88
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:54 am
@Frank Apisa,
That's too ambiguous to comment on Frank.

Is it an objection to my point or a validation of it?

How long a period is "some time". Colloquially the expression usually is taken to mean some considerable period of time and you have only returned here recently. But I accept it might mean just since then. 6 days ago. Hardly "some time".

Thanking me is either sarcastic or genuine depending on which interpretation I think to use.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 10:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
Apparently spendi agrees with me (except for the name calling part )

Oh frabjus day
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 11:04 am
@farmerman,
How can I not agree? Social contracts such as our's are outside evolution. We agree on a fact. Do you agree then that evolution theory doesn't belong in places where social contracts are taught? Such as adolescent classrooms.

And you have a bloody neck to start wittering about name calling.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 11:20 am
@farmerman,
Sir Francis Galton was a cousin of Darwin -- he quoted Darwin in his papers, but was childless, while Darwin fathered seven children. -LW

HISTORY OF SCIENCE:
The Childless Father of Eugenics
A review by W. F. Bynum


A Life of Sir Francis Galton From African Exploration to the Birth of Eugenics
Nicholas Wright Gillham
Oxford University Press, New York, 2001. 428 pp. $35, £22.50. ISBN 0-19-514365-5.

Galton's role in the founding of eugenics has overshadowed his substantial contributions to a wide range of fields, including the discovery of anticyclones, pioneering work on fingerprinting, the invention of regression and correlation analysis, and the application of pedigree analysis and twin studies to human heredity. These topics are among the many examined in Gillham's fascinating biography, which aims to place Galton in the context of his time


From Millard Filmore's Bathtub:

Darwin and Eugenics? Wrong Again!

Again at Café Philos, the anti-Darwin fifth columnists do their best to continue distortions of history, in this case, in high irony, claiming NOT to defend John Freshwater.

Not in defense of Freshwater’s walking over the Constitution and zapping burns on students in the shape of a cross? Why bother to go after Darwin? No explanation is necessary. It’s like the story of the frog and the scorpion. Creationists are like scorpions. It’s in their nature. (I believe it is a corruption of human nature that creationism visits on those who allow the demon in.) (“Paging Bobby Jindal! Creationist Demon Possession in the Louisiana Governor’s Mansion; what? You’re already there? When’s the exorcism this time?”)

Here’s the exchange. If you find it boring, my apologies. I do weary at the prospect of having to do this again, and again. On the crashed hard-drive of my first laptop, I have files now 15 years old discussing this same silly claim. I’m posting here for the record, for my easy reference, with hope that someday it will not be necessary to post this stuff at all. You may need some of these links some day, and here they are, below the fold.

A poster with the handle Sweet said:

Am I to believe then that Charles Darwin repudiated the idea of eugenics?

No, don’t put faith in it. Read what he wrote, and quit putting out your thoughts for his. Read the blessed book, will you? Darwin posed a rhetorical question about whether human stock would get frail as a result of altruism " but, I’ve answered this argument of yours three or four posts ago. Darwin did not argue for eugenics, ever. Not ever. You failed to note the argument at all, but blindly go on butchering Darwin quotes as if you have any idea what Darwin and his editors intended. Balderdash. Go back and read it as I wrote it before. Quit ignoring the answers. Darwin said let natural selection work naturally in humans. Darwin said stop genocides. Darwin said aboriginals are superior to “civilized” tribes and should be left alone. Darwin said nature takes care of what he regarded as less-than-top-quality stock among humans, no intervention necessary.

Even though he had very little relationship with Galton until both were mature scientists, and that Darwin initiated the contact?

Ah, so now your claim is that if you write a letter to me, you have adopted all of my ideas. Good. Where shall I send you the address? We can get you a full education in Darwin very quickly " just send me a letter.

More seriously, you make the case here yourself that Galton is not Darwin, and that imputing the views of one to the other is insanity.

So stop it.

The letters between them can be found with just a little bit of searching. Did they always agree?

The immediate issue is whether they agreed on eugenics at all. Your claim is that Darwin repudiated his life-long views of egalitarianism and no-interference in human breeding. You’ve offered no evidence of such a repudiation, but instead have offered a weak guilt-by-association claim with regard to Galton.

That doesn’t make your case. There is no evidence Darwin shared Galton’s views on eugenics, and as I have noted before, it would be contrary to what Darwin wrote in Voyage of the Beagle all the way through to Descent of Man, not to mention completely contrary to Darwin’s own actions through his entire life.

You’re making an extraordinary claim, Sweet. You need extraordinary evidence, not just half-quotes from Darwin, not just sections of his writings you have ripped untimely and irrationally from their context.

No, yet it was not the issue of eugenics that caused a real snit between the two, it was Galtons testing of a theory of Darwin’s which proved Darwin wrong that caused friction between the two. I don’t give two hoots whether you believe I’ve read Darwin or not, I know the reality.

You’re denying the reality. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve read Darwin " I hope you haven’t. If you haven’t read him, you’re merely deluded. If you’ve read him, you’re a two-faced, dishonest scoundrel.

That’s your ticket: You’ve never read Darwin at all, but instead have seen only the bawdlerized versions offered by stiff-necked creationists. That’s your story, and you should stick to it, for the sake of honor.

The fact that I did not take from it what you did certainly does not show me a liar. Nor have I only read Darwin, I have read a great deal beyond Darwin, to those who support and those who did not. I have read books that date back more than a hundred years, as well as newer books. My conclusions are simply not yours.

But they should be. And since your views are not mine, and your views are incorrect on the history alone, you should repent.

And since it is perfectly clear that eugenics, both positive and negative, were based on evolution.

Well, yes, if you ignore the 5,000 years of animal husbandry upon which that part of evolution is based.

Good heavens! Have you not bothered to read the first two chapters of Origin of Species just because you misinterpreted the title? In those chapters Darwin details the history and state of animal husbandry, noting that it relies on exactly the same mechanisms as evolution, only with artificial selection substituted for natural and sexual selection.

Now, are you going to go all Ben Stein on us, and make the unevidenced and irrational claim that eugenics also involves murder? You haven’t read Galton, either, have you.

Galton is clear on this. And since Galton and Darwin were corresponding why did not Darwin simply tell him he was all wet?

Galton and Darwin corresponded on the science of breeding and selection, and evolution. You’re claiming Darwin adopted Galton’s political views. That’s a different kettle of fish, a horse of a different color, an entirely different species.

But if you don’t know much about evolution, maybe you don’t recognize the differences in species of arguments, either, eh?

He [Darwin] did make some statements that indicates he does not completely agree with certain theories, but he does not repudiate the overall ideas.

Nor does he adopt the eugenics theory. As Darwin wrote to Galton upon the publication of Hereditary Genius, “you have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference.” (See Desmond and Moore’s biography of Darwin, p. 572)

Did you notice that Darwin listed himself an opponent of Galton’s ideas? Do Darwin’s real words count for anything with you , Sweet?

Darwin made a theory, the progressives took it and ran, including those in Darwin’s own family. One can’t help but wonder how it would be that Darwin’s son headed up the Eugenics society if dad was so opposed to what it represented.

Oh, yes, it’s quite uncommon for the son to differ from the father on any issue at all, isn’t it? Franklin and his Tory son, Hemingway and his non-hunting, non-drinking sons, the right-wing Joseph Kennedy and his sons . . . Santayana warned about those who don’t know history.

Do you have a father, Sweet? Do you have a son? Your claim is fatuous.

Or maybe the various members of the family were just rebelling against the old man.

If I thought you didn’t offer that in sarcasm, I would hold you redeemable.

Oooooh: Warning to Readers: Here comes the violence and murder part we knew Sweet was warming up to; here’s where Sweet goes all Ben Stein:

This past century has been the century of the progressives, and it was perhaps the most bloody century humans have known.

You cut even your own quotes. Notice that most of the mass murders were not committed by progressives, however, but by totalitarians, by fascists in name and fascists in deed " and not by progressives like Galton, the Roosevelts, Churchill, and others who actually read Darwin.

The biggest lie of the past century has been that the Nazi’s were not behaving like other progressives. Not Marxists, progressives. 2 very similar, despite differences, socialists. A bit like the Lutherans and Catholics. A spate between branches of the family.

Again, I refer you to my earlier comments, in which I noted that the Nazis burned Darwin’s books. Ashley Montagu wrote several pieces over the 1950s and 1960s noting how the Nazis repudiated most of real science, but especially evolution. Adolf Hitler believed heritage passed in the blood " as the Bible argues, but not as Darwin argues " and so prohibited the use of blood banks, causing the needless deaths of tens of thousands of German soldiers. There is no evidence Darwin ever crossed Hitler’s mind, except as an example of a degenerate Brit, which is what Hitler called him in essence.

Nazis didn’t get their ideas from Darwin. They repudiated Darwin’s science, they burned Darwin’s books, they impugned Darwin’s nation and everything it ever produced. Which part of “Hitler didn’t like England or the English” did you fail to pick up on in history class?

And of course, Stalin was worse. Stalin banished the Darwinists, fired, expelled and imprisoned anyone who he thought might be Darwinist, and murdered a few for good measure.

Do creationists ever read history?

I do not agree with what this teacher did at all, as far as I am concerned he assaulted a child, and had this been my child I would not have been nearly as nice as the parents involved. This alone is why he should be fired, but very few people focus on what he did to a kid do they? No they focus on his belief system, and the reason he should be fired comes down to their disagreement with that belief system. Read the responses here, some of which are terribly nasty. The idea is that he professes Christianity, combined with the cross shape that was burned means he’s just a crazy Christian, you know, just like the rest of those rabid crazy people who help sustain evil in the world. Witness the above, I spread and sustain evil simply because I do not agree with Erik.

I do not think you can find anyone who has argued that Freshwater should be fired for being Christian. Of course, I don’t think his blasphemous work with the Bible was Christian, but that’s beside the point " he has a right to be Christian.

He has no right to teach religious dogma in place of good science. He has no right to injure students. And if you check the remarks above, more than 150 of them, I’ll wager you don’t find anyone who claims he should be fired for being a Christian. Not one (and I haven’t looked).

You mistake arrogance and totalitarian theocracy for Christianity. You’re not paying attention.

But of course, if you really believed that, why do you bother to spend so much time falsely maligning Darwin, impugning the reputation of a great man and one of the greatest ideas of western civilization? Nothing you have written could change anything about Freshwater’s manifest manifold sins.

And later Sweet said:

Please note this is a second edition [of Descent of Man] -sounds like he’s praising Galton to me. Certainly isn’t repudiating the theories, but instead is using them as citations.

You do have the most annoying, creationist habit of butchering the words of Darwin. Why did you stop where you stopped, without continuing to the concluding paragraph? Ah, well, Darwin rather undercuts your argument there " so you couldn’t very well cite that, could you? And thinking that surely no one else would bother to snip any of the 8 or 9 on-line editions of the book, you hoped to get away with impugning the great man by putting ideas to his work that the words of his pen do not support?

Here is Darwin’s conclusion, which you so uncharitably leave out entirely " starting from the line you last quoted:

[Darwin wrote:] Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence; and this from a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not to regret bitterly, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same physical evils as the lower animals, he has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected during primeval times to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to his present rank. Since we see in many parts of the world enormous areas of the most fertile land capable of supporting numerous happy homes, but peopled only by a few wandering savages, it might be argued that the struggle for existence had not been sufficiently severe to force man upwards to his highest standard. Judging from all that we know of man and the lower animals, there has always been sufficient variability in their intellectual and moral faculties, for a steady advance through natural selection. No doubt such advance demands many favourable concurrent circumstances; but it may well be doubted whether the most favourable would have sufficed, had not the rate of increase been rapid, and the consequent struggle for existence extremely severe. It even appears from what we see, for instance, in parts of S. America, that a people which may be called civilised, such as the Spanish settlers, is liable to become indolent and to retrograde, when the conditions of life are very easy. With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of natural selection. The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the social instincts. (31. I am much indebted to Mr. John Morley for some good criticisms on this subject: see, also Broca, ‘Les Selections,’ ‘Revue d’Anthropologie,’ 1872.)

Intelligence is shared among all men, education is the key to upward mobility and progress. Which part of that equation do you disagree with, Sweet? No wonder you cut it out.

And while you’re there, get the full context, will you? The next section of the chapter is titled, alluringly, “ON THE EVIDENCE THAT ALL CIVILISED NATIONS WERE ONCE BARBAROUS.”

Give it up, Sweet. Darwin was right. Darwin was not evil. Freshwater’s sins that merit his dismissal have nothing to do with a genuine practice of Christianity, nor can his faith cover up for his totalitarian theocratic actions, or his abuse of students with electricity.


This entry was posted on July 1, 2008 at 12:01 am and is filed under Accuracy, Creationism, History, Science. Tagged: Accuracy, Creationism, Darwin, Evolution, Rampant stupidity, Science, Voodoo history. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 01:59 pm
@Lightwizard,
LW. From where did you cut that post ? Sounds like I may wish to visit the site , I usually stay away from blogs because they go beyond the first draft world of things like a2k. Blogs instead "take a first draft approach to cementing the authors words as truth".
.
Weve gone over the issue of Darwins entire family and their "un DArwin" views several times before. Its just that we never seem to put some of these issues to bed. They continually get revived at least once a year.

Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:14 pm
As I was not very luck with my previous questions, would some of you give a try commenting on this quote, taken from LW's post, especially in the light of today's advanced societies?

Darwin wrote:
With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of natural selection..
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:30 pm
It surprises me in effemm's case, though not in others, that he does not heed Huxley's famous advice to the secularists against " burning your ship to get rid of the cockroaches." (D&M page 527).

It would be even sillier to burn it to get rid of the fresh water.

I think Huxley was an IDer with a career to make. So obviously I think that attempts, always either pathetic or desperate, to link ID to creationism are also, unknowingly due to lack of education, declaring that Huxley was a creationist.

I notice ros has used the disingenuous trick of pretended innocence to enquire about crosses being burned in to yikkle kiddiwinksie's tender flesh. (On the Latest Challenges to Teaching Evolution thread. ) Which, as I understood it, was a false allegation.

When anti-IDers come to power and control all media that is how they will proceed with any sign of opposition. Repeated lies, which Goebells recommended but done with a coy and cod deceptive simplicity.

Would you buy an educational system off this man?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:50 pm
@Francis,
It isn't even true Francis. It's well known that the riff-raff breed faster than the more intelligent members within the same community.

I am sorry to read that my answer to your previous questions was unsatisfactory. Will you be more specific?

Are you seeking what gives us a hard on or what gives us a feeling of loss of identity in a magical, mystical ocean which overpowers our senses , temporarily, usually. Even the headbanging mystic has to wipe his arse even when he has eschewed other practicalities of living. Or walk gingerly.

Or is it what magical, mystical ocean which overpowers our senses gives us a hard on? A higher species of beauty I suppose some would say.

Let's see if I have better luck that you did.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:50 pm
@farmerman,
It's one of the better blogs on the internet:

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/sources-on-millard-fillmore/
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 03:08 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It's well known that the riff-raff breed faster than the more intelligent members within the same community.


What happens Francis is that they lower the bar in exams and declare more and more people to be intelligent. Thus proving their case.

These new members can keep the community expanding for ever and ever and as intelligent members of the community cannot possibly be expected to do any dirty work, except for certain personal activities, it becomes necessary to import labour from abroad because the more intelligent a person is the more **** they leave in their wake and sorting **** out is dirty work as is getting the bacon in. I guess it must be this highly attenuated intelligence which then whinges about immigration.

And a financial crisis is inevitable. For which the banker who placed enough trust in them to risk lending them his money and the people they elected to govern them are pilloried for.

Probably both at any one posh dinner party.

Well- it stands to reason- how can intelligent members of the community be to blame?

Hey--what's this? Gitmo not closing in 100 days. Broken promises before taking office. Sheesh!!

He must think you're all really ******* stupid.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 06:29 pm
@Lightwizard,
Thanks, Ive visited it briefly and already like it. The guy isnt a pompous ass like many bloggers. I think he rcognizes that hes in a "first draft status"

Thanks again.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 07:14 pm
While Desmond and Morris handle the issue of Galton and Darwin in a less than satisfying fashion, Peter Bowler's work The Eclipse of Darwinism gives apert good summary of DArwins accomplishments and failures in his own life. Darwin sought to accomplish 2 things

1Prove that species were not seperately created and

2Show that natural selection had been the agent of change.
In his life Darwin exceeded his own exp[ectations in the first, but, thanks to his nutty cousin Francis, (remember , these two shared the same eccentric grandfather). Francis Galton was more apluralist on evolutionary causes, and was, a popular purveyor of the origins of "saltation" (where species dont accumulate changes in small steps but in multi faceted causalities that result in GrAND jumps of speciation. DArwin, freshly dead when the GAlton "Polyhedra" was proposed, suffered from the popularity of FRancis' work (The guy was brilliant said Eldgredge and Morris, but he was a sort of nut).
GAlton stated that
"Evolutionary theory might dispense with a restriction ...that the course of evolution always proceeds in steps that are severally minute, and only become effective through accumulation.That the steps may be small, and that the steps MUST be small , are two entirely different views, and I object only to the latter"
Well DArwin wasdead, so he could no longer object to the GAlton Polehedron, which became the origins of the saltation theories of NEo DArwinian thinking of the 1930's.

Gould and Eldredge had ressurected the saltation theory in their own Punctiuated equilibrium theory, and by so proposing, they began the fight against continued consideration of saltation as valid(since PE is a function of stasis in a genome and is only diplayed where several species per genera can serve to provide feedstock for PE..

What we accept today as a given, wasnt really a "given" generally until the middle of the 20th century . Between Galton and the rise of The Fundamentalists who viewed science only in light of the Old Testament (George Macready Price, Henry Morris etc). EVolution ws still screwing around with neo Darwinian garbage even when I was in High SChool in the late 60's.

The point that Creationistrs wish to make is that Galton And Darwin were collaborators and nothing could be farther from the truth.(Several of Darwins letters make the point much stronger than the blog you posted LW. I always get a smile when someone even admits a sense of collegiality existed between the two. As it can be seen, Darwins ideas were light years different from GAltons.
0 Replies
 
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:33 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
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.


You weren't drunk? I had made what I considered to be a *nice* assumption, as such failures in reasoning should occur when inebriated, not when sober.

spendius wrote:
Excellent scientific conclusion.


You're laboring under the impression that I'm trying to be scientific when I berate you. I assure you I'm not.

spendius wrote:
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.


If I were, I'd be proud to do so. You did say something incredibly stupid and telling. You always claim to know a lot about various subjects, but so far quite often when I see you actually get into the *specifics* and make a direct, clear claim (which is *not* often), you expose either deep ignorance, terrible reasoning, or both.

Darwin did not promote eugenics. Eugenics didn't follow from Darwin's proposals. Eugenics certainly doesn't follow from modern evolutionary theory. If you disagree, I expect your clear reasoning, backed up with specific resources and quotations. I will not accept rants, in fact I will again berate you if that's all you can manage.

spendius wrote:
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.


Sorry, can't be bothered to give a damn about your ramblings.

spendius wrote:
On your ideas it's a wonder the human race exists.


Why?

spendius wrote:
Do monkeys have "huge problems with birth in general"?


Not as much, they tend to have much more adequate hip-to-infant-cranium ratios.

spendius wrote:
We are kin to them you say.


If you disagree, it will further expose your ignorance...

spendius wrote:
Telling women there are "huge problems with birth in general" will cause "huge problems with birth in general".


Why?

spendius wrote:
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".


I don't meet many pregnant women in seriously less-developed countries, but then again neither do I give a damn about your imaginary contrivances.

spendius wrote:
You have a self-fulfilling prophecy on your hands.


I do? Do I have a time machine? I remember making statements about the state of things before modern medicine.

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


Ah, so you've lowered yourself to mere insults, backed with nothing but a scoff and nonsense. Need I remind you that while I will gladly be insulting at times, I at least have the decency to honestly explain myself and my reasonings without rambling off into a hazy wonderland of my literary pretensions.

spendius wrote:
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.


Invitation accepted. I will no longer assume that you're drunk, and instead assume that you truly are as stupid as you present yourself to be.
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:35 am
@Francis,
Francis wrote:
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?


Umm... yes, very much so. You seem to have received rosborne's, farmerman's, and my responses with primarily contempt (and then more curiosity). Perhaps that was not your intention for all of us, but that's how it comes across.

So, who told you that you were wrong about what beauty was? I don't remember anyone doing that.
0 Replies
 
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:39 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Quote:
Evolution is independent of "social " contracts IMHO.


Hence teaching it will invalidate social contracts.


That's some hilarious reasoning, spendius. Want to tell me how it works? I can't wait to see how many things I can invalidate merely by declaring them independent from something else (and then affirming that other thing). My foot is independent from Keynesian economics. Sweet, I don't have to learn those ideas, since they're invalidated!
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:43 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I think Huxley was an IDer with a career to make.


Hoo boy, I can see why you avoid making your specific opinions known...
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:20 am
Shira wrote:
You seem to have received rosborne's, farmerman's, and my responses with primarily contempt (and then more curiosity). Perhaps that was not your intention for all of us, but that's how it comes across.

If so, let me state that it was not my intention..

and wrote:
So, who told you that you were wrong about what beauty was? I don't remember anyone doing that.

I do understand this question as nitpicking. Actually, even though none of you used those very words, the general sense of the replies meant that.
However, my expressed dismay is only of a soft kind, life taught me hindsight.
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 05:35 am
@Francis,
Francis, I don't think any of the replies implied that you were wrong about what beauty was. I simply didn't know what you were referring to, precisely, and since two other people came to the same conclusion independently, I think I may have been onto something Wink. No worries.

I'll take a crack at the quote.

Quote:
With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of natural selection..


Darwin had a lot of speculations and got a good number of things wrong. I would need to look up the full context to be absolutely sure that quote means what it seems to, but anecdotal evidence says that the smartest among us aren't making the most babies... as we often think of them as more responsible, by say having 1-2 kids as opposed to 12 and having children later, when finances are more secure. However, this only works if you consider our ideas of 'smart' to be equivalent to intelligence and the people having 9 kids to be truly less intelligent. Additionally, while Darwin's speculation here may seem a bit silly given some anecdotal experience, there are some ways one could defend the statement.

For example, he said 'in the long run', that is what would happen. Given the lengths of time generally discussed regarding evolution in The Origin, this could mean tens of thousands of years, over which period the more in general intelligent could be favored.

My basic conclusion: Darwin was wrong on this one, if you read it as I did initially. However, I don't know enough about the context and what he was actually saying to make a firm judgment. I'm a bit too sleepy to go check, I'll get back to you later Wink.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 06:48 am
@Shirakawasuna,
Quote:
You weren't drunk? I had made what I considered to be a *nice* assumption, as such failures in reasoning should occur when inebriated, not when so.


I wasn't drunk. I have not been drunk for many years. I get bad headaches which are important communications from my biology.

Quote:
You're laboring under the impression that I'm trying to be scientific when I berate you. I assure you I'm not.


Perhaps you should consider going on the Relationships threads in that case.

Quote:
If I were, I'd be proud to do so. You did say something incredibly stupid and telling. You always claim to know a lot about various subjects, but so far quite often when I see you actually get into the *specifics* and make a direct, clear claim (which is *not* often), you expose either deep ignorance, terrible reasoning, or both.


Self definition drivel. If you don't know why ask somebody you see in the street.

Quote:
Darwin did not promote eugenics. Eugenics didn't follow from Darwin's proposals. Eugenics certainly doesn't follow from modern evolutionary theory. If you disagree, I expect your clear reasoning, backed up with specific resources and quotations. I will not accept rants, in fact I will again berate you if that's all you can manage.


I never said D promoted eugenics. I never said eugenics follow from D's studies or from "modern" ET. I'm not sure of the difference between ET and MET. You can expect whatever you like and not accept rants (another self definition) at your pleasure. You couldn't berate a dishcloth.

Quote:
Sorry, can't be bothered to give a damn about your ramblings.


You have an odd way with not giving a damn. But I will allow that you had no answer and said that pouting. It's a very common strategy.

Quote:
Why?


Why would women have babies if childbirth gave them "huge" problems. Especially intelligent ladies.

Quote:
Not as much, they tend to have much more adequate hip-to-infant-cranium ratios.


I wasn't aware of that. What does "tend" mean.

Quote:
If you disagree, it will further expose your ignorance...


I do disagree.

Quote:
Why?


I explained that. Telling women there are "huge problems with birth in general" will cause "huge problems with birth in general" because it is bound to increase nervousness and the obvious rigidity in the muclature. Didn't I mention stagefright. We are all grateful for your help in this matter. Try taking a piss into a bucket in front of the guests at a banquet. You might get the picture. But the medical professsion will be pleased with you for creating fear about a natural biological process.

Quote:
I don't meet many pregnant women in seriously less-developed countries, but then again neither do I give a damn about your imaginary contrivances.


One "not give a damn" could be an emotional accident but two looks like a well thought out intellectual position.

Oh-**** it. This is a waste of time. Your dignity has distorted your conk.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 06:54 am
@Shirakawasuna,
Quote:
My foot is independent from Keynesian economics.


Every position your feet have ever been in are a consequence of Keynesian economics.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/21/2021 at 08:27:44