in general". You have a self-fulfilling prophecy on your hands.

A gump is a person of low intelligence. Like Forrest Gump.

You need to be particularly stupid to keep thinking that the meaning of words you are reading has anything to do with how much alcohol the writer had on board and that you can dismiss the meaning of them by citing it.

1 Reply

Well, guys, you have shattered all my dreams into pieces.

You bluntly, in quite a few dogmatic and common place like phrases, destroyed all my delusions of grandeur and uniqueness feelings about beauty.

You stated my perception is wrong and that there's no such thing as beauty but instead symmetry and healthy appearance.

I had mistakingly thought otherwise.

Some of you stated that the concept of beauty is alternative criteria upon which mating relies.

Successful mating, in our modern societies, is often sanctioned by certain kinds of rites or cerimonials, commonly called marriage, underlying a social contract that is expected to last for a lifetime.

Given the current propensity and trends of an early termination of such contract, I logically would infer that the aforementionated alternative or complementary mating criteria failed to demonstrate their efficiency.

Any of you would give it a try on how is it so?

Could this be because those criteria are a trick that evolution put in place in order to diminish breeding, because ressources begin to be scarce?

5 Replies

@Francis,

Men are all pigs

Imagine that you are a bower bird or a blue bird of paradise.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

You stated my perception is wrong and that there's no such thing as beauty but instead symmetry and healthy appearance.

I don't think anyone stated that your perception is wrong. We only related your perception to evolution, as you requested.

Are you trying to pick a fight where none exists?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Most all of the silly attachments of Darwin to eugenics are actually done by the Creationists who, looking for some easy fodder

Which is the same trick you employ effemm when you stick creationists into your sitting duck shooting gallery.

There are a number of slippery words in your post which render it meaningless.

Quote:

"In the future,(much) light will be shed on the origins of man and his history".

Shedding light doesn't necessarily lead to understanding.

Quote:

In the near future (...) civilized races will certainly be responsible for the extermination of primitive races."

Which races do you think he had in mind?

I have the 1901 Ward Lock edition of Origin of Species (on) and the Desmond and Moore on the shelf above my computer. I have read both and consult them a good deal. And other related stuff. There's a reproduction of the Collier portrait at the front and he does indeed look "sorrowful".

And I have no need to answer quote miners on Google or anywhere else.

But as you don't rate Spengler as "scholarly", and I can hardly blame you, I don't suppose you know what he had to say on these matters.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

Well, guys, you have shattered all my dreams into pieces.

Am I included in that Francis? I can't think why.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

Successful mating, in our modern societies, is often sanctioned by certain kinds of rites or cerimonials, commonly called marriage, underlying a social contract that is expected to last for a lifetime.

Given the current propensity and trends of an early termination of such contract, I logically would infer that the aforementionated alternative or complementary mating criteria failed to demonstrate their efficiency.

and your point is? Evolution is independent of "social " contracts IMHO.

1 Reply

Ros wrote:

Are you trying to pick a fight where none exists?

What on earth could lead you to such a weird hypothesis?

Have you observed any instances where I have done so?

I'm naturally exempt of such tendencies, unless pushed too far.

Is my general tone incendiary whatsoever?

2 Replies

spendius wrote:

Francis wrote:
Well, guys, you have shattered all my dreams into pieces.

Am I included in that Francis? I can't think why.

No, I don't think so, as you didn't address any of my questions.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Ros wrote:
Are you trying to pick a fight where none exists?

What on earth could lead you to such a weird hypothesis?

Because the phrasing you used here...

Francis wrote:

You bluntly, in quite a few dogmatic and common place like phrases, destroyed all my delusions of grandeur and uniqueness feelings about beauty.

You stated my perception is wrong and that there's no such thing as beauty but instead symmetry and healthy appearance.

I had mistakingly thought otherwise.

... seems provocative given that nobody was attacking your perception but simply answering your question.

Perhaps I shouldn't speak for the others on the thread, but to me, how a person "feels" about the world is an entirely self-contained and personal experience which doesn't need to be justified by outside measurements. However, when you ask in a general sense, now the pantheon of human (and animal) emotions relate to evolution, then there are theories which explain the relationship.

1 Reply

FM wrote:

and your point is? Evolution is independent of "social " contracts IMHO.

It's indeed your opinion.

The social contract sanctions a mating success, consequently it's part of evolution, though a small one.

But even if I except the social contract from my reasoning, the failing of mating is an hint that something is wrong with the mating criteria.

I just wanted your opinion on this.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Not wishing to continually beat dead horses, Ive got a section from Mayr (2001, p 138)

Quote:

Darwin saw ...that there was ...(a series of factors)...contributing to an increase of reproductive success. He called these factors sexual selection . Darwin...listed all cases of pronounced sexual di,orphism, such as large antlers of the red deer, the magnificent tailes of peacocks, and the resplendent plumage of the male birds of paradise. Since (in these species) it is the female that has the opportunity to choose their mates, those males will be favored by sexual selection who are most successful in attracting favor of mate seeking females. Other male characteristics (fed by dimorphism) are those that help a male be victorious in fights ...as occurs among seals,deer,sheep,chimpanzees and other mammal species. Those males who benefit from such characteristics have increased reproductive success...Darwin defined sexual selection as
"the advantage which certain individuals have over others of the same sex and species solely in respect to reproduction"

Amot Zahavi , in the "Missing piece of DArwin..." (1997) proposed that females may choose particularly conspicuous males, because their survival in spite of the handicap of conspicuousness indicates that they have superior qualities (we call this the so-called handicap principal).

In this manner, lets reverse that from female animal to human males and consider the man's selection of a particularly "hot" mate. He knows full well that the high maintenance and daily **** he will have to put up with may be worth it all. (Im just trying to relate the issue of DArwins use of sexual dimorphism to humans. )
I have no idea what a "hot" cave woman would have looked like, since They all look like Lithuanian housecleaners to me.

1 Reply

@Francis,

And no wonder. They are not simple questions. I'm not even sure they are questions.

I don't see how it is possible to discuss our western mating patterns in terms of evolution science at all. Our whole system of thought is derived from a rejection of evolutionary principles and an attempt, which may well prove fruitless in the long run, to overcome them.

Various experts have attempted to untangle mating patterns in a number of cultures and found themselves in a maze. Even with the patterns in class groups and regional groups within one culture. The Australian aboriginal matrilineal system is a good example.

Concepts of beauty are also culturally determined. Emphasis on the head is extremely weak in many systems. It is a bar-room jest of some ancient lineage that one doesn't look at the mantlepiece when poking the fire.

The Venus I often mention is a good example. And the head in Manet's Olympia is the focus. As it is in the Giaconda although in that there is a combination effect which isn't immediately apparent to a casual observer. Even though I have seen the combination quite clearly and obviously twice I can still look at it and be unable to see it. But on the two occasions it was plain. And I only looked for it when an art critic pointed it out.

"Standing on the waters, casting your bread,
While the eyes of the idol in the iron head
Are glowing. " Jokerman Bob Dylan.

You could consult The Great Mother by Erich Neumann. That gives an idea of the range of beauty in the record of cultures deriving from the art they have left behind. A pile of skulls is an item of beauty in some places.

On Neumann's Jungian conception our emphasis on the head might be said to be "unusual". However successful.

The steatopygia, idealised by Hottentots, is considered ugly by most of us here. Not all of us though. And what about plate lips, neck stretch rings and crushed tiny feet.

Questions in this field only result in more questions.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Evolution is independent of "social " contracts IMHO.

Hence teaching it will invalidate social contracts. That's been my main point for four years. And you anti-IDers are not near ready for that and hence you are half-baked and intend cheating the kids in order to promote some interest of your own.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Perhaps I shouldn't speak for the others on the thread, but to me, how a person "feels" about the world is an entirely self-contained and personal experience which doesn't need to be justified by outside measurements.

That is only acceptable if the feelings are not translated into action and that is the basic definition of "neurotic" . If they do result in action they are very much a matter of social measurement. If the feelings are powerful and not translated into action the neurosis become a serious problem.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Hence teaching it will invalidate social contracts. That's been my main point for four years. And you anti-IDers are not near ready for that and hence you are half-baked and intend cheating the kids in order to promote some interest of your own.

I have been searching for the perfect desciption of pot/kettle/black for some time. Thank you for providing it, Spendius.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

In this manner, lets reverse that from female animal to human males and consider the man's selection of a particularly "hot" mate.

How naive can you get? I think it was Mame who blew that idea out of the water. It might have been shewolf though.

"I had a woman, down in Albama
She was a backwoods girl but she sure was realistic.
She said ' boy, without a doubt, quit your mess and straighten out
You could die down here--be just another accident statistic.' "

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know