Racist Darwin ?

The following text is the edit clearly marked in my previous post - Ray.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 an 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 EDITEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.Edited by Herepton, : minor grammar

http://www.cojoweb.com/ref-agnostic.html Atheists and Agnostics are synonyms which supports my previously cited sources.Ray

Why bother pasting all that reference if you are going to ignore the vast majority of it just to cherry pick what you want.A statement that begins with the answer to the question 'Are agnostics atheists?' being 'no' is not one which supports your contention that agnosticism and atheism are synonymous, outwith the extent to which they are commonly lumped together.Rather than confused Bertrand Russell was able to discern that beliefs are not monolithic but that there are varying degrees which shade into one another.TTFN,WK

Very little difference between an atheist and agnostic. My point is that an agnostic is attempting to carve out a position of impartiality that we know does not exist. His atheistic views do not match his agnostic label.Ray

Well make up your mind Ray, who was Darwin trying to keep the secret of his big fat Atheism from? Contrast with So Darwin didn't talk about his atheism so as not to hurt the feelings of his wife and friends, and he didn't talk about it with people who weren't his wife and friends because he didn't want to offend them. So who did he talk about it with? Where is it discussed?The obvious answer is it isn't it is something you infer from his writings. Your making that inference, or even Mayr making it, does not automatically trump Darwin's own account of the changes in his religious views. Neither Mayr wishing Darwin to be the poster child for atheism, nor your wishing him to be the whipping boy for same, can change what Darwin's beliefs actually were.I don't claim to know exactly what those beliefs were, but I certainly don't think you have made your case even remotely convincingly that he was a determined atheist. You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means, in fact I think we have established the idosyncracy of your views, although I appreciate that they aren't idosyncratic for the hordes of true believers so blinkered they can't concieve of more than one category for beliefs different from their own. Just because he doesn't believe in a christian revelation Darwin is an atheist? You are true to form as ever.TTFN,WKP.S. In fact you seem to have taken up a radically new interpretation of the word 'objective' as well.Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

You are able to discern complicated scientific arguments but unable to identify an atheist ? If the former is true (difficult) then the latter must be true (easy by comparison). The real question is why are you suddenly playing dumb ? Answer: Because everyone knows you are locked in disussion with a Creationist and that your "position" is really not your position, if your position was genuine there would be at least 10 other atheists beating down the doors to get included in this discussion and find out why an atheist is attempting to say Darwin wasn't an atheist.IF what I wrote is NOT true then this mandates genuine ignorance on your part, but this is falsified by your known reputation, which then makes the paragraph above all the more true.BUT, for the sake of argument, we know Darwin was an atheist by what he wrote and argued and theorized (Materialism). Logic demands a person is as they argue, and not as they label themself, if the two contradict.I asked before and did not get an answer, so I ask again:Question: What is the origin scenario for the atheist worldview if common ancestry (includes apes morphing into men) is not ?Will an answer come, saying, "we have none" ?Ray

double post - my mistake.Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Sure I can identify them, we all use the secret Athiest Evolutionist Conspiracy handshake after all. Wow, now as well as inferring what Darwin meant but never actually said you are inferring both what my 'true' position is despite its being almost diametrically the opposite of my stated position and you are also inferring the beliefs of 'at least 10 other atheists' as to Darwin's atheism*.Is it just that you are really intuitive or are you maybe a little bit psychic? What ignorance? My intransigent refusal to accept your interpretation of Darwin's beliefs from his work rather than his own self-stated beliefs, vague as they may have been. So by this reasoning every single scientist in the world must be an atheist since they write and theorise within the framework of scientific materialism or naturalism. I'm quite happy to agree that "We have none" is the most likely answer to this. In the absence of any evidence for evolution I can't think of an 'origins' theory which seems not to be almost as ridiculous as Genesis, it would need some other almost equally magical deus ex machina such as aliens putting us down on earth.I'm quite happy to agree that Dawkin's has a point when he says that... But that has absolutely no relevance to what Darwin's own beliefs were. The fact that a coherent plausible atheist world narrative is possible with evolution does not make the creation of such a narrative the motivation for Darwin's formulation of his theories.That atheism requires evolutionary theory to appear coherent with the real world does not mean that evolutionary thoery requires atheism.In my opinion christian beliefs also require evolutionary theory to appear coherent with the real world and that is where your particular brand of those beliefs fails miserably.TTFN,WK* Perhaps we should try an experiment for this, I also post at the Internet Infidels which message board which has a fair proportin of hardcore atheists. I could set up a poll asking atheists specifically whether Darwin was an atheist and the people there would have no vested interest in supporting my dissembling pretence that Darwin was not an atheist, unlike the '10 other atheists' here. Then we could see if Atheists claim Darwin as one of their own.

The issue of racism in Darwinism, is an exponent of the issue of free will in science. It's not just that science fails to acknowledge God, science also fails to acknowledge the phenomena of choice, purpose, design, values etc.Scientific explanations have the structure of; Y follows from X. Science does not acknowledge when from state X, either Y or Z could result. When we suppose it is true that either Y or Z could possibly result, we can legitemately ask spiritual questions about "why" Z was *chosen* in stead of Y.So in the time just before Darwin, religionists held an established position that they could address the "why" question. Creation was simply assumed to be true and unassailable, because science could never answer these "why" questions. There were already many evolutionists about at this time, but they had generally peaceable relations with the creationists, for as far as the creationists were concerned.But then enter Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Natural selection theory is different from other theories, in that it doesn't describe a physical relationship, but in stead it makes a comparison. For instance natural selection of type A and type A`, doesn't describe any physical relationship between A and A`, it is just making a comparison between A and A`. There are no comparisons occurring in nature between A and A', these comparisons only happen in the mind of the Darwinist.We should rather see natural selection theory as an attempt to mechanize the concept of choice. Natural selection theory makes it so, that if we start with organism X, and may end up with organism Y or Z down the line, then if we end up with organism Y, then we can say Y neccessarily followed from X. But if on the other hand we ended up with Z, then we would say that, Z neccesarily followed from X. So in all cases in Darwinism we end up with the logic of cause and effect, in stead of the logic of the spiritual choosing one or the other. Darwinists so have mechanized the concept of choice, using the language of choice (selection), but these words referring to mechanical things.It is this particular practice of mechanizing the spiritual which upsets the position of religionists, leading to reactionary assaults on evolution and science in general. The logical conclusion of such mechanization of choice is racism. For what happens then is that people's choices become to be explained mechanically from the blood or environment, in stead of spiritually from the heart and soul. Where before it was universally understood that people should be judged by what's in their heart, now it became to be understood that people should be judged by their heritable material properties, in context of their environment.This is why we can find marriage advice, politics, and general moral teaching in Darwin's "Descent of Man". It is because judgement about what's right and wrong had essentially become a calculation of material by natural selection theory.After engendering fevered ideologies for 2 worldwar's, science was finally pushed back into place after the holocaust. Only fairly recently atheists have charged again the exclusiveness of scientific truth, in total denial of the validity of spiritual questions about "why".But now their strategy is not so much to argue along the lines that Y and Z result of mechanical neccesity, now they argue more that indeed Y and Z may possibly either result from state X, but whether Y or Z results is "random". Randomness they have then defined as excluding any spiritual questions about "why". So they have shifted strategy, to admit that people may behave freely in stead of by blood and environment, to saying that people behave "randomly", which word is peculiarly defined so to exclude by definition any spiritual ownership to an action.About 1/4 of the world's population is under Darwinist rule now, meaning China. In the West the creationist views still reign supreme through Hollywood. But in the West Darwinists have made signficant inroads into psychiatry and psychology already, seeking out the most vulnerable people to coerce into Darwinism. The chances of getting pills or Darwinist advice when you go to a psychiatrist or psychologist are significantly higher then that the doctor would help in arranging for a good friend or friends to talk to. So to say the doctors would rather give chemical or technical solutions, but not seek emotional solutions in the context of people freely choosing.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Creationists have one too....according to you guys. We know the atheist conspiracy is not hidden and in the open. The least educated (Media) accept your dogma without question and deny access to the microphone Taliban style. Its quite all right since we know the success of Darwinism is caused by the wrath of God for denying Him Creator credit. Overwhelmingly corroborated by the fossil record showing no signs of intermediacy. [Both are synonyms and postulate that God is a product of the brain which is a product of material phenomena.]If logic is not abandoned - then yes, of course. All we need to do is explain their (TEists) belief about themself (Christian).I do not understand the furor over Judge Jones. The Darwinian Judge ruled as expected. Jones THINKS he is a Christian. His actions betray an atheist. His belief about himself is explained by the Bible (Judas kissing Jesus = typological claim of truth, which Jones perfectly fulfills). Jesus said Judas was a son of the devil from the beginning. Jones belief about himself is now explained. True Christians die for the Bible (Reformation) or at least defend it - logical test for true Christianity don't you think ? Any "Christian" who sides with the AtheistCLU is explained by the Judas syndrome. I asked WK what is the origin scenario that atheists subscribe to IF apes morphing into men and common ancestry is not ?WK reply = weasel words. All atheists support ToE for obvious reasons. You defend ToE tooth and nail = you have perjured yourself.I am quite happy to make you renounce everything that you stand for, but like I said, we know you are not serious or there would be many persons confronting you. Either way I have manhandled you with invulnerable logic and argument.EvC member Brian, Dawkins, Dennett, Ed Wilson, Kai Neilson, Richard Lewontin are the only atheists I know (off hand) that admit the obvious.Since I know you are clowning the debate and spamming it with shameless nonsense, caused by the inability to refute, you do not deserve any more of my time. I realize this might be quite unsatisfying, therefore, in fairness, you may post one last message.Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist

Science has always recognized God. You mean Scientism - the religion of Darwinism. Interesting insight - makes sense. The ultimate "irony" is, of course, that during the 1940s (biology synthesis) the selectionists were finally able to convince their brothers that natural selection was the only mechanism for change, while the Nazi's (Darwinists) were acting like apes and selecting the Jews for extinction.Ray Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Now Ray, have you been smoking crack again?Where are the weasel words in agreeing with you? My personal answer would be 'we have none' but I can't answer for all atheists but I would imagine that would be the answer, hence 'most likely'. Oh wait, I get it, my agreeing with you proves the wrongness of your position, therefore you must infer that I secretly disagree with you but am pretending to agree with you to protect Darwin's secret identity as the grand high lodge master of the illuminati!! Exsqueeze me? What did you make me renounce? I must have missed that part, or were you doing more of your sneaky inferring Ray? Insane logic usually is invulnerable, to reason.Unfortunately your faith is so strong that it is quite capable of totally blocking out considerations of reality. This does, as you suggest, rather preclude any meaningful dialogue.Once again Ray, it's been.TTFN,WK

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/barlow.html "When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species" Autobio pages 92, 93 (written no earlier than 1876 - six years before his death in 1882).The famous passage written above does not say that Darwin was a Theist, it says it he was a Theist IN REGARDS TO A FIRST CAUSE.We know that the belief of Mind causing First Cause is traditionally called Deism, and since this belief has no source the same is called dogma. Darwin's writings and arguments say he was an atheist, logically, a person is as they argue and not as they label themself if the two contradict.Ray

Wow, that bare repetition of your consistent assertion really moved this debate forward.TTFN,WK