The Darwinist Cult Conspiracy

[Evan Burton]

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

How ironic that the family that produced George W. Bush advocates eugenics. What went wrong?

LOL! A case, perhaps, for retrospective abortion?

[John Simkin]

Wow, this thread is surreal.

It sure is but it has produced some great jokes.

[John Dolva]

Wow, this thread is surreal.

It sure is but it has produced some great jokes.

Amen

As a christian I have no problems with evolution. Why should I? God created everything, so why not evolution. As the bible says, a moment for god is an infinity for mortals. He is about the salvation of the individuals soul. Not what a scientist puts into a petridish.

'Intelligent design' is an arrogant expression of disbelief in god. Eugenics is a seduction of the soul of humanity to justify the destruction of the ' 'christian' soldier'. Ultimately a path to the extinction of those who are inclined to be seduced by fascism.

In a funny sort of way the whole issue is a proof of evolution.

[Len Colby]

You are perfectly entitled to start the thread, Len. Please don't imagine for a moment I am trying to stifle your free speech Perish the thought!

I should remind you - or whichever definitive source you relied upon for your devastating rebuttal of my rather modest claim the matter is not completely "open and shut" - of an irritating little detail.

For most of us, it is now a new century.

You really should update your calendar.

Or maybe it's the rest of us who must get with the times?

In this new century, since 9-11 when "everything changed", perhaps all matters are "open and shut"? There are only certainties, discussed by real people of various professions. All other discourse is just illusion.

We are therefore most fortunate on this forum, Len, to have you here, a source so close to the Oracle.

Yes, I am aware that Denton changed his views.

No, it isn't true that Fred Hoyle is "one of the few real scientists to express any doubts" (doubts, that is, about the completeness of natural selection and random mutation to account for all observed evolutionary changes to organic lifeforms).

Not unless we cede to you all rights to define 'real scientists'.

Perhaps we should?

After all, you already know which scientific questions are - and are not - worth asking.

You already know what's "open and shut" - and what's not.

So why shouldn't you get to pick 'real scientists' - just like you already arrogate to yourself the right to identify 'real historians'?

Why not imprison 'fake scientists' for good measure?

Sid once again you mistake sarcasm for substance and what’s with the new Pavlovic urge of yours to bring up the issue legal restrictions on Holocaust denial in unrelated threads I participate in? What exactly I the point since I’ve repeatedly voiced my opposition to punishing the proponents of such ideas?

I would use the same criteria for judging who is and isn’t a “real historian” or “real scientist” or “real” anything, do or don’t they have demonstrable credentials in “their” field? I.E. a civil engineer who claims that evolution is nonsense doesn’t count. Perhaps you can supply a list of the more than a few scientists who doubt “the completeness of natural selection and random mutation to account for all observed evolutionary changes to organic life forms”.

[Len Colby]

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

How ironic that the family that produced George W. Bush advocates eugenics. What went wrong?

LOL! A case, perhaps, for retrospective abortion?

Aw, come on, Bush is a genius, he went to Harvard and Yale (who his parents and grandparents were had absolutely nothing to do with it!). How can anybody listen to him speak and not enthralled by his articulate prose? How can they fail to be convinced of his superior intellect!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

How ironic that the family that produced George W. Bush advocates eugenics. What went wrong?

LOL! A case, perhaps, for retrospective abortion?

Aw, come on, Bush is a genius, he went to Harvard and Yale (who his parents and grandparents were had absolutely nothing to do with it!). How can anybody listen to him speak and not enthralled by his articulate prose? How can they fail to be convinced of his superior intellect!

He may well be stupid, but he is one hell of a dog trainer, have you seen the hoops he can get his Poodle to jump through? It must also be the only recorded case in History where the dog cleans up the Masters messes.

[Dave Greer]

'Intelligent design' is an arrogant expression of disbelief in god. Eugenics is a seduction of the soul of humanity to justify the destruction of the ' 'christian' soldier'. Ultimately a path to the extinction of those who are inclined to be seduced by fascism.

My bolding.

I'm curious as to why you think this to be the case, since it is my understanding that ID is exactly the opposite - ID is an argument for the existence of God. Indeed, its very nature demands a 'supernatural force' or 'omnipotent being' to be responsible for the designing.

What atheism.about.com says on ID

Intelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism to develop, but its roots go back much further. It is based upon the idea that the existence of God can be deduced from the intricate design in the universe, a view popularized by William Paley's famous Watchmaker Analogy in his 1802 book Natural Theology.

From an article in beliefnet.com

...intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture.

How Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design defines ID

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

[Norman Pratt]

The first book I read on Darwinism was ‘The Succession of Life through Geological Time’ British Museum Natural History, London, 1956. I found its catalogue of fossils from different periods and its chronological account compelling - but not its maps.

Its maps of different geological periods were based on the continents as they are today, so that, for example, the entire South Atlantic was labelled as part of Gondwanaland, and the key said ‘Land in Early Jurassic, but now Sea.’ Somehow that didn’t seem quite right, and the authors, Kenneth Oakley and Helen Muir-Wood, had hinted there was a problem here by also placing a question-mark over the South Atlantic. The theory of continental drift had not at that time yet been fully accepted by the Scientific community. The changing idea of the world map over time is one example, to my mind, of how Darwin’s, and related scientific ideas, have grown in credibility.

But then in Britain ‘Darwinism’ (if that is the appropriate term) would seem to have been generally accepted for the last hundred years. In the 20th Century there were virtually no challenges to it, and no court battles. On the other hand Religious Knowledge teachers who taught Creationism in schools were not challenged either, but over the years have simply got much thinner on the ground (and many of them thinner on top too.)

A profound change occurred about a year ago when it became clear that some of the government-encouraged Academies (in this case Christian Academies) were going to feature ‘Intelligent Design’ in the syllabus. Following that, the idea was put forward of teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ in Science lessons in state schools, and, when that idea did not go down very well, in Religious Education lessons. My main concern over that was not that students would be unable to cope with a debate, but that it would simply be received with cynicism by both teachers and students -and we have enough of that commodity already. Hence my personal surprise and concern when 3 friends with connections with local education and one national education official who I met declared their belief in Creationism – not even anything as sophisticated as Intelligent Design.

My reference to ‘Evolution denial’ does not relate to the ideas I have read on any part of this thread, but to a rather cruder version of the debate where the argument is apparently completely settled by the non-negotiable announcement that Evolution is ‘only a theory’ – and therefore of no importance. My apologies if my initial posting was careless in its phraseology.

In response to the recent rather crude attempt to revive Creationism in British education I started collecting books on the subject, and I have found the suggested reading on this thread helpful. However, at no stage do I imagine I will understand the subject, especially as under our over-specialised education system I ‘gave up’ science at the age of 14. What I ultimately rely on is the academic community (even to a very large extent in my own subject of History) to be of reasonable integrity. Hence my close interest in the idea that ‘the Darwin Cult’ is a conspiracy.

[Sid Walker]

The first book I read on Darwinism was ‘The Succession of Life through Geological Time’ British Museum Natural History, London, 1956. I found its catalogue of fossils from different periods and its chronological account compelling - but not its maps.

Its maps of different geological periods were based on the continents as they are today, so that, for example, the entire South Atlantic was labelled as part of Gondwanaland, and the key said ‘Land in Early Jurassic, but now Sea.’ Somehow that didn’t seem quite right, and the authors, Kenneth Oakley and Helen Muir-Wood, had hinted there was a problem here by also placing a question-mark over the South Atlantic. The theory of continental drift had not at that time yet been fully accepted by the Scientific community. The changing idea of the world map over time is one example, to my mind, of how Darwin’s, and related scientific ideas, have grown in credibility.

But then in Britain ‘Darwinism’ (if that is the appropriate term) would seem to have been generally accepted for the last hundred years. In the 20th Century there were virtually no challenges to it, and no court battles. On the other hand Religious Knowledge teachers who taught Creationism in schools were not challenged either, but over the years have simply got much thinner on the ground (and many of them thinner on top too.)

A profound change occurred about a year ago when it became clear that some of the government-encouraged Academies (in this case Christian Academies) were going to feature ‘Intelligent Design’ in the syllabus. Following that, the idea was put forward of teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ in Science lessons in state schools, and, when that idea did not go down very well, in Religious Education lessons. My main concern over that was not that students would be unable to cope with a debate, but that it would simply be received with cynicism by both teachers and students -and we have enough of that commodity already. Hence my personal surprise and concern when 3 friends with connections with local education and one national education official who I met declared their belief in Creationism – not even anything as sophisticated as Intelligent Design.

My reference to ‘Evolution denial’ does not relate to the ideas I have read on any part of this thread, but to a rather cruder version of the debate where the argument is apparently completely settled by the non-negotiable announcement that Evolution is ‘only a theory’ – and therefore of no importance. My apologies if my initial posting was careless in its phraseology.

In response to the recent rather crude attempt to revive Creationism in British education I started collecting books on the subject, and I have found the suggested reading on this thread helpful. However, at no stage do I imagine I will understand the subject, especially as under our over-specialised education system I ‘gave up’ science at the age of 14. What I ultimately rely on is the academic community (even to a very large extent in my own subject of History) to be of reasonable integrity. Hence my close interest in the idea that ‘the Darwin Cult’ is a conspiracy.

Nicely said Norman.

It does strike me that it's a case where very interesting potential debate is snuffed out by the reflexive oppositionalism of two poorly argued cases.

A lot of people in the scientific community go into lockdown over this, imagining their 'opposition' consists only of irrational scripture-fanatics.

Because of that, interesting nuances get left out, almost every time the subject of Evolution is raised.

We should all be grateful to Len Colby for starting a most stimulating thread. Not for the first time, Len! Kudos!

At the risk of offending neo-Darwinian dogmatists even more than I have done already, here are a few more thoughts on the topic...

It seems to me that neo-Darwinism has become rather fixated on the 'demand side' of evolution.

It focuses on the way that genomes here on earth change over time, due to selection pressures operating on associated phenotypes.

So far, so good. But what generates the genetic material on which selection pressures operate?

Most 'neo-Darwinists (t least when I last checked) limit their consideration of organic evolution to this planet alone. It's assumed that it has all happened here on earth. Random mutation alone is the neoDarwinian explanation for generating the diversity that selective pressures work upon. There is no real evidence that this can account for the major saltations in evolution - but defenders of the faith claim that any other suggestion is inherently unscientific. Nor is it really possible to disprove the neo-Darwinian hypothesis.

The stalemate may be broken by developments suggesting that what Francis Crick called 'panspermia' is more likely than not. In other words, organic life may be a very widespread phenomenon - galactic or possibly even more universal than that.

Although natural selection on earth may operate rather mechanically, in the manner of Dawkin's "blind clockmaker", there's no necessity that also applies to the processes generating and distributing new genetic material.

An analogy.

An observant red blood corpusle, witnessing events in its part of the world (inside the veinous system of a single mammalian body), might conclude that "natural selection" accounts for the composition of red bloodcells over time within its world. It sees the process whereby damaged or weakened cells are gobbled up and disappear. Some red cells survive. Some die. The overall fitness of the population of red bloodcells is thus maintained.

It would be harder, however, for that bloodcell to theorize about other parts of the process that are, nevertheless, important to the whole system. An example is what happens in the bone marrow. This 'supply side' is a crucial part of the overall story of blood and what happens to it.

The neo-Darwinian paradigm, IMO, will eventually be supplanted by theory that reflects a more complete view of organic life and its development over time, a view that's likely to extend far beyond the one small planet in the universe that we've studied so far in any detail at all.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Sid Walker

[John Dolva]

Dave , IMO:

My answer to that question will be just as much hocus pokus as anything else derived from christianity by non believers, so my apologies to them. I thoroughly empathise having been an atheist myself.

There's a large movement like 'christian identity' and hypocritical christians like Bush and others that somehow believe their misssion from god is to push god down the throat of 'the unbeliever'. They are into proving that god exists. And they seek to do so in many different ways. (Often, I think they are simply interested in proving to others that they believe.) (God is in no need of having his exstence proven, it's a personal choice between god and those who choose, (through that personal choice the proof comes), god already know whether they do or not at any moment.)

Whatever you want to call the person god, jesus or the holy ghost you're talking of a mystery who has in simple terms explained the path as being belief, not in evolution, intelligent design or whatever, but in god. The walking the belief is love and freedom.

This god is all powerful, all knowing and everywhere. Essentially, with humanity, god sets you free. If you choose to be with god (your choice) that happens in those times that you choose his highest commandments which is love.

ID presupposes you are on the level of god.

To devalue god into something that human courts make determinations on or that people 'convince' others about is an attempt to take over the steering wheel in a car god is driving. God being what god is will let you, but don't be surprised if you crash.

To me it's similar to the inquisition and those times when you could slip a few bucks to a church official, or strap a bunch of dynamite sticks to your chest, in order to go to heaven. It's sad parents and teachers are in some cases forced to misguide their children, or allow them to be, in this way.

thus ID is an instrument of the anti thesis of god, (usually called satan by christians.) ID devalues god by attempting to make him a product of mortal humans.

Edited February 16, 2007 by John Dolva

[Ron Ecker]

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

How ironic that the family that produced George W. Bush advocates eugenics. What went wrong?

LOL! A case, perhaps, for retrospective abortion?

Aw, come on, Bush is a genius, he went to Harvard and Yale (who his parents and grandparents were had absolutely nothing to do with it!). How can anybody listen to him speak and not enthralled by his articulate prose? How can they fail to be convinced of his superior intellect!

Even the best of families have their Fredos. The Bushes still have Michael, I mean Jeb.

It's no wonder that Bush the Elder broke down and cried recently during a speech, when talking about Jeb losing his first campaign to be governor of Florida. That meant Dubya, gubner of Texas, wound up as president. That's something worth crying about, even if you're his daddy.

[Dave Greer]

<snip>

An analogy.

An observant red blood corpusle, witnessing events in its part of the world (inside the veinous system of a single mammalian body), might conclude that "natural selection" accounts for the composition of red bloodcells over time within its world. It sees the process whereby damaged or weakened cells are gobbled up and disappear. Some red cells survive. Some die. The overall fitness of the population of red bloodcells is thus maintained.

It would be harder, however, for that bloodcell to theorize about other parts of the process that are, nevertheless, important to the whole system. An example is what happens in the bone marrow. This 'supply side' is a crucial part of the overall story of blood and what happens to it.

The neo-Darwinian paradigm, IMO, will eventually be supplanted by theory that reflects a more complete view of organic life and its development over time, a view that's likely to extend far beyond the one small planet in the universe that we've studied so far in any detail at all.

Interesting post, especially your analogy.

I fully agree that neo-Darwinism will "evolve" into a more complete theory - whether that theory is close enough to its origins to be called neo-Darwinism, or post-Darwinism, or whatever - only time will tell.

[Dave Greer]

Dave , IMO:

My answer to that question will be just as much hocus pokus as anything else derived from christianity by non believers, so my apologies to them. I thoroughly empathise having been an atheist myself.

There's a large movement like 'christian identity' and hypocritical christians like Bush and others that somehow believe their misssion from god is to push god down the throat of 'the unbeliever'. They are into proving that god exists. And they seek to do so in many different ways. (Often, I think they are simply interested in proving to others that they believe.) (God is in no need of having his exstence proven, it's a personal choice between god and those who choose, (through that personal choice the proof comes), god already know whether they do or not at any moment.)

Whatever you want to call the person god, jesus or the holy ghost you're talking of a mystery who has in simple terms explained the path as being belief, not in evolution, intelligent design or whatever, but in god. The walking the belief is love and freedom.

This god is all powerful, all knowing and everywhere. Essentially, with humanity, god sets you free. If you choose to be with god (your choice) that happens in those times that you choose his highest commandments which is love.

ID presupposes you are on the level of god.

To devalue god into something that human courts make determinations on or that people 'convince' others about is an attempt to take over the steering wheel in a car god is driving. God being what god is will let you, but don't be surprised if you crash.

To me it's similar to the inquisition and those times when you could slip a few bucks to a church official, or strap a bunch of dynamite sticks to your chest, in order to go to heaven. It's sad parents and teachers are in some cases forced to misguide their children, or allow them to be, in this way.

thus ID is an instrument of the anti thesis of god, (usually called satan by christians.) ID devalues god by attempting to make him a product of mortal humans.

Thanks for your detailed response.

To clarify, is it your position that any attempt to prove the existence of God (by scientific means), is fatally flawed, since God transcends science? Hence ID opposes true faith, which requires an acceptance of God without proof of his existence?

If yes to my first question, does that also mean that philosophical and scriptural attempts to prove the existence of God are equally as doomed as a scientific approach? Or is it purely scientific attempts (i.e. ID) that are flawed?

How do your views on ID sit with your views on (neo-)Darwinism? Does the fact that Darwinism neither requires nor precludes the existence of a deity, make it more theologically sound than ID?

EDIT - last sentence to make more readable

Edited February 16, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Ron Ecker]

I fully agree that neo-Darwinism will "evolve" into a more complete theory - whether that theory is close enough to its origins to be called neo-Darwinism, or post-Darwinism, or whatever - only time will tell.

There's a new area of study called evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo") that stresses the importance of individual biological development in evolution. It researches how small variations in genes involved in development might be springboards to both macroevolutionary and microevolutionary changes.

[John Dolva]

You're welcome, Dave.

"To clarify, is it your position that any attempt to prove the existence of God (by scientific means), is fatally flawed, since God transcends science? Hence ID opposes true faith, which requires an acceptance of God without proof of his existence?"

Yes and no.

God is (omni) all-present, omni-knowing (scient), omni-potent. God IS science. Evolution is a subset of science.

ID opposes true belief. In the freedom god gave us we can choose to believe. When we do, god is described to us mortals as having 'no turning', ie no one is not seen because you are seen (love). When you, the individual you, choose (freedom) to be seen god is proven to you, no rocket science required. This is about a type of humility and surrender, a loss of ego and trust (ie a not knowing): ie faith.

You can in this freedom also choose not to believe. He has set you free. Long long time before you ever heard the word.

This is an enigma, a one hand clapping. Beyond reasoning.

"If yes to my first question, does that also mean that philosophical and scriptural attempts to prove the existence of God are equally as doomed as a scientific approach? Or is it purely scientific attempts (i.e. ID) that are flawed?"

again yes and no, knowledge is different (but related to) wisdom. It is in the open mind of the innocent child that god is seen.

As adults we may recite the entire scriptures word perfect and spend a lifetime writing thesis after thesis.

In the moment of approaching god with the mind of a child and the (oh so hopefully so) wisdom of an adult that christians (perhaps I should say theists?) stand in 'the awe of god'. A child just simply goes up and holds gods hand, because the innocent chid knows.

A Buddhist story:

a man goes to the doctor and gets a script. goes home and sets it in the shrine and bows down and recites 'one pill in the morning...blind

a man goes to the doctor and gets a script, he asks for and receives an explanation of the script. he goes home and takes a soap box to the park and shouts and preaches : this is the true script... knowledge

a man goes to the doctor and gets a script, he asks for and receives an explanation of the script. he goes home and takes one pill in the morning...knowledge and wisdom

"How do your views on ID sit with your views on (neo-)Darwinism? Does the fact that Darwinism doesn't preclude the existence of a deity, but does leave room for a deity, make it more theologically sound than ID?"

Basically I think of these things as a separation of the mysterious enigmatic beyond mind kingdom of god (spirit, heart, heaven, whatever) and science and logic. In Science evolution is of course the product of deep and thorough logic born by the work of countless dedicated scientists and their peers. (ref Ron's post)

Edited February 16, 2007 by John Dolva