Holding their feet to the fire ...

[jordanriver]

The THEORY of evolution IS the science!!!

Scientific THEORY.

Is this one of those areas where you're on a higher intellectual plane than I?

K54

maybe its my public education.

my science teacher in his monotone elocution, said (he sounded like Ben Stein) "Science .......is work"

.... "science is work, gathering recording data .....and if you do the work .........gather adequate data, then you can formulate a hypothesis, .....

not everybody will agree on the interpretation of the data, so it is possible to come up with more than one theory.



someone might conclude, from their interpretation of the data, that the history recorded in the Bible is false, and if there is a god , he/she is not represented in the Bible.

and based on earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, children with leukemia and cystic fibrosis, rampant rapes, murders, addictions, that if there is somebody who created this, and its not the God of the Bible who turns out to be Messiah who rescues humanity from the problem of the world, well, eventually,
....but, if its not Bible-God, then whoever created this mess must be capricious, and obviously cares not what happens
....IOW, the same as if there is no god to answer to

.....and if life = 'no god, or the same as if there is no god to answer to'

then as Dostoyevsky says, "everything is allowed" (everything is permitted)

[Jorge]

I thought it was just me wondering, is he (Klause54) doing that on purpose.

ehhh, I'm not a mind-reader so I guess I will give Klause54 the benefit of the doubt.
But its a bother to have to add explanation to each part of each sentence one posts to avoid 'misunderstanding'

It's possible to be overly gracious, you know. The first time, second, third, fourth ... yeah, go ahead and be extra-nice and give 'em the benefit of the doubt. After the fifteenth and twenty-third time ... to do so is not being nice, it's being foolish, naive and ignorant ... you're being played!

In passing, a quick comment regarding that sig line: "If anyone, anywhere, stated they had proof of Darwin's theory, they were wrong. By definition. Period. Roy." I agree with what that says. HOWEVER...

... they sure do live and act as if they had PROVEN Darwinism, don't they? I mean, consider some of their own statements such as, "Evolution is a fact, Fact, FACT!" and "Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked..." (or words to that effect). These are just a few of hundreds of similar statements. Thus, in words and deeds they most certainly do send the clearest of signals that Evolution is a "proven" thing.

Now, I understand quite well, thank you, that in science we cannot "prove" things, only support them. But truth be told, that is not how Evolutionists - especially the hard-core type - feel about it. To them, Evolution is in essence "proven".

Last but not least, do not forget that there are TWO 'evolutions'. This leads to something that may appear to contradict what I've just said - it doesn't. Here's it is: it is indeed a PROVEN fact (observations and repeatable experiments will confirm this time and again) that evolution occurs -- allele frequencies in populations do change over time and these changes are manifested in the phenotypes of individuals in the population. Again, this is indeed a PROVEN fact.

Ahhh ... but then there's Evolution.

There's more but I've had enough.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

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.

Jorge

There's certainly no way when the one making the claim is too cowardly to even try.

[klaus54]

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.

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

Jorge

Wow, thanks for the masterful job of projection, but I've already seen the movie.

I am curious as to what lifestyle you refer?

K54

[klaus54]

The THEORY of evolution IS the science!!!

Scientific THEORY.

Is this one of those areas where you're on a higher intellectual plane than I?

K54

[Jorge]

Stated. Never demonstrated.

Roy

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.

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

Jorge

[jordanriver]

I'm not misunderstanding anything.

Jorge's "ideology" claim, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, does not bear upon the validity of the science of evolution.

And this thread has no business even being a science forum!!!

K54

P.S. You ARE too smart for me. Your intelligence exists on a higher plane.

P.P.S. The wisest and most succinct response to the OP should have been in POST #2, to wit:

Big Deal!!!

(correct me if I am wrong, Jorge)
but I don't think Jorge was referring to the science of evolution , just the theory.

(of course I may be projecting here )

[Truthseeker]

It seems to me that abortions for reasons not involving eugenics far outnumber kills of children for eugenic reasons. Moreover, that is not the biggest problem with the world. IMO it's the increasing lack of Christ-centered life. I fear the YEC hullabaloo such as here about eugenics is worsening that problem.

[klaus54]

I thought it was just me wondering, is he (Klause54) doing that on purpose.

ehhh, I'm not a mind-reader so I guess I will give Klause54 the benefit of the doubt.
But its a bother to have to add explanation to each part of each sentence one posts to avoid 'misunderstanding'

I'm not misunderstanding anything.

Jorge's "ideology" claim, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, does not bear upon the validity of the science of evolution.

And this thread has no business even being a science forum!!!

K54

P.S. You ARE too smart for me. Your intelligence exists on a higher plane.

P.P.S. The wisest and most succinct response to the OP should have been in POST #2, to wit:

Big Deal!!!

[jordanriver]

As many times as I have posted about this, Santa's accusations cannot possibly stem from ignorance. Rather, Santa Klaus knowingly and willingly continues promoting his misrepresentations and lies for the childishly-transparent reason that it serves his objectives: to vilify and to promote his sordid beliefs.

Jorge

I thought it was just me wondering, is he (Klause54) doing that on purpose.

ehhh, I'm not a mind-reader so I guess I will give Klause54 the benefit of the doubt.
But its a bother to have to add explanation to each part of each sentence one posts to avoid 'misunderstanding'

[Roy]

I have stated more times than I can recall that there is a SCIENCE of evolution and then there is an IDEOLOGY of Evolution.

Stated. Never demonstrated.

Roy

[Jorge]

Journal of Heredity.

During his acceptance of his Nobel Prize he said that "the complexity of the genetic composition of man makes it somewhat hazardous to apply only the simpler rules of Mendelian inheritance; for, the development of many inherited characters depends both on the presence of modifying factors and on the external environment for their expression."

It was evolutionists like Morgan and Punnett pointed out that the racial theories of eugenicists were as scientifically unsound as they were morally objectionable.

Another important figure in this debate, although more on the periphery, was Franz Uri Boas, the "Father of American Anthropology," especially his feud with the conservationist Madison Grant.

Grant was an ardent supporter of eugenics (being director of the American Eugenics Society, a founding member of the Galton Society, and one of the eight members of the International Committee of Eugenics) and instrumental in the passing and prosecution of several anti-miscegenation laws (such as the notorious Racial Integrity Act of 1924 in the state of Virginia, where he sought to codify his particular version of the "one-drop rule" into law). In 1916 he wrote "The Passing of the Great Race" a detailed treatise on racial hygiene that expounds the belief in Nordic superiority and which Hitler wrote him and proclaimed, "The book is my Bible."

Grant's chief opponent and rival was Franz Boas, who supported evolutionary theory (and wrote of his deep indebtedness to Darwin^[1]) and ridiculed the idea of orthogenesis and cultural/social evolution. Grant tried for years to get Boas fired from his position at Columbia University but in the end Boas was the victory having wrested control of the American Anthropological Association from Grant and his supporters (Grant joined with Charles B. Davenport to form the Galton Society as an alternative).

While early on Boas thought that eugenics might have some limited merit saying that "The attempt to suppress those defective classes whose deficiencies can be proved by rigid methods to be due to hereditary causes, and to prevent unions that will unavoidably lead to the birth of disease-stricken progeny, is the proper field of eugenics" he cautioned in 1916 that "Eugenics is not a panacea that will cure human ills, it is rather a dangerous sword that may turn its edge against those who rely on its strength."

Later his position started shifting toward opposition toward eugenics as can be seen in his 1928 book "Anthropology and Modern LifeRace and Democratic Society" a work published after his death Boas declared that "The behavior of an individual is determined not by his racial affiliation, but by the character of his ancestry and his cultural environment" as well as "No one has ever proved that a human being, through his descent from a certain group of people, must of necessity have certain mental characteristics."

There were of course others such as Hermann Muller, who had worked in Morgan's lab and won 1946 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. He delivered a speech at the Eugenics Conference of 1932 where he took them to task for its simplistic definition of 'unfit,' declaring that "genetic worth is a practically continuous variant, and there is no hard and fast line between the fit and the unfit, nor does relative fitness in the great majority of individuals depend on one or a few pre-specified genes."

It appears that by the mid 1920s evolutionists were questioning and objecting to eugenics pointing out that supporters relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity -- although one fair criticism would be that they weren't doing it strenuously enough. Still, by the time Hitler came around, Darwinists had also shown that it wouldn't work.










1. In 1888 he declared that "the development of ethnology is largely due to the general recognition of the principle of biological evolution" and in a 1909 unpublished lecture, Boas wrote: "I hope I may have succeeded in presenting to you, however imperfectly, the currents of thought due to the work of the immortal Darwin which have helped to make anthropology what it is at the present time."

Just between us (I'll keep it quiet ... sssshhhhh!), are you a PAID propagandist for the Evolution Club of America? Truth be told, if you aren't then you should be. It's been a while since I had seen a Theistic Evolutionist employ as much time and effort to defend Evolutionism from the (OBVIOUS!) evidence against it that I've presented here. BTW, I remind you that I speak of Evolution, not evolution, and you must remember what the difference between these two is.

Just for the heck and fun of it, and to counteract some of the selective, one-sided, voluminous Elephant-Hurling propaganda that Rogue06 has been posting, I now post a "few" (hehe) tidbits -- enjoy!

The First International Eugenics Conference took place in London in 1912. It was organized by the British Eugenics Education Society and dedicated to Francis Galton who had died a year earlier. Major Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin, was presiding. In the final address, Major Darwin extolled eugenics as the practical application of the principle of evolution (Bruinius, Harry. Better For All the World. The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity. A. A. Knopf, New York, 2006. ISBN 0-375-41371-5).

You think, just maybe, that Major Darwin was thoroughly familiar with Evolution?
And that underlined part ... sure does sound a lot like Jorge's thesis in this thread.

The Second International Eugenics Conference was held in New York in 1921, Alexander Graham Bell was the honorary president. The principal guest speaker, Major Leonard Darwin, advocated eugenic measures that needed to be taken, namely the "elimination of the unfit", the discouragement of large families in the "ill-endowed", and the encouragement of large families in the "well-endowed". (reference: New York Times, September 25, 1921).

Huh - "elimination of the unfit" once again by Major Darwin. Sure does sound a lot like what Jorge has been saying here, namely, the direct, logical application of a fundamental Darwinian Principle.

The Third International Eugenics Conference was also held in New York in 1932. Major Darwin, then 88 years old, was unable to attend. He sent a report that was read by Sir Ronald Fisher. On August 23, 1932, The New York Times reported,
Once again we see "the unfit". If that doesn't sound like an application of "survival of the fittest" by doing away with "the unfit" - a fundamental Darwinian Principle - then I guess nothing does.American Birth Control League. This organization targeted the control of reproduction of "inferiors" within society. The name was changed to PPFA in 1942. certainly does sound much nicer and more inviting than deception to conceal their true agenda. Hey, Evo-Faithful, is any of this sinking in? You are exposed ... your gig is out in the open!



Again, the connection between Darwinism and eugenics is utterly undeniable, except to a "special" few.

See, Rogue06 - I too can "Hurl Elephants" and my elephants are much bigger than yours.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Sorry to butt in again, by it's relevant to bring up the OT Hebrews' view of physical deformities leading to proscription from the Priesthood.

Source: http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/view.cgi?n=1617

One difficulty in studying Bible passages about disabilities and deformities arises from the fact that people during Bible times connected virtue and physical wellness. One general view toward disabilities and deformities was that these afflictions were sent by God as punishment for sin (Deuteronomy 32:39; John 9:2). Some disabilities and deformities were believed to have resulted from demonic activity (Mark 9:17). Jesus brought God's kingdom in which people with deformities and disabilities were accepted and could be healed.

© Copyright Original Source

K54

[rogue06]

1. To be clear, just because Mendel's work inspired prominent eugenicists does not mean that Mendel himself in any way endorsed or supported eugenics. And to say that evolution or Mendel's contribution to genetics were responsible for eugenics (which has roots going back thousands of years to ancient Greece and Rome) is as nonsensical as blaming Auschwitz on the disciplines of Chemistry and Engineering. To claim otherwise would be an example of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy

Perhaps a bit of the historical forebears of eugenics is in order.

Neither Darwin or Galton, nor anyone else from the 19th Century, started what would be called "eugenics." It's roots stretch much further back. Humans have been practicing what would later be called eugenics since the realization that traits are inherited, which was obviously noticed long before Darwin or any of his contemporaries.

Nearly 2400 years ago, Plato in his book "Republic," which he regarded as a blueprint for the organization of an ideal society, expressed a profound interest in eugenics as a means of supplying the city state with the finest possible progeny.

Plato believed that the procreation of children should be monitored and controlled by the state and advocated that the leaders of his Republic practice eugenics on their subjects in order to achieve this.

However, Plato understood this form of government control would likely be rejected and resisted so he proposed that it be accomplished through a lottery system for selecting mates that would be fixed so that the government leaders could maintain a pretense that they are being married at random.

Mates would be selected by a "marriage number" in which the quality of the individual would be thoroughly scrutinized, and persons of high numbers would only be allowed to procreate with other persons of high numbers thus ensuring "judicious matings." In theory, this would lead to predictable results and the race would be strengthened by improved children.

He justified it by stating that that's what you do when you breed domestic animals yet Plato acknowledged the failure of the "marriage number" system since "gold soul" persons could still produce "bronze soul" children.

Many historians think Plato was influenced by what he saw going on in the city-state of Sparta.

The actual constitution of Sparta included eugenic measures where by law every new-born child was brought to the Council Hall and examined. Any deemed unfit and useless by the city elders were taken to a chasm on the slopes of Mount Taygetus a few miles outside the center of Sparta known as the Apothetae -- the “Deposits” -- and cast into it.

According to Allen G. Roper’s essay "Ancient Eugenics," the ancient Spartans believed that "it was better for the child and the city that one not born from the beginning to comeliness and strength should not live." This is precisely what Plutarch recorded about them in his "Lives”:

Source: Lives: Lycurgus, the Father of the Spartans

"Whenever a child was born, it was taken to a council of elders for examination. If the baby was in any way defective, the elders dropped it into a chasm. Such a child, in the opinion of the Spartans, should not be permitted to live."


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Even Conservapedia recognizes that "The Spartans in ancient Greece practiced a primitive form of eugenics, wherein babies which were judged to be too 'weak' or 'sickly' would be left to die," although throwing them into a chasm wasn't exactly just leaving them to die.

Infanticide was common throughout the rest of ancient Greece as well. Unlike in Sparta where boys were subject to infanticide more often, in the rest of Greece it was the girls who suffered this fate in higher numbers. They were usually abandoned on mountainsides to die of thirst, exposure or predation often wrapped in a piece of cloth or left in a basket where a very few fortunate ones were rescued by shepherd’s and woodsmen (a possibility those cast into the Apothetae didn’t have).

And things weren't really a whole lot different in ancient Rome either. For example, the Fourth of the Twelve tables of Roman Law (known as the "Duodecim Tabulae"), the core of the Roman Republic’s constitution and established in its early days, deformed children must be put to death: "Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto" ("If a child is born with a deformity he shall be killed").

Additionally, it appears that Roman patriarchs had the right to dispose of infants at they saw fit (including healthy ones), often by taking any undesired newborn and drowning them in the Tiber River. This practice openly continued up until the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

Yet unfortunately infanticide as eugenics didn't stop there. According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages "was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference." Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn. In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed. The point being whether sanctioned or not the leaving of deformed or sick babies in the woods or on a mountainside to die was a practice for many ancient cultures.

Finally, in the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide. Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing.

But that was hardly the end of eugenical practice. For instance the entire concept of royal bloodlines is founded in eugenics and that continues even today as monarchs still select "suitable" mates from "good families."


Returning to Sparta and eugenics, they, and not Darwin or evolutionary theory, were the inspiration for the Nazis who took eugenical practices to the extreme turning it into outright genocide.

In his "Zweites Buch" ("Second Book"), an unedited transcript of Hitler's thoughts on foreign policy written in 1928 after "Mein Kampf

Hitler explicitly recommended that Germany should imitate the Spartans by limiting "the number allowed to live". He added that "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans."

Hitler praised the Spartans saying that they had created "the first racialist state." During the invasion of the U.S.S.R. he saw that country's citizens as Helots to his Spartans: "They came as conquerors, and they took everything."

This thought is echoed in "Der Generalplan Ost

[klaus54]

Hadn't I BOOTED you off this thread, Santa Klaus?

Meh ... maybe you wrote the above post before getting the BOOT (?).

In any event, and for the edification of others, I never claimed otherwise. Allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time -- just as scientific evolution claims. No one denies that. And these changes are reflected in the phenotype of the individuals of that population - that is also true. Santa keeps trying to (dishonestly) accuse me of saying/promoting things that I never have. Bad Santa!

BUT - and this is the part that Santa Klaus and others refuse to accept because it demolishes their cherished beliefs - the Evolutionary Paradigm-Ideology (which serves a Materialistic worldview/metaphysic/religion), is then intermixed with the science and fed to the unsuspecting masses as "ALL SCIENCE". THERE'S where their fraud is - a fraud that is then blindly and fervently propagated by the useful-idiots Evo-Faithful.

Their agenda is accomplished employing bald-face lies and deceptions. My OP illustrates this with a contemporaneous example of these deceptions - "Eugenics Quarterly" changed to "Social Biology". How obvious is that?

In addition, you should read some of the stuff published therein --- ALL OF IT USING ("scientific") EVOLUTION as the "scientific" justification for what they promote. I listed the titles of several of the articles just to provide an idea of the type of stuff that goes on there.

That was my thesis - that Evolution (the science mixed in with the ideology and then ALL called "science") is used to "scientifically" JUSTIFY atrocities such as (in this case) Eugenics (but also euthanasia, abortion, genocide, ... and so on). My thesis stands rock solid!

Yet, specimens like Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Beagle Boy, Roy and others CONTINUE with their denials, Denials, DENIALS. Like I said, you can't make this stuff up!

Jorge

Then why are you posting this garbage in the Natural Science forum instead of some fundamentalist theological forum where you'll get no one to call you on your obvious category error and is/ought fallacy??!!

The science of evolution is the science of evolution. If you want to attack its science, go right ahead and good luck with that, but this deceitful tack does not support Biblical "scientific" Creationism in any way, shape, or form.

Enjoy blowing noisemakers at your little party.

K54