Creationism proponents wanted: no scruples necessary

[Washington]

"by Dr. David Menton, AiG-U.S.January 8, 2009 [Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine. Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University ]

"We are have just entered what many are calling “the year of Darwin.” During 2009, much of the world will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (most people do not know the full, racist title)."
source
​

It shouldn't have to be noted that the use of "races" in the title was in no way intended to reflect the racism David Morton implies. In fact, the use of "races" wasn't even Darwin's idea. For those who may be unaware, here is an explanation of the title, On the Origin of Species, from Wikipedia.

"On 20 July 1858 Darwin started work on an "abstract" trimmed from his Natural Selection, writing much of it from memory. Lyell made arrangements with the publisher John Murray, who agreed to publish the manuscript sight unseen, and to pay Darwin two-thirds of the net proceeds. Darwin had initially decided to call his book An abstract of an Essay/on the/Origin/of/Species and Varieties/Through natural selection/, but with Murray's persuasion it was eventually changed to the snappier title: On the Origin of Species with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, a long book title as was common during the Victorian era. Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".
source
​

And just so there's no mistake about the contemporary meaning of the word "racist" as used by Menton.

Encarta World English Dictionary
Racist:
1. based on racism: based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race
2. prejudiced against other races: prejudiced against all people who belong to other races

Cambridge Dictionary
racist
noun DISAPPROVING
someone who believes that other races are not as good as their own and therefore treats them unfairly:

Wiktionary
Racist
Adjective
Of, relating to, or advocating racism.

racism
The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
The belief that one race is superior to all others.
Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.
​

So here we have good evidence that having the brains to acquire a PhD does not mean one also has the wherewithal to acquire scruples. Purposely misrepresenting someone's words to reflect badly on them is not only unethical but down right despicable. But, of course, we've come to expect as much from the creationist movement. Congratulations Dr. Menton, wear your Creationist Creep badge with honor.

 

[Danyc]

Interesting, even I didn't know that.

But then, I'm not the one making despicable, unfounded claims of racism.

 

[NailsII]

So here we have good evidence that having the brains to acquire a PhD does not mean one also has the wherewithal to acquire scruples. Purposely misrepresenting someone's words to reflect badly on them is not only unethical but down right despicable. But, of course, we've come to expect as much from the creationist movement. Congratulations Dr. Menton, wear your Creationist Creep badge with honor.​

​

It is such a shame that someone with a doctorate could be so stupid.
Especially in biology, and yet misrepresent one of biology's central tennants so profoundly.

 

[ReverendDG]

[/indent]It is such a shame that someone with a doctorate could be so stupid.
Especially in biology, and yet misrepresent one of biology's central tennants so profoundly.

oh thats easy nails just ask the one and only jonathan wells, who makes no bones about his reasons for becoming a biologist. he like menton could care less about being honest, they are doing it for jesus! lying is ok if you do it for jesus!
even if one of the big 10 says its wrong, its ok, cuse its lying for jesus!

 

[RobertByers]

Its true race here was not about human races.
Yet evolution was a tool in the world for establishing this or that people was innately better.
H.G Wells said Jews and asians were inferior and pretty much most of the early evolution thumpers insisted on brains and race as important. many today still.
Darwin did insist women were innately intellectually inferior to men yet he did not believe races/ethnics etc were.

 

[MoonLancer]

Its true race here was not about human races.
Yet evolution was a tool in the world for establishing this or that people was innately better.
H.G Wells said Jews and Asians were inferior and pretty much most of the early evolution thumpers insisted on brains and race as important. many today still.
Darwin did insist women were innately intellectually inferior to men yet he did not believe races/ethnics etc were.

and yet

the bible was used as an excuse for owning slaves as it had rules for owning them. Jesus never denounced owning slaves. you will find that all people who use evolution to justify racism, do so because they already are racist. I wonder how many were christian? I would guess most.

You will not find evolution the cause of racism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus never denounced owning slaves.

Truly He taught us to love one another,
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother.
And in his name all oppression shall cease.

- O Holy Night, Christmas Carol, words by Adolphe Adams

 

[WilliamduBois]

Why no Bibleverse this time, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Truly He taught us to love one another,
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother.
And in his name all oppression shall cease.

- O Holy Night, Christmas Carol, words by Adolphe Adams

Why no Bibleverse this time, AV?

As you wish:

Truly He taught us to love one another,

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

His law is love and His gospel is peace.

...as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

And in his name all oppression shall cease.

For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

 

[Hespera]

Its true race here was not about human races.
Yet evolution was a tool in the world for establishing this or that people was innately better.
H.G Wells said Jews and asians were inferior and pretty much most of the early evolution thumpers insisted on brains and race as important. many today still.
Darwin did insist women were innately intellectually inferior to men yet he did not believe races/ethnics etc were.

The truth of evolution has nothing to do with what you think or how anyone chose to interpret it.

Religion was a tool for the Spanish conquering the Inca; convert or be put to the sword. Religion was used as a tool for oppression of women (the book does say they are inferior) and for torturing innocent women to death, you know, burning at the stake?

The truth of what Jesus said has nothing to do with the evils or others.

Do you have some point to make?

 

[RobertByers]

and yet

the bible was used as an excuse for owning slaves as it had rules for owning them. Jesus never denounced owning slaves. you will find that all people who use evolution to justify racism, do so because they already are racist. I wonder how many were christian? I would guess most.

You will not find evolution the cause of racism.

Slavery was never a big deal. in fact often a legitamate punishment. God said everyone should treat others as they would themselves yet there was a reality to how people lived. Slavery in bible times was not forced except in war.

While i don't agree there is such a thing as racism I do insist evolution was the foundation for peoples seing other peoples as inferior to themselves. In Europe evolution gave legitamacy to many ideas and anyone opposing these ideas was opposing evolution as used.
Darwin did so insist women were inferior to men for important evolutionary reasons.
its a short walk to saying races are.
They say it today like in books called 'the bell curve"

 

[ragarth]

Slavery was never a big deal. in fact often a legitamate punishment. God said everyone should treat others as they would themselves yet there was a reality to how people lived. Slavery in bible times was not forced except in war.

While i don't agree there is such a thing as racism I do insist evolution was the foundation for peoples seing other peoples as inferior to themselves. In Europe evolution gave legitamacy to many ideas and anyone opposing these ideas was opposing evolution as used.
Darwin did so insist women were inferior to men for important evolutionary reasons.
its a short walk to saying races are.
They say it today like in books called 'the bell curve"

The bible has been used to legitimize evils itself. As stated earlier, the conquering of the Inca, The crusades, holy wars galore. These people were racist, and the bible was used to support this racism.

Evolution has been used less often for this, but it hasn't been around as long. Notably Stalin did make use of 'social evolution' to advance his ideals. Social evolution has been proven to be bad science, and it's safe to say that Stalin didn't understand evolution as it existed at the time, but he still supported himself with it. (just as people who kill in the name of jesus don't understand the horrible irony in that, perhaps?)

The point is, they've both been abused and manipulated to advance goals that they don't inherently hold, whether it be through actual intellectual manipulation, or misunderstandings. So quit the fracking finger pointing because it does nothing. Christianity is religion, evolution is science. If a war were started over eating eggs small side up vs small side down, would you denounce the stupidity of the war, or the act of eating eggs?

/I'd denounce the stupidity of the war, of stalin, of spains conquering the inca, of the crusades, of holy wars... it's all stupid, sad, and horrible.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible has been used to legitimize evils itself. As stated earlier, the conquering of the Inca, The crusades, holy wars galore. These people were racist, but they used religion to back up their claims.

Evolution has been used less often for this, but it hasn't been around as long. Notably Stalin did make use of 'social evolution' to advance his ideals. Social evolution has been proven to be bad science, and it's safe to say that Stalin didn't understand evolution as it existed at the time (just as people who kill in the name of jesus don't understand the horrible irony in that, perhaps?)

So you point out that social evolution has been [watch this word, folks] "proven" to be bad science, and that Stalin didn't understand evolution as it existed at the time, but you say nothing about the conquering of the Inca, the Crusades, or "holy wars galore" being [now I'll say it] "proven" to be bad theology, or the people not understanding it.

I know which side you butter your bread on.

 

[ragarth]

So you point out that social evolution has been [watch this word, folks] "proven" to be bad science, and that Stalin didn't understand evolution as it existed at the time, but you say nothing about the conquering of the Inca, the Crusades, or "holy wars galore" being [now I'll say it] "proven" to be bad theology, or the people not understanding it.

I know which side you butter your bread on.

Yes, I am biased, and I make no claim otherwise. You are correct, those are bad theology. So people use bad science and bad theology to prop up their personal objectives. My point still stands, that this whole thing of finger pointing is useless because a man is intelligent enough to go to war over anything, and use any over arching statement to justify themselves. This does not necesserily mean that what they're using as justification is bad, only that they themselves are bad.

And as to how I butter my bread. It's a shown fact that the more evolved species butter their bread wet side up. Prove me wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I am biased, and I make no claim otherwise.

I'll say one thing --- you're honest.

You may use the word "Crusades" more than you use "Malthusian Doctrine" --- but you're honest.

These scientists who put our current President down because he declared war, yet say nothing about science's claim that war is necessary, don't fool me one bit.

Without survival of the fittest, evolution is just a word.

While glorifying "fight or flight" out of one side of their clipboards, and railing against war out of the other side, scientists show their hypocrisy.

It was okay for the cavemen to fight the Neanderthals (or whatever); but now? Unthinkable!

 

[ragarth]

I'll say one thing --- you're honest.

You may use the word "Crusades" more than you use "Malthusian Doctrine" --- but you're honest.

These scientists who put our current President down because he declared war, yet say nothing about science's claim that war is necessary, don't fool me one bit.

Without survival of the fittest, evolution is just a word.

While glorifying "fight or flight" out of one side of their clipboards, and railing against war out of the other side, scientists show their hypocrisy.

It was okay for the cavemen to fight the Neanderthals (or whatever); but now? Unthinkable!

That's a horribly complicated issue. Scarcity of resources make conflict inevitable. That does not, however, make conflict pretty. When it's said that conflict over resources is essential for survival of the fittest to function in a scarcity environment, this is an unemotional analysis of the situation and dynamics. When it's said that we should not go to war, this is an appeal to humanity's higher reasoning.

The fact as I see it is, we are a tribal creature in a global environment. We need to get beyond the tribal view of nations, ethnicities, and groups, and see each other as part of the global community. This is why I claim war as negative while conflict has historically been a part of natural selection, because as humans, we have the capacity to reason above base instincts and work towards the greater good of everyone, not just the tribe.

As per the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, forming a scientific opinion about them for me would be like using the shape of a room to define the shape of a house, I'm too far inside the issues to have an objective, unbiased view.

 

[AV1611VET]

We need to get beyond the tribal view of nations, ethnicities, and groups, and see each other as part of the global community.

And what, may I ask, is the solution? A one-world government?

This is why I claim war as negative while conflict has historically been a part of natural selection, because as humans, we have the capacity to reason above base instincts and work towards the greater good of everyone, not just the tribe.

This is what jumped out at me immediately as I read this:

3.5 years of global peace, followed by a sudden change in policy that allows for "conflict".

I think I see now how that will be propagandized:

War is a negative thing, but when the proper time comes, natural selection must be allowed to operate.
​

I have a feeling that natural selection with be preceded by a numbering system.

 

[ragarth]

And what, may I ask, is the solution? A one-world government?This is what jumped out at me immediately as I read this:

3.5 years of global peace, followed by a sudden change in policy that allows for "conflict".

I think I see now how that will be propagandized:

War is a negative thing, but when the proper time comes, natural selection must be allowed to operate.
​

I have a feeling that natural selection with be preceded by a numbering system.

I think we can both agree a world government would be impossible to pull together at this stage of human history, the logistics of coordinating billions of people of culturally diverse backgrounds into a single cohesive government is just too much, and the technology of establishing any form of free nation that large doesn't exist. I do, however, think that world governments will become feasible if the requisite technology and territorial broadening of interplanetary colonization form.

I fear the rest of your post makes no sense to me, please clarify?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think we can both agree a world government would be impossible to pull together at this stage of human history...

Could it be done if, say:

1. Every Christian on the face of the earth suddenly disappeared.
2. Any nation refusing to co-operate, like say, Israel --- were to be eliminated for the sake of the whole? (You know --- cut off a finger to save a hand.)

 

[WilliamduBois]

Could it be done if, say:

1. Every Christian on the face of the earth suddenly disappeared.

Are you trying to say that it's Christians that refuse worldwide cooperation?


Anyway, even if there was no religion, or one religion: we'd still have nationalism, cultural differences, economic difficulties and whatnot. Just look at the EU: it is far from being a "one Europe government".

1. Any nation refusing to co-operate, like say, Israel --- were to be eliminated for the sake of the whole? (You know --- cut off a finger to save a hand.)

Wiping out an entire nation and all those with that nationality would be almost an impossibility, so the point is moot from the start.