Holding their feet to the fire ...

[Jorge]

It is just as logical that dropping atomic bombs is the logical application of Atom theory.

Are you "Method" or one of the other clowns arguing similarly?

Once again, we find a creationist who can't tell the difference between an Is and an Ought.

Utterly Ridiculous! Stop your 'drive-by-shooting' of that nonsense - it's making
you look both stupid and demented. Hmmm ... perhaps it's not just appearance (?).

Jorge

[Jorge]

Quoting people who are wrong does not make you less wrong.

You can't get an Ought from an Is, no matter how much you try to cloud the issue. The theory of evolution doesn't tell us to kill or protect anyone.

You appear to have an Is/Ought fetish. They say that if you're a hammer then everything looks like a nail. Are you a 'hammer' wanting to address everything the same way? Sure does look that way!

Jorge

[Method]

Are you "Method" or one of the other clowns arguing similarly?

Are you Jorge or yet another creationist who doesn't understand the Is/Ought problem?

Utterly Ridiculous! Stop your 'drive-by-shooting' of that nonsense - it's making
you look both stupid and demented. Hmmm ... perhaps it's not just appearance (?).

Jorge

That's a lot of bluster to cover up a failure in logic.

[Method]

You appear to have an Is/Ought fetish. They say that if you're a hammer then everything looks like a nail. Are you a 'hammer' wanting to address everything the same way? Sure does look that way!

Jorge

You appear to be unable to deal with the Is/Ought problem given that your only recourse is bluster and insults.

[Leonhard]

How about beginning by realizing and then accepting what most people deny, Deny and DENY: that Evolution has a dual definition, one science and the other a nefarious, damning ideology that is part of a greater metaphysic/worldview/religion? [As you know, I have been preaching that lesson since my first day here] And having come to this realization and acceptance, how about looking at things differently, with this newly-acquired knowledge? How about coming to terms with what is being pumped into your children at schools under the guise of "science" when in reality it's the metaphysical beliefs of certain wackos that are hell-bent on converting everyone to those beliefs? How about looking at the bigger picture and fighting against the forces that are slowly but surely destroying the world that you and your loved ones must live in?

Are you talking about the scientific theory of evolution, or are you talking about something else? If its the philosophy, put it in philosophy, if its the politics, put it in Civics, if its relationship to Christianity, put it in Apologetics 301.

Since the question about whether or not animal species are undergoing evolution, and how this happens is a scientific question, and the answers have no imperatives, there's literally no point to be made at pointing at the consequences.

Even if it led to child molestation, as long as it anything is true knowledge, Christians should acknowledge it as true.

[Leonhard]

You can't get an Ought from an Is, no matter how much you try to cloud the issue.

I disagree with this very strongly.

The theory of evolution doesn't tell us to kill or protect anyone.

This I agree with.

[Leonhard]

"For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.”

Cerebrum, would you mind walking me through this quote. As far as I can see it doesn't say that Charles Darwin's son attributes eugenics to his father. Merely that he wanted to 'give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind'. Since its known that Charles Darwin's lifes work wasn't a treatment on eugenics, his son could only have been meaning practical applications of The Theory of Evolution. Nothing here indicates that his father shared those ideas, merely that this was considered the best application by his son.

I need to stop reading these threads anyway. The ignorance passing itself off as education is too sickening.

It looks to me like you went to Google and typed in 'Eugenics' and 'Leonard Darwin' until you hit a blog that you could cite favourably. As nearly as I can tell you didn't give it a close read, and then you call rogue06 ignorant?

Are you alright Cerebrum? This doesn't seem like you.

[Method]

I disagree with this very strongly.



This I agree with.

Then show me how to derive an Ought from an Is.

[Leonhard]

Then show me how to derive an Ought from an Is.

Wanna have a dialogue about it in the Basketball Court? I won't derail this thread.

[Cerebrum123]

Cerebrum, would you mind walking me through this quote. As far as I can see it doesn't say that Charles Darwin's son attributes eugenics to his father. Merely that he wanted to 'give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind'. Since its known that Charles Darwin's lifes work wasn't a treatment on eugenics, his son could only have been meaning practical applications of The Theory of Evolution. Nothing here indicates that his father shared those ideas, merely that this was considered the best application by his son.

I'll go ahead and respond because I feel you will at least be a bit more reasonable. You do realize that his son was equating eugenics with "practical applications of the theory of evolution", right? You do realize that Charles Darwin laid the foundational argument for eugenics, namely that without natural selection operating on us we will begin to degenerate. After all other than man "who is ignorant enough to let his worst animals breed"?

Here's the more explicit quote from Leonard Darwin.

Source: Leonard Darwin

Jan 14 1914 Dear Pearson- I was glad to get your letter, though I am sorry to find that is confirms the impression which I had that you would rather not be asked to dinner. I shall, however, continue to live in hopes that someday we may cooperate in the field of Eugenics, though I agree it is useless to attempt to do so with divergent aims. Thank you for the ticket for the lectures, which I should much like to attend. But I have a committee every afternoon nearly, leaving me weary with the difficult task of dealing with human beings. I should chuck most of it but for a sense of duty and a belief that my Father would have liked me to do what little in me lies as regards Eugenics. Yours sincerely Leonard Darwin

© Copyright Original Source

Oh, and Charles Darwin's "Descent of Man" most certainly did promote eugenics ideas, although he was rather two faced about it. The "overwhelming evil" quote that rogue06 throws out is nullified by Darwin's excessive scientific arguments in favor of such activities in the preceding paragraphs.

It looks to me like you went to Google and typed in 'Eugenics' and 'Leonard Darwin' until you hit a blog that you could cite favourably. As nearly as I can tell you didn't give it a close read, and then you call rogue06 ignorant?

Are you alright Cerebrum? This doesn't seem like you.

Actually, I found this back when I was thinking that rogue06 and others just might be right about what they were saying. IIRC I was looking for information on "The Descent of Man", and other writings by Charles Darwin, such as his autobiography. Yes, I have read it carefully. I've also read Charles Darwin, and his colleagues carefully. Did you read the site I linked to carefully? He has quite a few posts dealing with this subject, and they all cite primary sources. The writer appears to be a form of theistic evolutionist too*.

I can think of a few others who can see at minimum the links to Haeckel and Nazism/eugenics, and might even see the link between evolutionary theory itself and Nazism/eugenics. Stephen Jay Gould saw the former, and I believe it was Sir Arthur Keith who saw the latter.

And yes, I call rogue06 ignorant because dishonesty is the only other option I see. Jorge may have reached that verdict for rogue06 on this subject, but I haven't. It's also not so much the ignorance either, but the fact that he coats it with a facade of being informed, all the while dismissing the words of Charles Darwin and those closest to him on the matter.

If this doesn't seem like me it's because I'm angry. The sheer dishonesty** that has been fed to me most of my life on this subject sickens me to the core.

The idea that others defend Charles Darwin as a "product of his times", or worse, simply denying he said what he said is even worse. It's also always done by people who claim to "follow the evidence wherever it leads". So, when I see someone who claims that, while defending Darwin in this manner, I get upset. Especially since I'm treated as an idiot, and for actually trying to follow the evidence no less!

*Yes, I know that doesn't make him right, but I know how many creationists are dismissed out of hand for the very fact of being creationists.

**I never put too much stock in the public education I received, but I remember some of my homeschooling books that never taught anything other than Darwin being an "agnostic" who just happened come to his theory by reasoning from nature around him. Looking at his own private correspondences, and a few of his notes shows this to be completely false.

Things are going to be a bit rough starting this weekend through to the next. I'm going to try and rest up for it so I'm prepared.

[seer]

Wanna have a dialogue about it in the Basketball Court? I won't derail this thread.

I would like to see that argument.

[JonF]

Jan 14 1914 Dear Pearson- I was glad to get your letter, though I am sorry to find that is confirms the impression which I had that you would rather not be asked to dinner. I shall, however, continue to live in hopes that someday we may cooperate in the field of Eugenics, though I agree it is useless to attempt to do so with divergent aims. Thank you for the ticket for the lectures, which I should much like to attend. But I have a committee every afternoon nearly, leaving me weary with the difficult task of dealing with human beings. I should chuck most of it but for a sense of duty and a belief that my Father would have liked me to do what little in me lies as regards Eugenics. Yours sincerely Leonard Darwin

Still no evidence that Charles Darwin actually was in favor of eugenics. Since his son was wrong about so many things his opinion is not credible evidence.

[Roy]

Stated. Never demonstrated.

There is NO WAY of rationally demonstrating something - anything!!! - to people that have blind, rabid, fiery adherence to an ideology that they wish to believe because, among other things, it allows and justifies their chosen lifestyle.

That's a poor excuse for not trying, and no excuse at all for not demonstrating to all those who aren't like that.

Chew on that for a couple of years and perhaps you'll 'get it' one day.

I 'got it' decades ago.

Roy

[klaus54]

Still no evidence that Charles Darwin actually was in favor of eugenics. Since his son was wrong about so many things his opinion is not credible evidence.

And it doesn't matter to the science of evolution if Chuck WERE in favor of eugenics.

Why can't Jorge and Company realize this simple truth?

My only conclusion is profound intellectual dishonesty.

Pure and simple...

K54

[Leonhard]

You do realize that his son was equating eugenics with "practical applications of the theory of evolution", right?

That much is clear Cerebrum, however its also very clear that Charles Darwin didn't hold to eugenics in any of his writings. His son is free to interpret what practical utilities you can have from the work, but that's a side point.

You do realize that Charles Darwin laid the foundational argument for eugenics, namely that without natural selection operating on us we will begin to degenerate.

I did not, and I'm not sure he said anything like this. Degeneration to what?

After all other than man "who is ignorant enough to let his worst animals breed"?

This smells a bit like quote mining, we can find icky one liners from the Bible as well, hence the need to read the fulness of the work.

I should chuck most of it but for a sense of duty and a belief that my Father would have liked me to do what little in me lies as regards Eugenics. Yours sincerely Leonard Darwin

Again, where does he say that his father taught him the eugenics he's arguing about? He says clearly that he believes that Charles Darwin would have supported it, but it doesn't say that Charles Darwin did.

Oh, and Charles Darwin's "Descent of Man" most certainly did promote eugenics ideas, although he was rather two faced about it. The "overwhelming evil" quote that rogue06 throws out is nullified by Darwin's excessive scientific arguments in favor of such activities in the preceding paragraphs.

I've read a lot of his personal writings and I haven't come across this. He expresses quite a few opinions, and he has some wrong ideas about how traits are inherited, as he went along with Lamarckism, which was a mistake many scientists made back then.

Actually, I found this back when I was thinking that rogue06 and others just might be right about what they were saying.

My mistake.

I've also read Charles Darwin, and his colleagues carefully.

We don't do argument by weblink on this forum. That's precisely the kind of thing I was worried you'd bring up. I might read it, but so far you haven't exactly sold me on the idea that Charles Darwin actively supported eugenics, or taught his son about it.

I can think of a few others who can see at minimum the links to Haeckel and Nazism/eugenics,

I can as well since Lamarckian genetics implies that when different races mate, something is lost. The white race can be tainted by other races, and once the taint is in it can't be removed only diluted. There was this fear that weaker races could mix their blood with ours and we'd lose the vitality the European race has built up through centuries. Remember in Lamarckian genetics, traits you inherit in life are passed on.

It was pure bonkers of course, but it would have to wait until Mendelian genetics took the place. Itself to be replaced later with even more sophisticated models of inheritance.

and might even see the link between evolutionary theory itself and Nazism/eugenics.

That may or may not be true, if it is, its tragic. However as I've yet to find a nazi who actually understood the theory of evolution, I'm not sure the theory itself should be blamed.

And yes, I call rogue06 ignorant because dishonesty is the only other option I see.

Its very ballsy of you, and not really all that gracious. You don't look like someone who really has a foot on what he's saying. Giving out a rhetorical fib like that is something typically done by people who aren't really sure what they're talking about, or who don't know enough to assess how little they know of a subject. You're free to do it, but I think its bad taste.

It's also not so much the ignorance either, but the fact that he coats it with a facade of being informed,

Our Lord wasn't exactly fond of hypocrites.

If this doesn't seem like me it's because I'm angry.

I got that.

The sheer dishonesty** that has been fed to me most of my life on this subject sickens me to the core.

The idea that others defend Charles Darwin as a "product of his times", or worse, simply denying he said what he said is even worse. It's also always done by people who claim to "follow the evidence wherever it leads". So, when I see someone who claims that, while defending Darwin in this manner, I get upset. Especially since I'm treated as an idiot, and for actually trying to follow the evidence no less!

**I never put too much stock in the public education I received, but I remember some of my homeschooling books that never taught anything other than Darwin being an "agnostic" who just happened come to his theory by reasoning from nature around him. Looking at his own private correspondences, and a few of his notes shows this to be completely false.

This was quite a mouthful. Cerebrum I'm definitely not angry at you, or dismissive. I only saw a quote you gave which didn't really seem up to the task of painting Charles Darwin as a eugenics supporter. Lets say you show that he was, I'll do the following:

I'll admit it.

Even if Charles Darwin's character was completely obliterated, that he was dishonest, lying, committed serial fraud, scientific fraud and so on. It wouldn't touch the theory of evolution. All it would show is that Charles Darwin was a bad character. Martin Luther went nuts at times and was a huge anti-semite, some think that can be defended as him being a product of his times. Calvin, whom the Reformed venerate, said the Bible was to the be ultimate authority, however he attacked anyone who would dare open their mouth against him, as if they were attacking a bishop, or the entire Church's sanctity, even though those people were merely following the dictates of their conscience.

Sometimes a person is a product of their times. At one point a legally acceptable form of capitol punishment was immolation on a fire. So people who sentenced other people to this, and were the ones to light the fire... were they acting in an evil fashion? They might merely have understood that capitol punishment was justified sometimes (as I believe), and that it was deemed acceptable to do it by fire.

We can have these questions all day long. Some people sometimes rush in and quickly explain that Calvin was merely very anxious about the Bible being read correct (yes, his way, or the highway), at a time when these things were hotly contented and many things were at stake. Some say that Luther was merely dramatic in a way not uncommon and acceptable back then. We can discuss whether Darwin simple held various opinions on the subject as private mussings, and not as actually stated theories, or imperatives.

However its true that we need to read a person in their historical context. How much Darwin can be faulted, morally, for being wrong depends on what he knew.

*Yes, I know that doesn't make him right, but I know how many creationists are dismissed out of hand for the very fact of being creationists.

In my experience it depends on the forum Cerebrum. I remember being an atheist and spending time on those forums, and we'd get creationists who made the most awful arguments. They'd stand up proudly and recite "Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." And then they'd make an analogous argument about order and disorder. Once you point out to them that the Earth isn't a closed system, they'd either handwave and talk about information (never getting back to their original point), or accuse atheists of 'trying to wriggle out'. They'd make long, long, long since debunked arguments, completely unaware of any posts about it.

At least any creationist should have read the Talk.Origin post on these things and be able to address the points there, but we didn't even get that. Eventually you just get tired of hearing it Cerebrum. Maybe you're different, I can't say, I choose to be open and nice.

Jorge is grating on my ears though, no offence to the owner of this thread.

Things are going to be a bit rough starting this weekend through to the next. I'm going to try and rest up for it so I'm prepared.

You do that, thank you for walking the quote through me. Sorry if this got long and fractioned. Respond to any of it if you want. Take care Cerebrum.