Replies

At some level I don't like idiots in ivory towers telling me what I have to believe and teach my children. I read through 3/4 of "Origin of Species" when I was 14. OK, I get it. I can explain how the theory works. That's all I need to do. (Finches, are, to me, a really boring subject, by the way.)

If Darwin's theory is so defensible why worry about competing theory? How has Darwinism been used by social scientists? History would seem to teach that what has been will be again. A truely consistent materialistic viewpoint could actually support the rise of another Hitler. His "Konzentraionsanlager" were of course run by Doctors and engineers. He mobilized bhe German scientific apparatus in support of his racial theories. They, of course, appreciated his support and returned it.

Maybe we should have a little more free thinking in education land and challenge the forces of convention. If nothing else we should do this because it's fun to irritate the conformists in the NEA and the parrots of the MSM.

If Darwin's theory is so defensible why worry about competing theory?

No one is worried about a competing theory. The problem is that a number of dishonest cranks are trying to push something that is not a scientific theory as if it were.

How has Darwinism been used by social scientists? History would seem to teach that what has been will be again. A truely consistent materialistic viewpoint could actually support the rise of another Hitler.

Evolution is a biological science. It doesn't apply to sociology. Whining about the social implications of a biological theory only demonstrates that you don't actually have a real objection to the theory on its merits, so you want to attack it on ground that it doesn't cover. It's like attacking Calculus because it can't tell you when the Mongols ruled China.

I read through 3/4 of "Origin of Species" when I was 14. OK, I get it. I can explain how the theory works. That's all I need to do. (Finches, are, to me, a really boring subject, by the way.)

Actually, the word "finch" appears only 3 times in "Origin of Species". That's hardly enough to get "bored" by the topic while reading Darwin's book.

The Galapagos finches were one of the clues which led Darwin to develop his theory, yes, but he subsequently actually used them very little as an example (instead, he mostly referred to examples with which his audience would already be personally familiar). Someone who hadn't read his book might *presume* that he would have written a lot about finches, however.

It thus appears to me that you are lying about actually having read the book. Please explain.

All mentions of finches in "Origin of Species":

"The short-faced tumbler has a beak in outline almost like that of a finch..."
"...when I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, knowing well how true they bred, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing that they could ever have descended from a common parent, as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to the many species of finches, or other large groups of birds, in nature."
"...for instance, the canary-bird has been crossed with nine other finches, ..."

"Maybe we should have a little more free thinking in education land and challenge the forces of convention. If nothing else we should do this because it's fun to irritate the conformists in the NEA and the parrots of the MSM."

Freedom is the issue. Interesting how the "gods" of Darwin practice both Freudian and Marxist designs in maintaining status, and has nothing to do with the promotion of freedom but slavery to their ideology.