Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:14 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 46 of 238 (422913)
09-18-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
09-18-2007 1:31 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
Protected from what? We aren't discussing evidence for or against the theory of evolution in this thread; we're discussing whether it is or is not logically valid to use the theory of evolution to justify certain cultural beliefs.

Right. I then posted sources, coming straight form the top, that pointed out how eminent evolutionists justified racism in their own minds. Modulous then countered with justifying how and why it is all ineffectual. Thus, whatever happens, the theory will always have some perennial scapegoat to rescue it.

If Darwin wrongly concluded what he did then, then what is saying that the current paradigm will not be proven demonstrably wrong in the near future?

I don't know what it means to be more or less evolved.

Sure you do. Everyone does. Calling someone a simian is not some endearing term for them. The allusion is, you're stupid. If they say that you have the intelligence of an amoeba, you aren't very well going to assume that its a compliment, are you?

There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

Early Darwinists asserted that negros, south pacific islanders, and aborigines were lesser men precariously in limbo between simian and man.

If you mean that one race (assuming, I suppose, like the Victorians and people of the early 20th century, that races are biologically distinct categories) is closer morphologically to the common ancestor, then I suppose that you are correct.

I'm sure you know very well that they were saying was something far more pernicious than just noticing the differences. Tyndall stated that these aboriginal men could barely count to five and had no real concept of music, whereas he, being a European, was more highly developed than his halfling counterparts.

Assuming that races are biologically distinct, it could be that both branches (and their subbranches when they branch) have each "evolved an equal amount" from their common ancestor. Then we no longer have the case of "more" or "less" evolved, just differently evolved.

If the oldest known human bones are said to be found in Ethiopia, and latter fossilizations of man places them in Europe, you make the deduction. Is that not indicative of a European developing after the African?

I'm not saying everyone agrees with this. I would say that the majority most likely do not. What I am saying is, of those that do, isn't that the logical deduction they made in order to justify it?

And even if one race has gone through more morphological change than anther, so what? All this means is the members of the "newer" race is better adapted to the environment in which it is found than the "older" race would be if its members were in that same area. If this does happen, it isn't racism it acknowledge this, no more than saying dachsunds were bred to be better badger hunters than retrievers are is somehow "breedist".

Well, I certainly agree. And you and I are probably in agreement that different races come by way of mutation, isolation, and selective breeding that end up fixing specific traits to a certain population. There is nothing wrong with that because its completely a natural occurrence.

Darwinists, though, certainly didn't see it that way. And I'd be curious to know how many of their modern contemporaries secretly harbor these taboo thoughts.

Now the racists go beyond what is scientifically and objectively justifiable by attributing moral qualities, or aesthetic qualities, or somehow judging the various characteristics that distinguish the races (assuming that the races can even be distinguished). Not only does evolution not make judgements about morals, aesthetics, or what should or should not be considered "preferable", but racists often attribute these qualities without any regard to whether there is a correlation between characteristics and the values.

Well, supposing that the ToE were entirely true, of course you can't blame nature for being nature. That's like blaming a tree for growing in an awkward direction from the rest in the forest, or a baboon being considered bad for having been born with a congenital heart defect.

I'm not even entertaining those notions. I'm simply saying that many people have interpreted Darwin's notions in linear terms. I don't think its accidental. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, etc all used Darwinism as a basis for believing that their race was the most advanced. You wouldn't believe that's purely coincidental that mass confusion effected the lot of them, do you? It seems they got their ideologies right out of the scientific annals of Darwin.

You may say in defense, "yeah, but you can't blame Darwin for coming to that conclusion anymore than you could blame Jesus for someone coming to wrong-headed conclusions from a bizarre interpretation of the Bible. The difference is, Darwin himself believed in that. Darwin wrote about it. And moreover, he spoke of evolution always in these linear terms that, today, no longer apply.

Instead, the general fascination is not say someone is bad or good-- just different.

No one is more evolved or less evolved-- just evolved.

No one is smarter or less smart-- just different.

Well, that's all a little to PC to be accurate. I suspect they changed their tune because they understood quite well the social implications of maintaining a totally Darwinistic framework. Now its a feau pax

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 09-18-2007 1:31 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 6:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Doddy, posted 09-18-2007 7:31 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 09-18-2007 8:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 50 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 8:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-18-2007 9:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2007 2:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2007 3:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 7:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14750
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 47 of 238 (422917)
09-18-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 6:35 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
quote:

Right. I then posted sources, coming straight form the top, that pointed out how eminent evolutionists justified racism in their own minds.

That's not true. Only one out of three came close to attempting to "justify" racism.. The other two were simply expressions of racist views - views which were generally accepted as fact at the time.

quote:

There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

As I said earlier this progression is mainly an artefact resulting from the fact that the earliest organisms were very simple. Because complexity is a product of evolution the most complex creatures will tend to be more recent and descended from simpler creatures.

quote:

If the oldest known human bones are said to be found in Ethiopia, and latter fossilizations of man places them in Europe, you make the deduction. Is that not indicative of a European developing after the African?

No. You can't use geographical location like that. Suppose humans migrated out of Africa and then a new sub-species developed within Africa and replaced the initial African population ? Africa's a big place, with a variety of habitats. Even if you wrongly equated evolution with progression - which none of your quotes from mainstream evolutionists do - your argument fails.

Your whole argument is based on the fact that evolution was founded in a society where views that we (rightly) call racist were widely accepted as unquestionable facts. Quite obviously evolutionary theory had nothing to do with that state of affairs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 3986 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 48 of 238 (422919)
09-18-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 6:35 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

I'm not going to comment on the biological nature of your point, because the study of biology doesn't dictate ethics. (Plus, it's nonsense)

On the other hand, I can certainly see a progression in what organisms we consider moral to kill. Nobody cares if I kill a bacteria. Nobody cares if I kill a fungus or a plant (not because of the intrinsic nature of the plant, anyway. If they care, it is because of its effect on people). Very few care if I kill a worm or a sea urchin. But once we reach fish, some more people start to care. Even more care about lizards. Quite a few care about killing cats or parrots. Even more care about killing chimps. And nearly everyone cares about killing humans.

So, there is certainly a correlation between the intelligence of the organism and the degree to which are concerned for that creature. Thus, unless one can appeal to certain boundaries between these creatures, we are variable criteria as our moral guide.

One example is the abortion debate. Most creationists are anti-abortion, because they believe killing humans is wrong, period. However, the moral and informed people realise that it is killing intelligence that is wrong, as that is the defining characteristic of humans. And so if a person is less intelligent, and we don't have any certain box of 'humankind' to protect all humans, are we not left with evolution leading us to conclusions that are more unsettling than those that we would reach with untrue views about the world, specifically special creation?

Edited by Doddy, : clarify last paragraph


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 1:51 PM Doddy has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 49 of 238 (422927)
09-18-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 6:35 PM


racism and evolution are independent concepts
Hi, nem.

A previous post that I wrote a bit ago contains most of how I would answer you here -- in fact, I really had you in mind as I was writing it.

I'll expand on a few items a bit as I answer specific points here.

-

Thus, whatever happens, the theory will always have some perennial scapegoat to rescue it.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. To speak in contemporary scientific terms, either indigenous Africans retain significantly more basal characteristics than Europeans in terms of human evolution, or they do not. Either one is consistent with the theory of evolution. This is a question that can only be answered by actual evidence.

As a result of racism that predated Darwin, European naturalists already believed blacks were inferior to whites. Darwin's theory of evolution simply allowed them to describe this perceived inferiority in the language of evolution. But this perceived inferiority was not a result of evolution -- it was an prior held belief, an explanation of which was formulated in evolutionary terms.

-

Early Darwinists asserted that negros, south pacific islanders, and aborigines were lesser men precariously in limbo between simian and man.

Early non-Darwinist creationists also asserted that negroes, pacific islanders, and aborigines were lesser men. They placed them in between Europeans and apes on Aristotle's ladder of life. Both creationists and evolutionists held a racist view of other peoples as a result of their ethnocentric European heritage, and then formulated explanations for this percieved inferiority in terms of the explanatory framework available to them.

-

If the oldest known human bones are said to be found in Ethiopia, and latter fossilizations of man places them in Europe, you make the deduction. Is that not indicative of a European developing after the African?

Sure. That was the conclusion Darwin reached, that humans originated in Africa. So it is possible that Africans and Europeans represent two branches of an early divergence in the evolution of humans. But what can we logically conclude from this?

(1) That, by remaining in the original environment, Africans did not experience much more evolution; on the other hand, the new environment into which Europeans moved selected more human characteristics: more intelligence, higher civilization, and so forth.

(2) The new European environment actually selected for more brutish behavior, less intelligence, more propensity toward violence, a loss of general human characteristics so that, like parasites, Europeans represent a "degeneration" and it is Africans that retained the "higher" qualities that we associate with humans.

(3) Living in different environments, both Europeans and Africans experienced an equal amount of evolutionary change, but in different qualities.

Which of these scenarios is the correct one? That can only be answered with data. The Victorian European, as a result of their ethnocentric views, believed that they already had enough data, and the data that they thought that they had supported (1). In fact, (3) would never even be recognized since the Europeans would have defined "distinctive human qualities" to be those associated with European culture.

As it turns out, the data we have now contradicts all three scenarios. Africans and Europeans don't represent distinctive branchings; enough gene flow has occurred between the populations that both populations remain absolutely human in all qualities, and the differences are merely superficial.

-

I don't think its accidental. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, etc all used Darwinism as a basis for believing that their race was the most advanced.

Well, first of all, I don't think Stalin viewed his "race" as more advanced -- according to the Marxist doctrine promulgated in his time, his "Socialist society" was more advanced than the other capitalist and feudal societies. This is not biology and has nothing to do with Darwin. I also doubt that Marx ever said much about "advanced races". Hitler may or may not have attempted to justify his ideology with evolutionary theory in some speech or other, but I seriously doubt that Darwinism actually formed an important part of Nazi philosophy.

-

I suspect they changed their tune because they understood quite well the social implications of maintaining a totally Darwinistic framework.

Me, I don't suspect any such thing. Racism is independent of evolution. Evolution doesn't imply that there should be biologically distinct races; it doesn't imply that any of these races, if they do exist, should exhibit significantly more basal characteristics than other races; and it certainly does not give any basis to value some characteristics, if they are distinct, as more valuable or desireable than others.

The existence of distinctive races is not a consequence of the theory of evolution. There may be distinct races, or there may not be. Both alternatives are perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution. Whether or not there are distinctive races can only be determined by careful examination of the so-called races.

If there were distinctive races, that some races may be more basal than others is not a logical consequence of the theory of evolution. Some races may be more basal overall, or all races may have retained different basal characteristics and underwent significant modification in others. The only way to answer this is by an examination of a cladogram of the races along with some of the extinct hominids.

Finally, if there are different races with distinctive characteristics, it is an entirely subjective opinion as to which characteristics are more valuable and desirable.

Edited by Chiroptera, : typos, one quite serious.


You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 238 (422931)
09-18-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 6:35 PM


Hitler was a Christian operating on a Christian basis.
I don't think its accidental. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, etc all used Darwinism as a basis for believing that their race was the most advanced.

Again with the false assertions. Hitler based his behavior on his Christian principles.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 8:39 PM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 51 of 238 (422934)
09-18-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
09-18-2007 8:30 PM


and Stalin outlawed evolution - see Lysenkoism
and Stalin outlawed evolution - see Lysenkoism. These are things you learn in high school.

a quick google finds this link:

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/lesson_from_history.htm

quote:
... The Soviet policy against genetics and evolution had disastrous consequences for the Soviet people. ...

... Although they debate details, all scholars agree that the reign of Lysenkoism was an especially grim period in the history of science. It is the classic example of the negative consequences of misguided anti-science policies and ideological control of science. The lesson learned is that free inquiry, informed government support of basic and applied sciences, and open debates on scientific subjects – especially those declared threatening or dangerous by special interest groups – are essential for the health and prosperity of nations.


That last part should give people like nem pause. It won't but it should.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 8:30 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 6:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1675 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 52 of 238 (422942)
09-18-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 6:35 PM


Can't blame Darwin for Ozymandias
Evolutionary 'principles' are responsible for 'Hitler, Marx, and Stalin'?

I can't believe you're repeating that lame canard, NJ. Tell your Sunday School teachers they need new material.

Megalomaniacs operate on megalomaniacal principles. Any ideology serves their purpose. No ideology at all works, too.

Megalomania existed long before any of our best known scientific theories, or even our best-known religions, were invented. Ozymandias, King of Kings. Everyone knows the drill. Hitler and Stalin are just the twentieth-century manifestations of a phenomenon that includes Napoleon, the Assyrian kings, and any number of emperors that have existed since human societies began.

Marx, whose name you mentioned alongside the other two, is a different matter. Marx was never a head of state. He was a man who saw the way workers were abused in industrialized societies and who got justifiably angry. His response was to invent a revenge fantasy--superficially resembling a philosophy-about the way this treatment would end. His ideas failed to meet the test of reality on a number of key points, as the world has learned through painful experience. His most basic mistake was to underestimate the ability of open societies to reform themselves.

There's a lot of history here (<---understatement) that defies glib chitchat to the effect of 'It all happened because.' But it's a history worth exploring and knowing. For residents of Taiwan, of course, these phenomena are of more than merely academic interest.

Are you really interested in understanding history? Or did those three names pop up just because you wanted to tar science as something evil and rounded up the usual villains to serve as a brush?

____

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : detail.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 53 of 238 (422944)
09-18-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
09-18-2007 2:15 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the creation of a smear
Your quotes do NOT demonstrate changes in the theory to accomodate changes in generally accepted belief. None of them even mention or suggest a change in the theory. All you see are changes in generally accepted belief. Racist views were (wrongly) believed to be fact when these people wrote.

What on earth are you talking about? All of the quotes are taken as excerpts from books or publications. I assume you would agree that Darwin wrote at length about how such things come about. You aren't seriously going to deny that Darwin talked about descent and ascent as it relates to the progress of organisms, are you? That much is transparently obvious.

Indeed the real issue is not the malleability of the theory, but the difficulty of applying it to such problems, without detailed knowledge of the conditions.

You can call a steaming pile of dung pumpkin pie if you want to, and then call everyone else crazy for not understanding that pumpkin pie and dung are the same thing, but you won't make any allies in the process.

However evolution does tend to oppose racist assumptions. For instance, given the fact that human populations do interbreed, any strongly advantageous trait would be expected to spread through the entire human population rather than being confined within a single race. Only locally advantageous traits would be expected to be so confined

Then consider this quote as well:

    "The essential point is that there are 10,000,000 Negroes here now and that the proportion of mulattos to a thousand blacks has increased with alarming rapidity since 1850.

    According to all evidence available, then, American intelligence is declining, and will proceed with an accelerating rate as the racial admixture becomes more and more extensive. The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid than the decline of intelligence of European national groups, owing to the presence here of the Negro. These are the plain, if somewhat ugly, facts that our study shows. The deterioration of the American intelligence is not inevitable, however, if public action can be aroused to prevent it.

    There is no reason why legal steps should not be taken which would insure a continuously progressive upward evolution. The steps that should be taken to preserve or increase our present intellectual capacity must of course be dictated by science and not by political expediency." -National Research Council: A Study of American Intelligence - Princeton University Press; 1923

I guess the argument can go both ways, eh?


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 2:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 9:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-18-2007 10:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2007 2:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2007 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 54 of 238 (422947)
09-18-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 9:12 PM


A classic example of misrepresentation.
You quote from "-National Research Council: A Study of American Intelligence - Princeton University Press; 1923"

That was actually a book written by Carl Brigham, a psychologist at Princeton and one where he also later denounced his views and specifically disowned the book. Quotes such as the one you use are regularly posted out of context and without telling the whole story. A few seconds research would have given you the context, and your source certainly should have know the full context unless, as is the norm with Biblical Creationists sites, they are being willfully ignorant or dishonest.

It is also totally irrelevant. The FACT is that what we have learned from our study of evolution is that all living things are related.

So far you have presented nothing related to that.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 9:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 55 of 238 (422948)
09-18-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 9:12 PM


Nemesis misunderstanding ... and missing the argument?
Then consider this quote as well:

The question is, do you understand the difference between racist people (mis)using evolution (and racist assumptions) to support their racism versus the truth of what evolution says? The evidence is no.

Apparently you think every quote of one racist or another is a statement of the theory of evolution. It isn't.

Darwin's theory was "descent with modification" -- please tell me how that statement is inherently racist. Forget everything else: this is the issue.

Note, I expect you to dodge the rational answer and go for emotional appeals and arguments from incredulity and non sequiturs (again).

For extra credit you can show how changing from "descent with modification" (original) to "change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" (modern) is some kind of twisted major change. Note that "generation to generation" is descent and that "change in hereditary traits in populations" is modification. Thus the only difference I can see is greater definition.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 9:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1008 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 56 of 238 (422956)
09-18-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 9:12 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the creation of a smear
Apologize for going ot, but these kinds of things need to be said. This is by the author of A Study of American Intelligence a mere seven years after writing the chilling words NJ quotes above
Carl Bingham writes:

"Comparative studies of various national and racial groups may not be made with existing tests...one of the most pretentious of these, my own, is without foundation"
- Carl Bingham quoted in Marks, Russel (1972) Testers, Trackers, and Trustees: The Ideology of the Intelligent Testing Movement in America, 1900-1954. University Microfilms.

Also I have a paper from the journal School Review by Frank N. Freeman (1923) that absolutely crushes the Bingham book based on then-understood concepts in evolutionary biology and statistics. Freeman's main critique is that Bingham does not, in 217 pages, even discuss the possibility that differential education could play a part! (Freeman, FN (1923) An Evaluation of American Intelligence Vol 38, No 8. Pg 627-628.)


"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 9:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 57 of 238 (422975)
09-19-2007 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 9:12 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the creation of a smear
Then consider this quote as well:

"The essential point is that there are 10,000,000 Negroes here now and that the proportion of mulattos to a thousand blacks has increased with alarming rapidity since 1850.
According to all evidence available, then, American intelligence is declining, and will proceed with an accelerating rate as the racial admixture becomes more and more extensive. The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid than the decline of intelligence of European national groups, owing to the presence here of the Negro. These are the plain, if somewhat ugly, facts that our study shows. The deterioration of the American intelligence is not inevitable, however, if public action can be aroused to prevent it.

There is no reason why legal steps should not be taken which would insure a continuously progressive upward evolution. The steps that should be taken to preserve or increase our present intellectual capacity must of course be dictated by science and not by political expediency." -National Research Council: A Study of American Intelligence - Princeton University Press; 1923

I guess the argument can go both ways, eh?

Of course, what he's talking about there is micro-evolution, which you guys profess to believe in, right? It's just change in allele frequencies within a "kind", no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 9:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14750
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 58 of 238 (422976)
09-19-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 9:12 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the creation of a smear
quote:

What on earth are you talking about? All of the quotes are taken as excerpts from books or publications. I assume you would agree that Darwin wrote at length about how such things come about. You aren't seriously going to deny that Darwin talked about descent and ascent as it relates to the progress of organisms, are you? That much is transparently obvious.

I'm talking about what the quotes actually say. Not where they come from. Not anything else the people quoted might have said. But apparently you don't wan to talk about that. Quoting Darwin implying that the "savage races" are more ape-like or Huxley asserting that everyone knows that negroes are inferior, doesn't say anything about the theory of evolution because those beliefs don't come from the theory of evolution. That is what people in those days, in their society, believed.

quote:

You can call a steaming pile of dung pumpkin pie if you want to, and then call everyone else crazy for not understanding that pumpkin pie and dung are the same thing, but you won't make any allies in the process.

Of course I didn't call anyone crazy, nor did I try to pass anything off. All I did was point out a fact that you don't like. You may hate me for telling the truth instead of agreeing with you. But I'll just have to live with that. Creationism seems to breed arrogant bullies.

And your last quote says nothing about evolutionary theory. All it really deals with is the racist assumptions of Americans and eugenics (which is based on selective breeding - known long before Darwin. In fact anyone who has any familiarity with the contents of Darwin's knows that Darwin used the results of selective breeding as part of his case for evolution).

I suggest that in future before using a quote, that YOU consider it well. You didn't do that with the quote from Darwin. Or Huxley. Or Dobzhansky. Or Klyce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 9:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 59 of 238 (422977)
09-19-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 1:05 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
And apparently you have now given creationists a get-out-of-jail-free card in the event that some were. All they have to do is invoke the same exonerating message you gave for Darwinists.

YES.

You don't see us trying to smear creationism on the grounds that some, perhaps most, nineteenth century creationists were racist; but if for some reason we ever lose our minds and our morals and descend to the gutter tactics of creationists, then you, too, will be able to play the "get out of jail free card" of pointing out that most people in the nineteenth century were racist, including creationists, evolutionists, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 1:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 09-19-2007 10:33 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 60 of 238 (422979)
09-19-2007 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object
09-18-2007 4:29 PM


Re: Born in racism: Darwinism
Jar's topic here shows the world how deluded or how brazen evolutionists are in denying the racist foundation of evolutionary theory.

Yeah, people can be utterly shameless when they're telling the exact truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2007 4:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019