It started with Darwin but it doesn't end with Darwin.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is something that needs to be really hammered home.

Charles Darwin got things wrong. Charles Darwin was not a perfect man. Charles Darwin was a product of his time. Charles Darwin didn't know everything at all about science.

These are statements that are true. All of those do nothing to prove that the theory of evolution is not scientific. These claims and their ilk, spurious and misguided as they come, do nothing to falsify evolution as a legitimate scientific theory.

Evolution stands on scientific evidence and scientific evidence alone. Darwin definitely helped get the ball rolling with regards to evolution as science, but it does not end with him at all.

 

[BCP1928]

Creationists don't believe anything except on the authority of a sacred text. They don't know how to believe anything except on the authority of a sacred text and can't imagine anybody believing anything without one. They conclude that we must regard Origin of Species as a sacred text.

 

[AV1611VET]

Charles Darwin got things wrong. Charles Darwin was not a perfect man. Charles Darwin was a product of his time. Charles Darwin didn't know everything at all about science.

Speaking ill of the Father of Evolution?

He knew enough to get that title, a major city named after him, his face on a ten-pound bank note, and a burial in a prominent cemetery.

 

[AV1611VET]

They conclude that we must regard Origin of Species as a sacred text.

Then don't.

Put it here:

 

[BCP1928]

Then don't.

Put it here:

View attachment 365833

OK, but why? The book is interesting to historians of 19th century science.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, but why? The book is interesting to historians of 19th century science.

Because they that don't know the past are condemned to repeat it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Speaking ill of the Father of Evolution?

He knew enough to get that title, a major city named after him, his face on a ten-pound bank note, and a burial in a prominent cemetery.

That's not what I'm talking about at all and you surely well know it.

This pretend ignorance of yours is getting old.

 

[BCP1928]

That's not what I'm talking about at all and you surely well know it.

This pretend ignorance of yours is getting old.

I appears that he is trying to pursuade us that we must take Darwin as scripture.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's not what I'm talking about at all and you surely well know it.

This pretend ignorance of yours is getting old.

I don't think it is really old, it is more an apparent age, sort of embedded, if you know what I mean. It's really quite new. It may appear AV has been making comments like that for many years, but this is not the case. It's been no more than a couple of days at most!

 

[AV1611VET]

I appears that he is trying to pursuade us that we must take Darwin as scripture.

Didn't he write The Preservation of Favoured Races?

 

[Ophiolite]

Then don't.

Put it here:

View attachment 365833

So these are your options for the written word. A book must be either a sacred text, to be treasured, or a profane, secular affront that must be destroyed. Good to know.

 

[BCP1928]

Didn't he write The Preservation of Favoured Races?

So what?

 

[Ophiolite]

Didn't he write The Preservation of Favoured Races?

Why would you identify a book by it's sub-title?

Do you know what he meant by "Race"?

Do you understand that his usage and the usage of his day differs from ours?

And, to echo @BCP1928 , so what?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would you identify a book by it's sub-title?

Do you know what he meant by "Race"?

Do you understand that his usage and the usage of his day differs from ours?

And, to echo @BCP1928 , so what?

Because A) he knows it gets a knee-jerk emotional response from people even though he knows better, or B) he's actually ignorant into what it means by race, even after having it explain to him multiple times.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I appears that he is trying to pursuade us that we must take Darwin as scripture.

It does make sense given his weird focus on Darwin marrying his cousin as anything worth talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because A) he knows it gets a knee-jerk emotional response from people even though he knows better, or B) he's actually ignorant into what it means by race, even after having it explain to him multiple times.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

QV please:

Thus "favoured races" means the dominant species will be preserved.

SOURCE: POST 212

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please:

Thus "favoured races" means the dominant species will be preserved.

SOURCE: POST 212

At least you added the qualifier of "At least I think that's what I means". But it does nothing to excuse the arrogance of quoting yourself as anything meaningful.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least you added the qualifier of "At least I think that's what I means". But it does nothing to excuse the arrogance of quoting yourself as anything meaningful.

Your comrades in academia are the ones who put Darwin up on a pedestal.*

I'm knocking him off that pedestal.

So I understand where you'd think I'm being arrogant.

* Four times: capitol city, bank note, grand title, grand burial.

 

[Hans Blaster]

At least you added the qualifier of "At least I think that's what I means". But it does nothing to excuse the arrogance of quoting yourself as anything meaningful.

But it is meaningful. It shows clearly that it isn't 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. It demonstrates that it has been the case for a very long time. It was known in that 10-year-old thread and it is known now. It's just one of the short, but repeating list of tactics and quotes used ("cousin marriage", "OoS as scripture", "favored races", and all of the other prepared quotes that just get inserted whenever the whim must be satisfied. Some people just aren't worth talking to or responding to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

QV please:

Thus "favoured races" means the dominant species will be preserved.

SOURCE: POST 212

From 19th and 20th century history as I read it, it's not really Darwin who is to blame for the development of Social Darwinism, racism and eugenics programs in the 20th century, but rather Herbert Spencer, along with William Graham Sumner and Sir Francis Galton. We probably need to keep this qualification clear so as not to confuse (or fuse) the philosophical faults of all of these guys into one big lump.

Social Darwinism - Definition, Examples, Imperialism | HISTORY

Social Darwinism is a set of ideologies that emerged in the 1800s in which the theory of evolution was used to justify political, social or economic views.

www.history.com