Darwin

[Loddfafner]

One does not need to look very far on the net to find some extraordinarily idiotic claims about Darwin's arguments. Claims made by his fans tend to be about as far removed from his actual claims as the fantasies of creationists. I am curious as to what you all make of the guy and his theories and observations. Where was he right and where was he wrong? Why has Darwin acquired the reputation as the ultimate antagonist to religion? It seems to me that Darwin's argument has no consequence for faith except for its most stunted and primitive manifestations.

[Stygian Cellarius]

Holy Effin s**t dude, I was in the process of starting the thread below until I opened a new page and saw yours.

This is the thread I was creating:

How many people believe that Classical Darwinian mechanisms, viz. mutation and natural selection, can fully explain these adaptations below?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/Casen/Collage2-1.jpg

Even if you do believe it. If you didn't just take the teachers word for it then you must have worked the system out in your mind. A process which would result in the discovery that some "things" would be more probable than others. What are those elements in the theory that have a lower probability? In other words, what are its weak points?

It's not exactly the same, but it's close enough to raise the weird flag.

[Loddfafner]

Mutations are not part of Darwin's theory; that was De Vries in the early XX. Somehow they got into a generation of biology textbooks and stayed long after biologists refuted them as a primary mechanism. Darwin only noted that creatures vary. Mendel noted a patterns in variation; DNA researchers have found a source for variation in the inevitable imperfections in the replication of genes.

Once the possibility of flaps to legs and arms has developed, it can be modified incrementally into some spectacular camouflage, as such variations slightly augment the rate of survival.

[Breedingvariety]

I am a fan of Darwin. I think the theory of evolution by natural selection is useful to explain why species are certain way. I would articulate the theory differently to involve perspective from individual beings. But then again Darwin dealt with species just like he thought nature was concerned with species and not individuals.

Even if you do believe it. If you didn't just take the teachers word for it then you must have worked the system out in your mind. A process which would result in the discovery that some "things" would be more probable than others. What are those elements in the theory that have a lower probability? In other words, what are its weak points?
Nothing is absolutely necessary. So all the species that exist today might just as well not exist. Incredible series of accidents lead to existence of particular species. Their existence is not much more probable then existence of all species that don't exist. We can only say useful attributes to survival were more likely to be propagated and survive.

[Agrippa]

Darwin was essentially right and his theory is in the end one of the best proven scientific theories - in biology anyway, but even beyond in natural sciences, we know of, even though it became altered and modified as knowledge grew of course, but I'm talking about the basic principles.

[Eldritch]

How many people believe that Classical Darwinian mechanisms, viz. mutation and natural selection, can fully explain these adaptations below?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/Casen/Collage2-1.jpg

I don't know how many people believe it, but 100% of the people who are me have no problem believing it. Although as Lodd pointed out, mutation wasn't a concept that Darwin himself worked with. I can't really imagine it as a matter of Darwin's (and his successors', if allowed) theories explaining some life forms, but not others.

[Psychonaut]

Why has Darwin acquired the reputation as the ultimate antagonist to religion? It seems to me that Darwin's argument has no consequence for faith except for its most stunted and primitive manifestations.

Aye, the only theists for whom Darwin poses an insurmountable challenge are textual literalists or those who believe that humanity is apart from nature and/or exists in a special relationship with the divine that is not shared by the whole.

[Agrippa]

Aye, the only theists for whom Darwin poses an insurmountable challenge are textual literalists or those who believe that humanity is apart from nature and/or exists in a special relationship with the divine that is not shared by the whole.

which can be translated into delusional morons... :thumbs up

[Loddfafner]

Aye, the only theists for whom Darwin poses an insurmountable challenge are textual literalists or those who believe that humanity is apart from nature and/or exists in a special relationship with the divine that is not shared by the whole.

To play the devil's advocate (no irony intended), isn't there something highly unusual about one species overrunning the entire planet and kickstarting an entire geological epoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene)? Normally, new predators should evolve to take advantage of such an abundant food source. I take this, though, as stronger evidence for the anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) rather than for the literal truth of some ancient creation myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis).

As for the insects upthread, keep in mind that insects generally have a lifespan of only one year, and enormous brood-to-reproductive individual ratios, so processes of natural selection have had an enormous head start on us vertebrates. In a sense, they are much more evolved than us. They have had more opportunities to reach some especially bizarre results.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Loddfafner
Why has Darwin acquired the reputation as the ultimate antagonist to religion? It seems to me that Darwin's argument has no consequence for faith except for its most stunted and primitive manifestations.


To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, while Hume gave the West a reason to question belief in God, Darwin gave the West a reason to believe he doesn't exist. Darwin himself contested the idea that evolution through natural selection was an attack on religion in The Origins of Species, but had this to say in his autobiography:


I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.


Which is to say that for anyone of a Christian persuasion Darwin must be seen as an opponent, though I personally revere him, not so much for the usual pedestrian reasons, but for his application to history and political theory.

[Breedingvariety]

Loddfafner, what is your point? If you don't mind to state it.

[Loddfafner]

Loddfafner, what is your point? If you don't mind to state it.

Are you asking about the point of this thread, or are you asking for clarification of any particular point I made in the thread?

[Psychonaut]

To play the devil's advocate (no irony intended), isn't there something highly unusual about one species overrunning the entire planet and kickstarting an entire geological epoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene)? Normally, new predators should evolve to take advantage of such an abundant food source. I take this, though, as stronger evidence for the anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) rather than for the literal truth of some ancient creation myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis).

I will tentatively agree that it is indicative of the anthropic principle being true in a sense. If taken as evidence that there is an overmind consciously developing the universe so that lesser minds may emerge, then I will not at all agree. If however, it is taken that all the world is in possession of a mind-like quality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) and that the nature of mind is to create, expand and grow then I can agree—as would Eddington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington), Jeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jeans), Schrödinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger), and Bohm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm). They key is whether the evolutionary impetus for progress is viewed as internal or external. The former was endorsed by nearly all of the developers of contemporary physics and is quite common among cosmologists today. The latter is only taken seriously by those with an obvious agenda.

[Loki]

Coincidentally, I have just this afternoon read through a few Wikipedia pages on evolution - and the Objections to evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution) page was quite intriguing. What fascinated me most was the level of support that creationism - and in particular Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_Creationism) - has in America.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/290/evojb.jpg

Yes, that's right. 44% of Americans believe that the earth is at most around 10,000 years old. 16% of Americans believe that only creationism should be taught in schools, not even alongside evolution in science/biology classes. Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is also a creationist.



As of 2008 a Gallup poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm) indicated that 36% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.", 14% believed that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." and 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

[Vasconcelos]

:rofl_002::rofl::rofl_002:

[Óttar]

Does anyone know how the European pig, after being left to breed and conquer the Americas, developed an aggressive feral nature, and even evolved tusks? 8 pigs from Spain eventually became thousands and spread out all over the Americas.

[Joe McCarthy]

Coincidentally, I have just this afternoon read through a few Wikipedia pages on evolution - and the Objections to evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution) page was quite intriguing. What fascinated me most was the level of support that creationism - and in particular Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_Creationism) - has in America.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/290/evojb.jpg

Yes, that's right. 44% of Americans believe that the earth is at most around 10,000 years old. 16% of Americans believe that only creationism should be taught in schools, not even alongside evolution in science/biology classes. Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is also a creationist.

That's a byproduct of America being more religious than Europe. Those same people tend to be the most active in opposition to immigration. If Europe had them, the chances of it being overrun by Islam would be, um, less. :)

The converse of having religious fundamentalists seems to be things like sex toys in grocery store checkout lines. I can't speak for others, but I know which one I prefer.

[Loki]

The converse of having religious fundamentalists seems to be things like sex toys in grocery store checkout lines.


Religious fundamentalists like having sex toys in grocery stores? :confused:



I can't speak for others, but I know which one I prefer.

The dildo??? :p

I obviously understood you wrong, please explain. :D

[Loddfafner]

Does anyone know how the European pig, after being left to breed and conquer the Americas, developed an aggressive feral nature, and even evolved tusks? 8 pigs from Spain eventually became thousands and spread out all over the Americas.

Yes. They figure prominently in family legend and I've got a skull of one sitting on top of my Darwin shelf.


Religious fundamentalists like having sex toys in grocery stores?

I think there is actually a correlation. I bet there are more adult bookstores per square mile in regions with a high concentration of Christian fundamentalists than in areas thick with secularist liberals. All that preaching only intensifies the lure of the forbidden.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Loki
Religious fundamentalists like having sex toys in grocery stores?

The converse is true.


The dildo???

I obviously understood you wrong, please explain.

Well, this opens up a new can of worms really as it deals with the social effects of Darwinism. Though I consider myself a Darwinist, I can't say that he's had a good effect on our society, as his contribution to the Death of God has led to a loss of our Christian identity, which was our identity for hundreds of years. This loss of identity has not been helpful as it's been replaced by nihilism.

[Loki]

The converse is true.


Ah I see, my apologies. And yet, Loddfafner has a good point above, namely that religious people are not necessarily less promiscuous - they are only more secretive and sneaky about it. Not even religion is strong enough to kill man's inherent sexual desire.



Well, this opens up a new can of worms really as it deals with the social effects of Darwinism. Though I consider myself a Darwinist, I can't say that he's had a good effect on our society, as his contribution to the Death of God has led to a loss of our Christian identity, which was our identity for hundreds of years. This loss of identity has not been helpful as it's been replaced by nihilism.

What is "good"? Is it not the truth? Or is it the make-believe Matrix world? I myself prefer as much reality as possible for my human brain. It frees the mind.

[Joe McCarthy]

I think there is actually a correlation. I bet there are more adult bookstores per square mile in regions with a high concentration of Christian fundamentalists than in areas thick with secularist liberals. All that preaching only intensifies the lure of the forbidden.

By such logic the Bible Belt should look more like Amsterdam than Amsterdam does.

[Loki]

By such logic the Bible Belt should look more like Amsterdam than Amsterdam does.

I think the Bible Belt is probably rougher even than Amsterdam, only behind closed doors.

[Joe McCarthy]

Ah I see, my apologies. And yet, Loddfafner has a good point above, namely that religious people are not necessarily less promiscuous - they are only more secretive and sneaky about it. Not even religion is strong enough to kill man's inherent sexual desire.


I don't see any real evidence for this. I think it is mostly a rationalization by hedonistic secularists to try and feel good about themselves. If nothing else, religious cultures keep such behavior in the shadows, which itself is a good thing.


What is "good"? Is it not the truth? Or is it the make-believe Matrix world? I myself prefer as much reality as possible for my human brain. It frees the mind.

I think Nietzsche touched on this once. What is good and what is true are not necessarily the same thing. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see why.

[Loki]

I don't see any real evidence for this. I think it is mostly a rationalization by hedonistic secularists to try and feel good about themselves. If nothing else, religious cultures keep such behavior in the shadows, which itself is a good thing.

...

I think Nietzsche touched on this once. What is good and what is true are not necessarily the same thing. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see why.

What is inherently so "evil" about sex, though? Sex toys in a grocery store. So what? It's part of life, part of who and what we are - beings who are born with the primary goal to have sex and procreate. Everything else is of secondary importance.

[Joe McCarthy]

What is inherently so "evil" about sex, though? Sex toys in a grocery store. So what? It's part of life, part of who and what we are - beings who are born with the primary goal to have sex and procreate. Everything else is of secondary importance.

Such open displays of sex are not going to be seen by adults alone. Even if one believes there's nothing inherently wrong with pornographic materials, it's still usually seen as a given that children should be shielded from such things.

In effect, Europeans have gone so far as to think it's okay for kids to look at porn. America is a long way from that.

[Óttar]

If nothing else, religious cultures keep such behavior in the shadows, which itself is a good thing.
Why is suppressing sexual desire good? Sexual frustration IMO leads to negative behaviour and neurosis.

[Loki]

Such open displays of sex are not going to be seen by adults alone. Even if one believes there's nothing inherently wrong with pornographic materials, it's still usually seen as a given that children should be shielded from such things.

In effect, Europeans have gone so far as to think it's okay for kids to look at porn. America is a long way from that.

Well, most people in the UK are in effect atheists, and we still can't buy dildos in grocery stores. Amsterdam is unique, even in Europe. Hop to Copenhagen and it's entirely different.

[Joe McCarthy]

Why is suppressing sexual desire good? Sexual frustration IMO leads to negative behaviour and neurosis.

When we were sexually 'repressed' we had a much lower illegitimacy rate, and much less of the problems that accompany it. As Augustine said, a man has as many masters as he has vices. I don't think sexual 'liberation' has been very liberating.

[anonymaus]

It seems to me that Darwin's argument has no consequence for faith except for its most stunted and primitive manifestations.

Darwin held back publication of his works because he and his very religious wife knew they would intellectually devastate religion. The reaction to Darwin was never very reasoned or intellectual, but emotional: just like every major argument for religion since.

Darwin wasn't just broadly correct, but so specifically correct that his theories about very particularly evolved creatures--of whom he had no direct knowledge--are still being proven today; it wasn't even two years ago when one of his bizarre sounding predictions (an insect with a massively long protuberance for feeding on very deep and narrow flowers, if I recall correctly) was proved to exist.

Scientists apply vigorous testing to their theories and do everything possible to prove them wrong, and then have their peers pick through and criticize their every idea and test result. Religious "thinkers" are navel gazing ninnies whose idea of peer review is to surround themselves with likeminded people and have an intellectual circle jerk.

Religion has survived mostly on the inculcation of its stupidity into the minds of frightened children, and the--now thankfully unfashionable--politeness of its enemies.

No serious person believes it and anyone who does cannot be trusted to have an honest discourse on the subject.

[Loddfafner]

Darwin began The Origin of Species with examples of artificial or methodical selection in which selective breeding of animals and crops can lead to drastic modifications in their appearance. If humans could change species, then a) religious dogma is disproven in any backyard or farm, and b) what changes could nature produce, given enough time?

This gets us back to the question of sex toys in grocery stores:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Cukety1.jpg

Zucchinis are a very modified version of the original wild squash.

[Psychonaut]

Religious "thinkers" are navel gazing ninnies whose idea of peer review is to surround themselves with likeminded people and have an intellectual circle jerk.

Religion has survived mostly on the inculcation of its stupidity into the minds of frightened children, and the--now thankfully unfashionable--politeness of its enemies.

No serious person believes it and anyone who does cannot be trusted to have an honest discourse on the subject.

Oh come now, that's a bit much; isn't it? If anything, I think that certain sectors of religious thought are entering into a more honest and meaningful dialog with science. I see this evidenced by the rising prominence in panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism) and panpsychist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) circles of thinkers with educational backgrounds in both philosophy and the life sciences such as Arthur Peacocke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Peacocke), Russell Stannard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Stannard), Berhard Rensch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Rensch), Gregory Bateson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_bateson), and Rupert Sheldrake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake). This is, of course, keeping in mind the many physicists and cosmologists (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=323984&postcount=13) who have held and publicly defended such views for the last century.

[anonymaus]

Oh come now, that's a bit much; isn't it?

No.


If anything, I think that certain sectors of religious thought are entering into a more honest and meaningful dialog with science.

They're engaged in protracted negotiations for their unconditional surrender and have been since Darwin's day. The reigning stupidity has long exhausted its fuel; whether it is replaced by equally dangerous ideas or not is the only dialogue worth having.

[Psychonaut]

They're engaged in protracted negotiations for their unconditional surrender and have been since Darwin's day. The reigning stupidity has long exhausted its fuel; whether it is replaced by equally dangerous ideas or not is the only dialogue worth having.

Protracted negotiations? That would imply a continued and progressive surrendering of beliefs and doctrines. The specific theologies being espoused by these scientists are but slight modifications of those first posed by the Pre-Socratics 2,500 years ago. Contemporary cosmology and evolutionary biology has, if anything, strengthened these ancient arguments.

[Svipdag]

One of the major triumphs of Darwinism is that it provided a comprehensible explanation for the emergence of new species without having to invoke miracles and repeated acts of special creation, one for each new species.

Darwin did not and could not explain variation. He took it as axiomatic that, from time to time, changed forms of organisms appear. Those which gave the organism a survival advantage or did not hinder its survival, tended to persist and be passed on to subsequent generations those that were deleterious died out.

This offers a reasonable comprehensible explanation for the emergence of new species without resorting to miracles. [I am assuming that any act of creation de novo is a miracle.] But, between two distinctly different species, then, there ought to have been intermediate forms of which we have no evidence. Where are these "missing links"?

It is unlikely that any more than 10% of geologic time is represented by fossiliferous deposits. Thousands of metres of thickness of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks have almost surely been deposited and subsequently eroded away. We are lucky to have as much of the fossil record as we do.

There is abundant scientific evidence of the age of the Earth which is consistent with and explains the observed facts. To account for the same facts, Creationism has to invoke still further miracles.

Miracles explain nothing ! If God be omnipotent, then He can do ANYTHING. There is, then, no particular reason why ANYTHING is as it is except the old Crusader rallying cry "Dieu le vult !" [GOD WILLS IT !]

Our galaxy has two satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. Their distances have been measured fairly accurately as 35,000 and 50,000 light years. If the universe was created 10,000 years ago, we should not be able to see them because it will be another 25,000 years for the nearer and 40,000 years for the further one, before any light from them reaches us. Measured distances to external galaxies range from millions to billions of light years . None of them should be visible.

What, would you shorten the arm of omnipotent God ? If He so chose, could He not create images of these objects for us to see NOW ? Naturally, He can do ANYTHING, but why would he ? You have no right to ask that question; that is questioning the will of God. This is the position of Creation "Science".

[Osweo]

I'd like to be relieved that the Evolution/Creation debate is not something we have to worry about on this side of the ocean, but I'm afraid that I've seen occasional hints that the gobsmackingly Luddite 'creationist' cause is making inroads amongst the British, in the demographic that has been rendered as ill-educated as only universal state-education can make them. :( It's so damned disheartening seeing the hopes of the Enlightenment crash like this. Just for a moment we seemed to be getting everyone's head above the waters of ignorance, but down we slip again... :ohwell:

As for Darwin - it strikes me that this discovery and theory were bound to come along sooner or later, and if organised religion wasn't ready for it, that was its own fault. If western civilisation can only be maintained by forever propping up a fiction, then that might not even be something worth maintaining. Things would be creaking so horrendously if such a sham were maintained that it would be impossible to get away with it for too long, except by reducing our entire people to subdued fellaheen.

:suomut:

[Aemma]

The converse is true.



Well, this opens up a new can of worms really as it deals with the social effects of Darwinism. Though I consider myself a Darwinist, I can't say that he's had a good effect on our society, as his contribution to the Death of God has led to a loss of our Christian identity, which was our identity for hundreds of years. This loss of identity has not been helpful as it's been replaced by nihilism.

But how did Darwin contribute to God's death really, much less the loss of any Christian Identity? There are still plenty of Christians about. :confused:

[Guapo]

Does anyone know how the European pig, after being left to breed and conquer the Americas, developed an aggressive feral nature, and even evolved tusks? 8 pigs from Spain eventually became thousands and spread out all over the Americas.

They weren't necessarily pink cute pigs but boars, males have tusks and females can have up to 15 babies in a year. Spics just wanted to breed and hunt them. It's a Euro thang, you won't understand.

[Adalwolf]

Most of Darwin's theories weren't published, because he couldn't explain a ton of things that would supposedly make evolution a fact. It's sad to see so many people fooled by this nonsense.

Here are some points to consider:

1. If the Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) - before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that didn't exist, if there is no God?

2. Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the first cell from non-living chemicals. Some scientists can see this and have therefore postulated that life originated somewhere else (not on earth) and came to earth by something called panspermia. In this way, they put the problem back, but the solution to the problem of life's origin remains still unknown.

3. The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in its favour. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species. Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed). Punctuated equilibrium, the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt the theory of evolution really is. You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.

4. If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist? And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?

5. All the so-called "missing links" between apes and man are either frauds or pure speculations based on very scanty "evidence". The earth should be replete with them if millions of small changes between man and ape account for the evolution of man from apes.

6. Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on genetic information.

7. Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which says that closed systems tend to increasing levels of disorder. The order must have come from somewhere in the Universe to give rise to the order here on earth? But how and from where? Naturalists don't seem to have any real answers to these questions.

[Aemma]

Darwin held back publication of his works because he and his very religious wife knew they would intellectually devastate religion. The reaction to Darwin was never very reasoned or intellectual, but emotional: just like every major argument for religion since.

Darwin wasn't just broadly correct, but so specifically correct that his theories about very particularly evolved creatures--of whom he had no direct knowledge--are still being proven today; it wasn't even two years ago when one of his bizarre sounding predictions (an insect with a massively long protuberance for feeding on very deep and narrow flowers, if I recall correctly) was proved to exist.

Scientists apply vigorous testing to their theories and do everything possible to prove them wrong, and then have their peers pick through and criticize their every idea and test result. Religious "thinkers" are navel gazing ninnies whose idea of peer review is to surround themselves with likeminded people and have an intellectual circle jerk.

Religion has survived mostly on the inculcation of its stupidity into the minds of frightened children, and the--now thankfully unfashionable--politeness of its enemies.

No serious person believes it and anyone who does cannot be trusted to have an honest discourse on the subject.

Would you call everyone and anyone who has a "religion" a frightened child?

[anonymaus]

Would you call everyone and anyone who has a "religion" a frightened child?

The statement was not figurative: religion's survival is linked to the inculcation of children who are frightened by hellfire and damnation.

[Aemma]

No.



They're engaged in protracted negotiations for their unconditional surrender and have been since Darwin's day. The reigning stupidity has long exhausted its fuel; whether it is replaced by equally dangerous ideas or not is the only dialogue worth having.

What would constitute an equally dangerous idea to you though?

[Osweo]

They weren't necessarily pink cute pigs but boars, males have tusks and females can have up to 15 babies in a year. Spics just wanted to breed and hunt them. It's a Euro thang, you won't understand.

Perhaps wild boar were introduced for hunting (is that why foxes ended up in Australia!? :rolleyes2:), but even if it were the most extreme form of domesticated pork pigs, it could still end up reverting to its wild prototype.

This is not 'evolution' though. The pink hairless meat-bearing swine of the farmyard is an artificial being, and effort is put into keeping it that way, down the generations. This is not a GM organism; the same genes are there that made the wild boar what it is. All that is needed to return to the original is a removal of the selective pressures of the farmyard, and a return to those of the wild.

Most breeds are only a few hundred years old anyway. The pigs of mediaeval Europe were far closer to the archetype. This is not too many generations deep in the pedigree of the modern porker.

[Aemma]

The statement was not figurative: religion's survival is linked to the inculcation of children who are frightened by hellfire and damnation.

But not all religions are salvation-based and thus linked to such notions as hellfire and damnation. None of these components ( salvation; hellfire; damnation--any concurrent notions related to guilt, sin or evil) factor in most nature religions.

[anonymaus]

What would constitute an equally dangerous idea to you though?

Belief in the supernatural of any kind, and to any degree, does violence to the mind and to the self; the behavioral outcome varies between belief systems, resulting sometimes in violence and often times not--sometimes keeping it a private matter, often times not.

[Guapo]

The statement was not figurative: religion's survival is linked to the inculcation of children who are frightened by hellfire and damnation.

Depends on the religion. Bogumils thought the world belonged to Satan therefore already damned alive and the afterlife was paradise, with virgins maybe?

[Adalwolf]

Just as I expected, none of you ''evolutionists'' can dispute any of that information I posted. I bet buried down deep enough you believe in creationism, but your pride gets in the way from following any religion which can effectively deter the kind of lifestyle you wish to lead.

[Aemma]

Belief in the supernatural of any kind, and to any degree, does violence to the mind and to the self; the behavioral outcome varies between belief systems, resulting sometimes in violence and often times not--sometimes keeping it a private matter, often times not.

I'm not convinced that belief in the supernatural (be it of kind or of degree) necessarily does violence to the mind and to the self. Violence is a pretty strong word in the end. It may impact, may guide, may misdirect--in short, may do a whole slew of things, both positive and negative. But necessarily do violence? That's a very difficult notion for me to accept.

I agree that the word "religion" usually has the connotation of belief in the supernatural but for a belief system to act, for all intents and purposes, as a religion, belief in the supernatural is not a precondition. In some belief systems, there is no element of the supernatural. And some of these are just as harmful as those that do have an element of the supernatural as a component.

[Loddfafner]

1. If the Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) - before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that didn't exist, if there is no God?

What does this have to do with Darwin? He proposed a theory about the origin of species, not the origin of life itself, or of the universe. Several times, he mentioned a "Creator" breathing life into the original species.

As for the origin of the universe itself, is God the only option?



2. Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the first cell from non-living chemicals. ...

If the decay of radioactive minerals is constant, then 4-5 billion years is a solid, reliable timeframe. The fossil record does show a sequence of creatures that is consistent with Darwin's theory. As for the possibility that the rate of radioactive decay has changed drastically, consider this: if God made the laws of the universe, does God change those laws? If He does, that would have interesting consequences for laws that apply to humans.



3. The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in its favour. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species. Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed).

Do you have any idea what it takes for an individual animal to become fossillized? Very very few are so lucky as to die right before a mudslide. As for transitional fossils, they have been found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). One was found recently in the Arctic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik) that is midway between a group of fish with fins in leg position and a group of amphibians with a similar unusual head. Its sequence of bones show what has become shoulders, limbs, and necks. The sequence that has run from land mammals to whales has been found.



Punctuated equilibrium, the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt the theory of evolution really is.


Punctuated equilibrium is an important correction to Darwin. Evolution has not been as gradual as he supposed; there have been bursts of speciation in the 10-million year periods following major catastrophes as survivors filled the niches left by mass extinctions.


You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.


Alas political pressure from Creationists has held back science education in America which may lead to some long term weaknesses. Creationists keep repeating the same lies over and over again. For a refutation of many of them, talk origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) is an excellent source.


4. If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist? And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?

Fascinating question and one of the few remaining gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) where those who confuse religion and science can still find some hope.


5. All the so-called "missing links" between apes and man are either frauds or pure speculations based on very scanty "evidence". The earth should be replete with them if millions of small changes between man and ape account for the evolution of man from apes.

Piltdown Man is the only actual hoax I am aware of. Are there others? The Creationists have a few hoaxes of their own, notably those mixtures of dinosaur and human footprints. In the meantime, the gaps between apes and us are being filled.


6. Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on genetic information.

Darwin cited social insects as a possible problem for his theory in Chapter 7 or the Origin of Species. In contrast with creationists, he actively sought out cases that would refute his theory (he hoped to be wrong), and in each one only ended up with ways to strengthen it beyond his expectations. In the case of bees, he hit on group-level selection, which incidentally applies to social mammals such as humans as well.


7. Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which says that closed systems tend to increasing levels of disorder. The order must have come from somewhere in the Universe to give rise to the order here on earth? But how and from where? Naturalists don't seem to have any real answers to these questions.
The supply of energy may be fixed, and there may be decay in the long run, but that does not rule out increasing complexity and order. Human civilizations are an excellent example.

[Aemma]

Just as I expected, none of you ''evolutionists'' can dispute any of that information I posted. I bet buried down deep enough you believe in creationism, but your pride gets in the way from following any religion which can effectively deter the kind of lifestyle you wish to lead.

:) No Adalwulf, not any of the above. I happen to be heathen. I don't believe in the Abrahamic mindset much less its creation myths. That's just what it is, Adalwulf. It doesn't make me a degenerate to not believe in *your* God either. It just makes me different in my spiritual beliefs. I am still a preservationist just like you, however. There is common ground in the end and no need for more, pardon for the word used to my Balkan friends, balcanization amongst us along religious lines. Hasn't enough blood been shed among our Folk in the name of "religion" already?

[The Journeyman]

Just as I expected, none of you ''evolutionists'' can dispute any of that information I posted. I bet buried down deep enough you believe in creationism, but your pride gets in the way from following any religion which can effectively deter the kind of lifestyle you wish to lead.

How does one reconcile the creationist point of view with observable evidence showing thousands of generations of change (evolution) in microbes taking place within a matter weeks?

[Adalwolf]

Loddfafner: I will look over some of your links, and respond tomorrow after some sleep.

[Óttar]

Even if some kind of 'prime mover' could be proven, there is an exactly 0% chance that it's the petty, spiteful desert god in their little book.

[Equinox]

What is inherently so "evil" about sex, though? Sex toys in a grocery store. So what? It's part of life, part of who and what we are - beings who are born with the primary goal to have sex and procreate. Everything else is of secondary importance.

Sex toys have little to nothing to do with procreation.

Also, what is all of this bollocks about Darwin? He was an absolute pillock who freaked out and stole the theory of another geezer, namely the Welshman Alfred Russel Wallace. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)

To any philosopher of science Darwin is a dubious character at best. Indeed he can be lumped together with that other devious bastard Galileo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo) There was nothing remotely scientific about both of these twats - rather it was all cloaks and daggers politics.

Darwinism is just another doctrine for the masses to subscribe to.

[anonymaus]

Sex toys have little to nothing to do with procreation.

Also, what is all of this bollocks about Darwin? He was an absolute pillock who freaked out and stole the theory of another geezer, namely the Welshman Alfred Russel Wallace. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)

To any philosopher of science Darwin is a dubious character at best. Indeed he can be lumped together with that other devious bastard Galileo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo) There was nothing remotely scientific about both of these twats - rather it was all cloaks and daggers politics.

Darwinism is just another doctrine for the masses to subscribe to.

http://i.imgur.com/otE91.jpg

[Equinox]

http://i.imgur.com/otE91.jpg

An opinion which any intelligent man with strong convictions to the contrary would attempt to refute.

The onus is on you, sir.

[Eldritch]

Why is suppressing sexual desire good? Sexual frustration IMO leads to negative behaviour and neurosis.

But sexually frustrated people are more easily manipulated, especially by pointing out convenient scapegoats for their unhappiness. This is precisely why totalitarians, as well as their lackeys, seek to promote sexual frustration.



Also, what is all of this bollocks about Darwin? He was an absolute pillock who freaked out and stole the theory of another geezer, namely the Welshman Alfred Russel Wallace. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)


Eeeh, all scientific research is based on earlier research. We wouldn't get very far if each scientist had to reinvent everything by himself. There's only so much one can do in one lifetime.

[Equinox]

Eeeh, all scientific research is based on earlier research. We wouldn't get very far if each scientist had to reinvent everything by himself. There's only so much one can do in one lifetime.

This is my point exactly. The scientific community has, and has always had, a complex whereby scientific "progress" must be measured in terms of a mere human life. Everybody wants to be the one that makes the groundbreaking discovery. And if it means cutting corners to get there, even the most highly regarded scientists can be judged guilty.

Both Darwin and Galileo faced magnificent social pressure. For Galileo, his theory was at the time no better than that of the Dane Tycho Brahe. Galileo completely ignored Brahe's theory and proceeded as though it didn't exist. This is not very scientific.

Similarly, Darwin saw that Wallace was about to publish his thesis on evolution and jumped ahead of him to do so, with a theory which he was not overly confident about until becoming aware of Wallace's own work.

This kind of thing still exists. Nobel prize winners still lord their opinions over fields which do not concern them and in which they have no expertise whatsoever. Paul Feyerabend, amongst others is quite sceptical about this. And in my opinion, he was justified in being so. Feyerabend on the role of science in society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend#Role_of_science_in_society)

[Psychonaut]

1. If the Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) - before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that didn't exist, if there is no God?

The Big Bang theory does not present us with an ex nihilo event. A singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity) is not non-existence.


4. If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist? And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?

You've conflated two separate issues here. The question of why physical laws are what they are is perhaps the most interesting question in physics today, since the laws themselves are intrinsically tied to the structure of matter and that the evolutionary/involutionary process the universe follows is likewise tied. It's a tar baby of a question that is intimately wrapped up with quite a few others.

It is not, however, necessarily tied to the question of life. When you say that life would be impossible if the laws were different, what you really mean is that life as it has currently been ovserved would be impossible under other circumstances. This in no way refutes the idea of life suited to that set of rules arising out of it. It's apples and oranges.

[Loddfafner]

Also, what is all of this bollocks about Darwin? He was an absolute pillock who freaked out and stole the theory of another geezer, namely the Welshman Alfred Russel Wallace. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)
...

Darwinism is just another doctrine for the masses to subscribe to.

Doctrines that have passed under the name of Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism) bear little resemblance to the work of Darwin himself. Darwin simply showed how speciation could take place without the active involvement of a god. In contrast with Freud, he does not fit the mold of a poster child for atheism.

As for Wallace, Darwin was gracious about his work. They published their theories jointly, and Darwin gives Wallace (as well as several other pioneers in the field such as Buffon and Lamarck) full credit. Darwin made no claims of inventing the concept of evolution. He simply showed how it could work.

[anonymaus]

An opinion which any intelligent man with strong convictions to the contrary would attempt to refute.

The onus is on you, sir.

http://i.imgur.com/vMrKN.jpg

[Svipdag]

Before you complain of anyone's not answering your arguments, give him time to read your post. I posted my arguments close to midnight last night and logged on again only around 10:00 this morning. Not everyone can afford the time to sit at his computer all day to catch each post as it arrives.

I answered the question "Where are the transitional forms ?" by pointing out that the fossil record is very incomplete. Disconformities, in which rocks of MUCH younger geologic age directly overlie much older ones, show that there have been long periods of non-deposition or erosion of previously deposited , possibly fossiliferous, sedimentary rocks. Continental deposits contain thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks which are utterly devoid of fossils.

Nevertheless, the evidence, incomplete, though it be, was sufficient to convince both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace of the reality of organic evolution. Darwin beat Wallace to the press by a few months and they were each unaware of the other's work.

The richness of the fossil record, even with about 90% of it missing, requires of the creationist the curious vision of a diety feverishly busy creating and destroying life forms, as if experimenting in an attempt to arrive at some satisfactory end. But, what need has an omnipotent deity of experimentation ? He could create what He intended immediately.

I have never argued against the role of intelligence in the establishment of the values of the fundamental physical constants. In fact, I have always emphasized it. The extremely narrow range of values of each of these constants which would permit a universe suitable for intelligent life to exist
places an impossible burden on coincidence.

If the laws of physics came into being at the same time as the origin of the universe, they would suffice to assure the development of the universe and of life without recourse to repeated, indeed,innumerable, individual acts of creation.

This, of course, is a deist viewpoint, that God created the universe once and then left it to its own devices. BTW, I and all other geologists would strongly disagree with your contention that four billion years is too short for organic evolution to have arrived at the world's present flora and fauna.

A mutation can occur in a fraction of a second. 4X10^9 years =~ 1.2X10^17
seconds. Furthermore, millions of mutations could be going on in different places during one second. I, at least, find it difficult to imagine, then, that
1.2X10^17 seconds is too short for organic evolution .

As I implied in my previous post, creationism explains nothing. If the universe is nothing but the whim of a busy omnipotent creator, there is no reason why anything is as it is. This is the antithesis of an explanation. In effect, it says
that there is no explanation for the present state of the universe. It is thus because that is what God wanted .

[Breedingvariety]

1. If the Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) - before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that didn't exist, if there is no God?
Big Bang is wrong, I agree. But it is closer to creationism than evolution.

2. Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the first cell from non-living chemicals. Some scientists can see this and have therefore postulated that life originated somewhere else (not on earth) and came to earth by something called panspermia. In this way, they put the problem back, but the solution to the problem of life's origin remains still unknown.
Who says it. I think mutations are happening constantly.

Panspermia seems a possibility to me.

4. If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist? And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?
May be he did, may be he didn't. But there is no evidence of him.

6. Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on genetic information.
If that is the case, than there is a problem with genetics theory of our nature.

The theory of natural selection doesn't require genes.

7. Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which says that closed systems tend to increasing levels of disorder. The order must have come from somewhere in the Universe to give rise to the order here on earth? But how and from where? Naturalists don't seem to have any real answers to these questions.
Neither do creationists.

I don't know second law of thermodynamics, but it sounds bonkers to me.

[Joe McCarthy]

But how did Darwin contribute to God's death really, much less the loss of any Christian Identity? There are still plenty of Christians about. :confused:

We might compare the percentage of observant Christians in England when Darwin published The Origin of Species to now. :)

Even as early as Nietzsche's day he said this:


God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?


When speaking of God's death it is to say that God has lost his status of hegemony in being the driving moral force for man's actions. Nothing has replaced him, and as such we are left with a motley chaos of atheists as dogmatic as the most bigoted fundamentalist, dabblers in Eastern religion, neo-pagans, and others adhering to what Voegelin aptly described as 'ersatz religions' - the inevitable spiritual vacuum created by theocide.

[Joe McCarthy]

As for Darwin - it strikes me that this discovery and theory were bound to come along sooner or later, and if organised religion wasn't ready for it, that was its own fault. If western civilisation can only be maintained by forever propping up a fiction, then that might not even be something worth maintaining. Things would be creaking so horrendously if such a sham were maintained that it would be impossible to get away with it for too long, except by reducing our entire people to subdued fellaheen.

:suomut:

Well, the point is rather academic now, as the damage is done. But in terms of culture warriors, I'd much prefer those much maligned Christian fundamentalists in battle with Islam than an army made up of guys like Richard Dawkins.

Darwinism had the opportunity to take one or two paths once upon a time. It could have been a force for racial progress, but that was short-circuited by the likes of Boas. It ended up taking the worst possible route, reinforcing liberalism.

Ironically, Darwinism has been a means for its own refutation. Christianity itself served as an evolutionary engine. What has replaced it, liberal secularism, has proven woefully maladaptive for the West.

[Breedingvariety]

I love Niechi:

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Eldritch
But sexually frustrated people are more easily manipulated, especially by pointing out convenient scapegoats for their unhappiness. This is precisely why totalitarians, as well as their lackeys, seek to promote sexual frustration.


Authoritarian governments often promote more prudish behavior because sexual license is a means to undermine the established order. This would explain why Marxists promote sexual license, until they come to power; which is to say that sexual license is also a form of social control - it enables revolutionaries.

On the other hand, in reading Orwell and Huxley, the dystopian project would also envision a highly lax moral atmosphere of soma and sex to pacify the masses. E. Michael Jones dealt with this issue in Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control.

[Joe McCarthy]

Well, most people in the UK are in effect atheists, and we still can't buy dildos in grocery stores. Amsterdam is unique, even in Europe. Hop to Copenhagen and it's entirely different.

The English are most likely operating on cultural hangover. They were the country that produced the Puritans, after all, and it is due to America's Puritan legacy that there is as much distance between America and most of Europe on sexual matters. I've had Germans complain of English prudishness after visiting England.

But then I'm not speaking of all of Europe. Obviously Vatican City doesn't sell sex toys at all.

I suppose a real question though is whether the English are even Europeans in the sense of self-identification. Are they better deemed Europeans or part of the Anglosphere? I'd argue the latter, though the younger generation seems to be assimilating more into the Euro melting pot. One thing is for sure, those who deride 'Perfidious Albion' do not regard them as part of Europe. As recently as the 60's de Gaulle blocked Britain's entry into the Common Market, not once, but twice, arguing that Britain was a stalking horse for the US and not sufficiently European in outlook. How all of this develops from here on out will be as interesting as it is important.

[Breedingvariety]

New kind of dictatorship- Russian kiddie shows lot of boob:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Hat4bl_2E

[Joe McCarthy]

New kind of dictatorship- Russian kiddie shows lot of boob:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Hat4bl_2E

Yeah, I can't say that the authoritarian Putin regime is in any sense puritan. Russia is a global leader in child pornography, child prostitution, and has virtually normalized prostitution itself. It also has a massive drug use rate.

I recall some years ago a story about a naked weather girl program too...

[Adalwolf]

What does this have to do with Darwin? He proposed a theory about the origin of species, not the origin of life itself, or of the universe.

My post aimed at combating the dual concepts of evolution and creationism. I noticed a few members very pessimistic outlook of there even being a God, and so I tried to pick away at that too.


As for the origin of the universe itself, is God the only option?

Considering the intricacies of the universe, an intelligent creator makes much more sense than just a random chemical reaction. No one is able to comprehend what kind of sentient being that God is anyway. He could very well just be a higher evolved life form that we would consider extra-terrestrial. I personally believe he is the God of the bible by studying scriptures extensively and noticing how many prophecies have already came to pass.


if God made the laws of the universe, does God change those laws? If He does, that would have interesting consequences for laws that apply to humans.

If the laws that we know are already perfectly compatible to our existence, than what need would God have to change them?


Do you have any idea what it takes for an individual animal to become fossillized? Very very few are so lucky as to die right before a mudslide.

There has been a lot of speculation on the legitimacy of those transitional fossils. Scientists will often fill in the gaps themselves when studying these primitive samples that they think could be an ancestor of another. Similar qualities doesn't necessarily mean similar origins. Keep in mind the differences between adaption and evolution.


Punctuated equilibrium is an important correction to Darwin. Evolution has not been as gradual as he supposed; there have been bursts of speciation in the 10-million year periods following major catastrophes as survivors filled the niches left by mass extinctions.

It's a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chiralitry cannot be created by chemical molecules by a random process. Scientists have attempted this by working with amino acids and have not had one instance of success. What makes you think that this could have happened billions of times then in the process of evolution?

This video will explain it better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0DarH79soo&feature=player_embedded


Fascinating question and one of the few remaining gaps where those who confuse religion and science can still find some hope.

Indeed a fascinating question. And it blows my mind how some people can excuse it all off as a mere coincidence. If only they could understand how complex the constants of gravitational pull have in maintaining life.


Piltdown Man is the only actual hoax I am aware of. Are there others?

Yes. A few others that I am aware of are: 'bone wars', 'Archaeoraptor', 'Cardiff giant', and the 'Nebraska man'. I am sure there have been other fraudulent attempts as well.


In the case of bees, he hit on group-level selection, which incidentally applies to social mammals such as humans as well.

Explain this further then. Right now it just appears to me as a sharp contrast of all of Darwin's previous observations.

[Eldritch]

I have never argued against the role of intelligence in the establishment of the values of the fundamental physical constants. In fact, I have always emphasized it. The extremely narrow range of values of each of these constants which would permit a universe suitable for intelligent life to exist
places an impossible burden on coincidence.


There exists the theory of "the cosmic landscape", coined by Leonard Susskind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind), which as far as I understand it suggests that our universe is but one of innumerably many. There is life in our universe, simply because ours is one of the few that has conditions that allow it.

Obviously, it's quite unlikely that Susskind's theory will be proven either right or wrong anytime soon.

[Loki]

The English are most likely operating on cultural hangover. They were the country that produced the Puritans, after all, and it is due to America's Puritan legacy that there is as much distance between America and most of Europe on sexual matters. I've had Germans complain of English prudishness after visiting England.

But then I'm not speaking of all of Europe. Obviously Vatican City doesn't sell sex toys at all.

I suppose a real question though is whether the English are even Europeans in the sense of self-identification. Are they better deemed Europeans or part of the Anglosphere? I'd argue the latter, though the younger generation seems to be assimilating more into the Euro melting pot. One thing is for sure, those who deride 'Perfidious Albion' do not regard them as part of Europe. As recently as the 60's de Gaulle blocked Britain's entry into the Common Market, not once, but twice, arguing that Britain was a stalking horse for the US and not sufficiently European in outlook. How all of this develops from here on out will be as interesting as it is important.

You know what, all over Europe sex is no longer an "issue" or novelty as it is in the American psyche. Religious people have the idea that everyone who does not believe in God is somehow decadent and sinful. It's not like that at all.

When I say American, I am fully aware that my own Afrikaner culture is VERY similar to that of puritanical America ... and actually American-style creationism is also popular in very religious SA.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Loki
You know what, all over Europe sex is no longer an "issue" or novelty as it is in the American psyche. Religious people have the idea that everyone who does not believe in God is somehow decadent and sinful. It's not like that at all.

The German complaint was that nudity in mixed company in a sauna setting was frowned on in England, unlike in Germany.


When I say American, I am fully aware that my own Afrikaner culture is VERY similar to that of puritanical America ... and actually American-style creationism is also popular in very religious SA.

I'm well aware of the similarities between America and South Africa as well. Why do you think I like Afrikaners so much? :D

[Adalwolf]

It is not, however, necessarily tied to the question of life. When you say that life would be impossible if the laws were different, what you really mean is that life as it has currently been ovserved would be impossible under other circumstances. This in no way refutes the idea of life suited to that set of rules arising out of it. It's apples and oranges.

That is an interesting thought, but there is still no way we can ever know if life could adapt and prosper under different metaphysical circumstances.

All we can guess is that the gravitational laws are perfect already; and a slight tweaking of it could have catastrophic consequences for any life form.

[Loddfafner]

But then I'm not speaking of all of Europe. Obviously Vatican City doesn't sell sex toys at all.


That depends on one's imagination, but I will refrain from speculation here.

[Liffrea]

Darwin’s legacy was to prove beyond any serious doubt that humanity arose out of the same laws that govern all life as we know it. Any uniqueness that we attribute to man is entirely our own conceit.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Adalwolf
That is an interesting thought, but there is still no way we can ever know if life could adapt and prosper under different metaphysical circumstances.

But that doesn’t negate the point.

One may well infer that a “god” created something from nothing, one may infer that our universe is “just right” for life like us but that there are other universes where conditions are entirely different, so we’re no more than chance but “lucky” in our own minds , though personally I subscribe to complexity, which means, for me, life is inevitable. Neither case is provable by any technology we have present and may well never be. Of course even if separate universes were proven to exist we would still have the question of why those universes (and ours) are here in the first place.

There will always be a place for a “god” who lit the match for those who wish to believe in such, but the revolution of modern science has been we now, as Stephen Hawking’s stated last year, no longer need or have to believe in such things if we choose not to. That’s the real loss for religion, not that science has defeated it (it never can neither is on the same field to fight for a start) but that people can walk away, Christianity in particular is finding that a hard one to bear. But statistics show plenty still believe in “god” they just don’t have time for religion. God(s) will always outlast any religion, god(s) are a human need, how you interpret that is a matter of perspective.

One thing on creationism, though, creationists believe that if they can prove evolution wrong that automatically means they are right………..I can think of no better reason to keep creationism out of science.

[Equinox]

Doctrines that have passed under the name of Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism) bear little resemblance to the work of Darwin himself. Darwin simply showed how speciation could take place without the active involvement of a god. In contrast with Freud, he does not fit the mold of a poster child for atheism.

It matters not. Nearly every -ism you could imagine falls short of what it ought to be. eg Communism, Marxism, Fascism, Liberalism. All suffer the same fate - the fact that none can be truly falsifiable.

While it is important not to mis-attribute the distorted reality with a "Platonic Form", so too must a line be drawn in the sand to assess the merits of these -isms by the names they hide behind.


As for Wallace, Darwin was gracious about his work. They published their theories jointly, and Darwin gives Wallace (as well as several other pioneers in the field such as Buffon and Lamarck) full credit. Darwin made no claims of inventing the concept of evolution. He simply showed how it could work.

To be a leader one needn't take a step forward. It may be that all others need only take a step back. Evidently this is what happened here in the case of Darwin and we are left with one of the greatest mis-attribution of history.

[Aemma]

One does not need to look very far on the net to find some extraordinarily idiotic claims about Darwin's arguments. Claims made by his fans tend to be about as far removed from his actual claims as the fantasies of creationists. I am curious as to what you all make of the guy and his theories and observations. Where was he right and where was he wrong? Why has Darwin acquired the reputation as the ultimate antagonist to religion? It seems to me that Darwin's argument has no consequence for faith except for its most stunted and primitive manifestations.

I've not read much of this thread yet but am jumping right in. I have no idea if some of this has been covered or not already, but here're my two cents right now.

Why has Darwin acquired the reputation as the ultimate antagonist to religion? As serendipity would have it, I was listening to a "Darwinvaganza" podcast last night, dated Feb of last year put out by WNYC's Radiolab (gods you guys have amazing public radio in the USA btw! :thumb001:). Anyway, the podcast was interesting in that it highlighted Darwin's personal life and its effect on not only the timing of the publication of Darwin's theory (ie., why he had waited some 20 years before publishing his theory) but how his own views on religion played out in his life. Indeed what was revealed is the fact that it took Darwin so long to feel comfortable enough to get his work published primarily due to having married a woman, Emma Wedgewood, who contrary to his own religious views was a deeply devout Christian. According to the author (Deborah Heiligman) of the book Charles and Emma: The Darwins' Leap of Faith (http://www.amazon.ca/Charles-Emma-Darwins-Leap-Faith/dp/0805087214) the constant interplay between either's worldview, hers Christian and his most assuredly agnostic if not wholly atheistic, most definitely impacted his work. It was quite clear that Darwin lived a life of not being a "believer" in this sense. So I'm not certain it is incorrect to call him an antagonist to religion if one is to use a blanket statement but with some caveats of course, those more so having to do wiht how one actually defines the terms "antagonist" and "religion". I think Darwin's work needs to be understood in light of the time period in which he wrote and ultimately felt comfortable with publishing his work. It's very clear that Darwin's work would have been seen as contra-establishment, the establishment being Christianity of course. I mean his entire theory required people to suspend belief in the ultimate answer, God, to the ultimate scientific questions of how? and why? And when the currency of the then worldview *was* personal belief as opposed to more objective and less personal science, then it is not so surprising to view Darwin as the ultimate antagonist to religion.

[As an aside:To take some of this even a step further, Darwin's work can be further appreciated not for what its science taught us about the practicalities of the evolution of life on earth but for how it changed the lens of inquiry from one based without to one based within. The Christian God of the day (the Being-Without of ourselves) was no longer that to whom we turned to ask questions but instead we veered the questions towards the Being-Within, our very selves. I think the consequences of this perceptual shift if anything may be Darwin's most dramatic contribution to knowledge and inquiry.]

Now having said this, fastforeward the understanding and interpretation of Darwin's theory into today's context of multiplicity of worldviews (the makeup of the membership of this board being a good example: heathens/pagans, theists/Christians, atheists, agnostics, "Hindus" even), and I don't think today we can rightfully say that Darwin is an antagonist to religion. If anything, his views on evolution complement the more ecocentric approach to spiritual belief.

I have more to say about this in a bit. Right now I need to tend to some other things IRL. :) Be back later. :)

[Aemma]

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=100731606&m=100731565

[Aemma]

I ended up watching this on tv last night and thought it brilliant if not for its thought-provoking idea that Darwinism does not impact faith at all but instead offers a way of understanding it as a manifestation of Divine Providence, then for its criticism that both Creationism and Ultra-Darwinism/Universal Darwinism have been as detrimental as anything else to the understanding of Darwin's theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSJkJUUs8O4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_f1TkKsM_U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL3efbLIi7g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZAAwUjfGI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el09YHcnKJ0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRSUIRIpqf4&feature=related

[Joe McCarthy]

I think that Hume and Darwin have been the two great perpetrators of theocide is pretty self-evident. Though I can understand why some of the admirers of the murderers would like to cover up the crime.

[Aemma]

I think that Hume and Darwin have been the two great perpetrators of theocide is pretty self-evident. Though I can understand why some of the admirers of the murderers would like to cover up the crime.

But have you watched this documentary though Joe? Give it a whirl since the gent who made this documentary essentially makes the case that Darwinism and Christianity are NOT mutually exclusive. :shrug:

I found it quite well made and logical in its premise, if one is not a Creationist or an Ultra-Darwinist of course. ;) :D

[Joe McCarthy]

But have you watched this documentary though Joe? Give it a whirl since the gent who made this documentary essentially makes the case that Darwinism and Christianity are NOT mutually exclusive. :shrug:

I found it quite well made and logical in its premise, if one is not a Creationist or an Ultra-Darwinist of course. ;) :D I'll watch it, though I'm familiar with similar arguments. There is even such a thing as progressive creationism which makes room for Darwin. But to deny Darwin has been responsible for killing God strikes me as little different from denying OJ killed Ron and Nicole, minus OJ looking for the 'real' killer on golf courses.

[Loddfafner]

Darwin merely showed that speciation could take place without the input of a God. Evolution is in the realm of "secondary causes" while he continued to assume and assert that a "creator" breathed life into the original progenitors of the species we know. Darwin was one of the main financial backers of his local parish. He does not deserve his reputation as a patron saint of atheism. Freud and Nietzsche are much better fits for that position.

[Joe McCarthy]

Darwin later became an agnostic and I think it was this thread where I posted his anti-Christian comments in his autobiography. The killing though was probably unintentional, so he might get off with a manslaughter charge. Hume seems to have been more deliberately malicious, and I question whether Nietzsche could have been possible without Darwin.

[Breedingvariety]

Darwin later became an agnostic and I think it was this thread where I posted his anti-Christian comments in his autobiography. The killing though was probably unintentional, so he might get off with a manslaughter charge. Hume seems to have been more deliberately malicious, and I question whether Nietzsche could have been possible without Darwin.
It is my contention Nietzsche could not have been possible without Schopenhauer, whom N admired. N didn't have much respect for Darwin.

Nietzsche didn't think he had anything to do with God's death. He merely testified it.

Something "horrible" happened in early 19th Century.

[Breedingvariety]

Nietzsche quotes:

Anti-Darwin. — As for the famous “struggle for existence,” so far it seems to me to be asserted rather than proved. It occurs, but as an exception; the total appearance of life is not the extremity, not starvation, but rather riches, profusion, even absurd squandering — and where there is struggle, it is a struggle for power. One should not mistake Malthus for nature. Assuming, however, that there is such a struggle for existence — and, indeed, it occurs — its result is unfortunately the opposite of what Darwin’s school desires, and of what one might perhaps desire with them — namely, in favor of the strong, the privileged, the fortunate exceptions.

Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one's own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation .... "Exploitation" does not belong to a corrupt or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life. If this should be an innovation as a theory--as a reality it is the primordial fact of all history: people ought to be honest with themselves at least that far.

Producing offspring has no altruistic aspect. Left to itself, an animal abandons itself to reproduction, to the extent that this pleasure often causes its death. [B]To sacrifice oneself to one's offspring is to sacrifice oneself to what is closest, to one's own production, etc., this is certainly not altruism.

The influence of “external circumstances” is overestimated by Darwin to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from within which utilizes and exploits “external circumstances”— The new forms molded from within are not formed with an end in view; but in the struggle of the parts a new form is not left long to its use, develops itself more and more completely.

[antonio]

For what I know about Darwin, I conclude he was basically a good man which did really take into account the bad implications of his theory to the point he delayed its publication (and his own subsequent scientifical glory) for years. Probably he well understood at then end that, anycase, evolution at his terms would be a matter of time it became formulated by another biologist, so the said bad implications would equally happen. My conclusion is that Id bet that Darwin would gladly exchange most acclaimed theories with Newton, Einstein or many others.

Ps. My personal opinion is that Darwinism makes sense to me, which does not mean it has to be necessary true.

Ps2. My high regard of Darwin does not prevent myself for thinking modern Darwinists are as a whole a kind of Talibanized minds always ready to bash and despise any objectors on their sacred theory. Theory, BTW, as ellegant as absolute useless for all practical purposes I could imagine.

[Joe McCarthy]

Breeding, I think it's fair to say that Marx didn't care much for Adam Smith, either, but it's hard to imagine Marx without him. Similarly, several of Nietzsche's ideas are immersed in Darwinism even as he attacked Darwin's typically Victorian progressivism.