Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Racist Darwin ?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 1 of 29 (334601)
07-23-2006 7:03 PM


Here are the facts of history as we know them. Anyone can certainly disagree, but unless you have a source your view is subjective and unsupported.
1. Darwin, contrary (and remarkably) to the rampant atheism in his family, began life as a Christian. He held a degree in theology and intended to become a country vicar.
2. While on board the Beagle he admits in his Autobiography that he more or less held the Bible as literal truth. Eldredge, in "Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life" (2005) establishes Darwin a Paleyan Creationist during this period of his life, that is, the early Beagle years.
3. "Darwin abandoned Christianity in the two years after his return to England....in part this was caused....by his discovery of the invalidity of the argument from design" (Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought 1982:402).
4. In 1837 Darwin makes first known sketch of his "Tree of Life".
UWE Bristol - Error 404 : Page not found : /fas/wavelength/wave21/darwinb.jpg
I can list as many scholars as anyone may like, saying: the Tree of Life or Darwin's Notebook writings during the late 1830s = Materialism.
Thesaurus.com
The above Roget's Thesaurus link substantiates that "materialist" and "agnostic" and "atheist" are all SYNONYMS.
5. However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition) the term "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, 30 years after Tree of Life sketch, and 10 years AFTER Origin of Species was written and published.
6. Darwin became an atheist during the late 1830s.
7. God is rejected as Creator as is special creation.
8. Darwin deemed the Fuegians "the lowest form of humanity on earth....In 1838 while struggling to understand how evolution worked, Darwin's thoughts returned to the Fuegians and their apparent similarity to primates in the London Zoo" (Larson 2004:67). This is the origin of human evolution, after the theory was conceived and the first drawing of the Tree of Life by Darwin in 1837. Professor Larson, is, of course, an evolutionist.
Jonathan Wells: The only evidence for human evolution during Darwin's life was "similarity to living apes" (inexact quote, can retrieve exact quote upon request).
In sequence, God is rejected as Creator THEN Darwin sees "similarity" and makes racist correspondence. We know Darwin was openly racist and we know Origin was written to say Paley's God is not responsible for the appearance of design seen in nature. In a rare moment of honesty, Talk Origins admits: CA005.1: Darwin's racism
I own a copy of all books mentioned in this topic. Didn't know any of this ? I am not surpised. The paucity and scarcity of "genuine" hominid missing links coupled with the facts layed out here = why human evolution can be dismissed as the needs of atheism. Its racist origin demonstrates the high moral ground of Creationism.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2006 12:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 07-25-2006 11:00 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 08-02-2006 7:33 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 29 (334835)
07-24-2006 12:38 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 29 (334845)
07-24-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
07-23-2006 7:03 PM


Thesaurus.com
The above Roget's Thesaurus link substantiates that "materialist" and "agnostic" and "atheist" are all SYNONYMS.
Presumably you would consider your position to be anithetical to this, so according to that link you must be a Believer which using the argumentum ad thesaurum makes you a dogmatist, a freak, a junkie, a nut, a chump, a sucker and a crackpot amongst other things.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : wrong identity and wrong forum
Edited by Wounded King, : Actually it was just the wrong identity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-23-2006 7:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-24-2006 6:02 PM Wounded King has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 4 of 29 (334971)
07-24-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
07-24-2006 12:54 PM


Presumably you would consider your position to be anithetical to this, so according to that link you must be a Believer which using the argumentum ad thesaurum makes you a dogmatist, a freak, a junkie, a nut, a chump, a sucker and a crackpot amongst other things.
The last five mentioned are your additions.
A believer is extemely generic in that it can describe anyone who believes anything, including, of course, evolution.
We know your "expertise" is very limited....to things that could never influence the opinion of any ordinary person because no one understands what you are talking about. IOW, biology knowledge is useless unless one can make ordinary persons understand. There are not two sets of biology facts.... there is one. I can explain the facts to anyone and have a decent chance to influence their understanding. You are completely ignorant of history and the context of the evolutionary paradigm, and are thus doomed to a frustrated existence of making embarrassing posts like the one I am responding to.
You could prove me wrong by explaining the meaning of your post in lieu of the fact that most of it was made-up, or contributing something comparable to your intellectual reputation. If not, we can view your "contribution" as a rant caused by the inability to refute.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2006 12:54 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Wounded King, posted 07-25-2006 4:55 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 5 of 29 (334972)
07-24-2006 6:07 PM


Synonyms
According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, "agnostic" and "atheist" are synonyms. This further supports Roget's.
Ray

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 07-25-2006 5:07 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 6 of 29 (335084)
07-25-2006 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Cold Foreign Object
07-24-2006 6:02 PM


The last five mentioned are your additions.
Not at all Ray.
If you actually look at your own definition you will find that it is in fact not really for 'materialist' at all, the main entry is for 'skeptic'.
Would you not agree that 'skeptic' is as generic a term as 'believer'? Indeed you yourself are a 'skeptic' with regards to evolution are you not, does that then make you an atheist materialist? Your reasoning would seem to suggest it does.
So in fact you are saying that all synonyms of 'skeptic' are also synonyms of each other as the terms you used are all listed as synonyms for 'skeptic' not for 'materialist'.
I simply applied this same logic. If you actually scrolled down at the 'believer' link you would see that as well as a main entry for 'believer' there are a number of other main entries which have 'believer' as a synonym, such as 'admirer','devotee' and 'client', the terms you objected to are all alternative synonyms for those other main entries and therefore by your logic synonyms for the term 'believer' itself.
So in fact there was nothing 'made-up' in my post, and I have indeed proved you wrong.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-24-2006 6:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2006 4:17 PM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 7 of 29 (335086)
07-25-2006 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
07-24-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Synonyms
You do realise that dictionaries and thesauruses(thesauri?) just record how words are used? They aren't some magical absolute unchanging reference. If enough people decide to use a word in a particular way then that will in time make its way into such reference works. The fact that being an agnostic and an atheist are 2 quite distinct philosophical positions should surely be enough to make you question the tenuous logic of this indirect definitional approach.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-24-2006 6:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2006 4:32 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 29 (335137)
07-25-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
07-23-2006 7:03 PM


A lot of this seems entirely superfluous to the hypothesis that Darwin was a racist, or even that Darwin's racism was part and parcel of, or indeed a product of, his development of evolutionary theories.
Pretty much everything discussing Darwin's religious beliefs seems to be superfluous, especially if you characterise the change in those beliefs as a sequelae of Darwin's researches and theorising concerning evolution.
If you wan to make a case that there is a causal link between Darwin embracing atheism and then being a racist that needs something more than your dubious post hoc arguments, which have not even been shown to apply to Darwin's opinions on evolution.
This is the heart of the matter and something you entirely fail to address while you put Darwin making a particular 'racist correspondence' (albeit a scantily referenced one, doesn't Larson provide a reference to his primary source? I couldn't find something similar in any of Darwins writings available online) you fail to show anything suggesting that his 'open racism' was a later development than his atheism.
Was Darwin less openly racist when he was a 'Paleyan creationist'?
How does the 'late 1830's' when Darwin became an atheist compare chronologically to the time of his writings of 1838? How do you know that the atheism is first? The late 1830's could be 1839. And simply because these ideas are first mentioned in 1838 does not mean they first ocurred to Darwin in 1838 indeed the fact that his 'thoughts returned' suggests that this was an already extant line of thinking. Were his ideas less openly racist than those of the creationist Louis Agassiz?
Aggassiz writes:
let us
consider a few other features of this momentous question of race.
Whites and blacks may multiply together, but their offspring is
never either white or black; it is always mulatto. It is a
half-breed, and shares all the peculiarities of half-breeds, among
whose most important characteristics is their sterility, or at
least their reduced fecundity. This shows the connection to be
contrary to the normal state of the races, as it is contrary to the
preservation of species in the animal kingdom. . .Far from
presenting to me a natural solution of our difficulties, the idea
of amalgamation is most repugnant to my feelings.
...
We should
therefore beware how we give to the blacks rights, by virtue of
which they may endanger the progress of the whites before their
temper has been tested by a prolonged experience. Social equality I
deem at all times impracticable,--a natural impossibility, from the
very character of the negro race.
From Louis Agassiz: His Life and Correspondence by Agassiz and Agassiz 1885 (I'm using the project Guttenberg version, if you paste it directly into a word document then the references are on page 316 and 319 respectively)
Yet both men were against slavery, albeit for quite different reasons.
So does your actual argument boil down in essence to a claim that Darwin's racism was a product of his evolutionary though or rather that his theories regarding evolution were a product of his already existing racism. At the moment it isn't quite clear what position you were actually putting forward beyond Darwin=Racist=Bad => Evolution=Bad.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-23-2006 7:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2006 5:33 PM Wounded King has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 9 of 29 (335227)
07-25-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Wounded King
07-25-2006 4:55 AM


Ray previously writes:
The last five mentioned are your additions.
http://EvC Forum: Racist Darwin ? -->EvC Forum: Racist Darwin ?
dogmatist, a freak, a junkie, a nut, a chump, a sucker and a crackpot amongst other things.
The last five are now aqua colored.
WK in response writes:
Not at all Ray.
I agree that "skeptic" is the main entry - never denied. Where are the last five ? Like I said they are your additions.
WK writes:
So in fact you are saying that all synonyms of 'skeptic' are also synonyms of each other as the terms you used are all listed as synonyms for 'skeptic' not for 'materialist'.
Yes, that is what Roget says. Look, I have a source, and I used it. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (2002) says "agnostic" (main entry) and "atheist" are synonyms.
Are you saying "materialist" and "agnostic" and "atheist" are NOT synonyms ? The only problem with this group of three is the middle word.
There is ONE definition of "agnostic" and several reportive understandings. If you want to discuss these meanings then please indicate.
I simply applied this same logic. If you actually scrolled down at the 'believer' link you would see that as well as a main entry for 'believer' there are a number of other main entries which have 'believer' as a synonym, such as 'admirer','devotee' and 'client', the terms you objected to are all alternative synonyms for those other main entries and therefore by your logic synonyms for the term 'believer' itself.
Where are the five WK ? Now, you are admitting they are synonyms of a synonym. Are they grouped together like the three ? Why don't you just paste them and the link and we will take a look ?
You are able to dissect complicated scientific arguments written in technical journals, yet you are unable to connect and identify three no brainer synonyms.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Wounded King, posted 07-25-2006 4:55 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 07-25-2006 4:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 10 of 29 (335231)
07-25-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
07-25-2006 5:07 AM


Re: Synonyms
You do realise that dictionaries and thesauruses(thesauri?) just record how words are used?
Yes, and the recordings are validated by the scholars who produced the source.
They aren't some magical absolute unchanging reference. If enough people decide to use a word in a particular way then that will in time make its way into such reference works.
Of course. You are touching on what scholars call the reportive and stipulated definitions of words.
Reportive is what anyone thinks a word means. Stipulated is self-evident - to stipulate a meaning. Prolong use could replace reportive or etymological meaning.
The fact that being an agnostic and an atheist are 2 quite distinct philosophical positions should surely be enough to make you question the tenuous logic of this indirect definitional approach.
Actually, I do not want to debate the meaning of "agnostic" (disregard previous comment in prior post). I know what it means and I know what Huxley intended it to mean when he stipulated its definition. My forthcoming paper will prove that agnostic and atheist are absolute synonyms.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 07-25-2006 5:07 AM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 29 (335233)
07-25-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
07-25-2006 4:17 PM


Where are the five WK ?
What is up with your reading comprehension ray? The link is the very same one I gave earlier for 'Believer', here it is again for the hard of clicking Thesaurus.com .
That link has both the main entry for 'believer' but it also has other main entries for words whose entry has 'believer' as a synonym.
I even told you exactly what words they were in Message 6 they are 'admirer','devotee' and 'client' the three entries right under that for 'believer' at the link I already posted and the word 'believer' is highlighted in the lists of synonyms for those entries.
Now, you are admitting they are synonyms of a synonym. Are they grouped together like the three?
In what way are yours' not synonyms of synonyms since the actual reference is for 'skeptic'? They are all grouped with, or direct synonyms of, 'believer' within lists of synonyms, giving them exactly the same relationship as the ones you are waving about.
Yes, that is what Roget says. Look, I have a source, and I used it. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (2002) says "agnostic" (main entry) and "atheist" are synonyms.
Did you just mistakenly forget to add 'materialist' to that list Ray, oops, no, looks like it just isn't there in that entry for 'agnostic', kind of shooting yourself in the foot there Ray. As for the equivalence of atheist and agnostic, again these reference books are a record of usage, if people use these terms interchangably, and a lot of people do, then that usage is recorded, it doesn't make it a correct usage.
Why don't you just paste them and the link and we will take a look ?
Because I already did, I didn't realise you couldn't scroll up a screen and click on a link I provided earlier, but I have provided a link in this post to save wear and tear on your mousewheel.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2006 4:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 12 of 29 (335259)
07-25-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Wounded King
07-25-2006 11:00 AM


A lot of this seems entirely superfluous to the hypothesis that Darwin was a racist, or even that Darwin's racism was part and parcel of, or indeed a product of, his development of evolutionary theories.
The OP facts say that human evolution was an idea conceived AFTER God as Creator was rejected. Everyone agrees that Darwin was openly racist - even Talk Origins. In order to reduce the sting they whitewash the fact by saying "so was everyone else".
I agree and I don't care. The OP proves the only point I have made and want to make: human evolution was conceived AFTER God was rejected as Creator. The racist eyes of Darwin were then used to answer the question of human origins. There is no way around it: gutter racism was relied upon and it was the only "evidence" for human evolution in the 19th century. Imagine that, the resemblance of dark skinned peoples and apes, things you might expect a skin head to say, was the "intellectual" foundation of the secular answer to human origins.
If you wan to make a case that there is a causal link between Darwin embracing atheism and then being a racist that needs something more than your dubious post hoc arguments, which have not even been shown to apply to Darwin's opinions on evolution.
The OP proves Darwin was an atheist and a racist. This fact is not harmed by your substanceless (and expected) denial.
This is the heart of the matter and something you entirely fail to address while you put Darwin making a particular 'racist correspondence' (albeit a scantily referenced one, doesn't Larson provide a reference to his primary source? I couldn't find something similar in any of Darwins writings available online) you fail to show anything suggesting that his 'open racism' was a later development than his atheism.
Charles Darwin (Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co.) p.178.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"
Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley ("Lay Sermans, Addresses and Reviews" (New York: Appleton, 1871) p. 20:
"No rational man cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites."
We know Darwin and Huxley were best of friends and Hux was the mouthpiece of Darwin's camp.
How does the 'late 1830's' when Darwin became an atheist compare chronologically to the time of his writings of 1838? How do you know that the atheism is first?
We conclude atheism by what a person writes and argues. The Origin thesis was hereterical materialism = argument of an atheist. Darwin was a Christian first, then he became a materialist and atheist. The only thing that matters is that he wasn't a Christian. I have no desire to hammer him an atheist EXCEPT when ignorant persons assert him a Christian.
....And simply because these ideas are first mentioned in 1838 does not mean they first ocurred to Darwin in 1838 indeed the fact that his 'thoughts returned' suggests that this was an already extant line of thinking.
What is your point - I don't get it ?
Were his ideas less openly racist than those of the creationist Louis Agassiz?
I make no distiction. Dr. Scott calls this "attempting to paint ones black a lesser shade of gray".
The KKK are Creationists and Nazi's are Evolutionists - what is your point ?
So does your actual argument boil down in essence to a claim that Darwin's racism was a product of his evolutionary though or rather that his theories regarding evolution were a product of his already existing racism. At the moment it isn't quite clear what position you were actually putting forward beyond Darwin=Racist=Bad => Evolution=Bad.
My point is that the ORIGIN of human evolution idea came after God was rejected as Creator and a racist mind was then needed to answer the question.
Race Matters | News & fighting inequality
Professor Huston Smith (Why Religion Matters 2000:19)
"In 1919 the Brooklyn Zoo exhibited an African American caged alongside chimpanzees and gorillas."
Smith, by his own admission, is a Wells IDist.
IF human evolution was based on tangible scientific facts, then why did Darwinian curators, as late as 1919, erect such an obscene display ?
Human evolution is based on racism = what happens when God is rejected.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : minor grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 07-25-2006 11:00 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 07-26-2006 12:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 13 of 29 (335271)
07-25-2006 5:59 PM


Origin of "Amazing Grace"
Dr. Gene Scott: Newton was a slaver. His ship was caught in a storm just off the African coast. He cried out to God for forgiveness....and, after making it safely to shore he let his human cargo go free....then he penned the most famous words of the most famous hymn of the Church...."Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me...."
Ray

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 14 of 29 (335466)
07-26-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Cold Foreign Object
07-25-2006 5:33 PM


The OP proves Darwin was an atheist and a racist. This fact is not harmed by your substanceless (and expected) denial.
I didn't deny either of these things, I asked if there was any evidence to support your chosen chronology. The OP 'facts' don't show that 'human evolution was an idea conceived AFTER God as Creator was rejected'
In fact Darwin himself denied being an atheist...
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1905. pp.274
What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.
of course since you equate atheist with agnostic I can see how this cuts no ice with you personally.
Since you are now saying that all you are trying to say is that Darwin was no longer a christian then fine.
What you have singularly failed to show is how a racist frame of mind is required to produce the theory of human evolution, although certainly particular interpretations can be heavily racist.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-25-2006 5:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2006 5:11 PM Wounded King has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 15 of 29 (335535)
07-26-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wounded King
07-26-2006 12:57 PM


I asked if there was any evidence to support your chosen chronology. The OP 'facts' don't show that 'human evolution was an idea conceived AFTER God as Creator was rejected'
Straight denial of what is written and supported by facts.
Why would a Darwinist (WK) imply that Charles Darwin, the founder of ToE, did not reject the main tenet of Creationism (God is Creator) ?
The Tree of Life sketch (1837, Eldredge 2005) is visual materialism = God is rejected as Creator. Then in 1838 Darwin is already seeing the "similarity" between Fuegians and apes in the London zoo (Larson). The OP said this and you have acted like it is not there.
WK: In fact Darwin himself denied being an atheist...
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1905. pp.274
What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.
The ToE denies the existence of God in nature = its main assertion. Now you are acting like the main assertion does not exist. We know you do not really believe Darwin's agnostic claim, but you have no way of denting my arguments except by taking quotes out of context. Darwin's quote above was made to alleviate the suffering of his Christian wife and friends. We know Darwin was an atheist since 1837 based on his writings and arguments. I suppose Mayr is qualified to provide the scientific evidence of modern populational thinking but he is unqualified to identify an atheist ?
EDIT START MAJOR CONTENT ADDITION:
The last Mayr comment was made in the context of an uncited quote. Here is the quote of Mayr identifying Darwin's worldview that he held in the late 1830s: [sic] ""materialist" (more or less equivalent to an atheist" (Mayr, One Long Argument 1991:75) Now the previous sentence about Mayr makes sense.
Next Item: Your Darwin quote WAS NOT written with his wife and friends in mind, rather it was written to an inquiring person of whom Darwin did not want to offend, assuming that the person was a believer of some type. The time frame was well after he had already adopted the Agnostic label and he simply stuck to the title. This time frame was after Descent was published - a brazen atheistic thesis. Again, a person is as they argue and not as they label themself if the two contradict.
Go here and read your quote AND OTHERS in context, and see Darwin's "fluctuations". The same are conducive with his lifelong pattern of not wanting to offend or confront believers. As much as this is true, his scientific works did exactly that, unless, of course, we are naieve and the entire Creation-Evolution debate is all one big misunderstanding.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/.../letters/letters1_08.html
"I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully,”nor indeed can they be answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
Words of an atheist by any objective rendering MADE AFTER your "never and atheist" quote. Like I said, Darwin treaded softly sometimes for the benefit of persons that may have been a believer.
"In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications" (Mayr 1991:75)
Sorry for my previous errors.
END MAJOR CONTENT ADDITION AND EDIT
Logically, a person (Darwin) is as they argue and not as they label themself if the two contradict. In 1871 Darwin wrote Descent of Man - the arguments of a hardcore atheist asserting mankind descended from baboons. The conclusion says Man imagined and thus invented the idea of God = obscene denial of God.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/...ts/descent/descent21.html
"The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the
greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man
and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to
maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the
other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be
universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's
reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of
imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed
instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument
for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be
compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant
spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in
them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a
universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of
man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."
If mankind's origin from apes is not atheistic THEN what is the atheist scenario ? Will the answer come "we have none ?" You support ToE because it agrees with your worldview (atheist). Darwin was an atheist scientist attempting to cope in a theist dominated world = explanation of agnostic quotes.
We also know that the ToE is supported by ALL atheists then and today = Darwin was an atheist. Atheists would not support if Darwinism was anything about supporting God.
The point is that you (an atheist) have been psychologically forced to deny Darwin's atheism based on an insight that sees this necessity = the same exact reason that motivated Huxley to invent the agnostic coinage in the first place.
Dr. Scott (context of Huxley coining the word "agnostic": "...to escape the stigma and abuse of being an atheist in a theist controlled world".
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.
Edited by Herepton, : major content addition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 07-26-2006 12:57 PM Wounded King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024