Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[ALS]

Indeed, the REAL Patrick Henry would be insulted.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations." - Patrick Henry

[ALS]

Darwin to Wallace (quoted on p. 343 of Himmelfarb's biography):

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. (july 3, 1881).
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~ideas/archives/disthread/darwin.html

[CobaltBlue]

You left out "spew." Sorry, but you have to work "spew" into your rants somewhere. It's the rules.

Extra bonus points for "antics."

[Doctor Stochastic]

Sort of a take off of Guy de Maupassant's "The Monkey's Claw" it seems. Wasn't this remade as "Mephisto Waltz" starring Alan Alda?

[ALS]

Darwin too
by Leslie Carr
02 June 2003 16:22 UTC

M. Weigand learned, as I did, that Social Darwnists corrupted Darwin's theory when they applied it to humans. I found out that that was not exactly true. Darwin wasn't a racist the way Weber was not a racist. The following is from my book "Color Blind" Racism (Sage, 1997)


Charles Darwin gave unprecedented credibility to the racist thesis. Darwin published the Origins of the Species in 1859. The prestige which his scientific accomplishments brought him, imparted enormous influence to the racist views that he held about the human race. Darwin repeated many of the popular racist views of his day, particularly in The Descent of Man published in 1871. He accepted the work of those who had found meaningful differences between "the skulls of savage and civilized races"(Banton and Harwood, 1975:36). He tacitly justified the English oppression of the Irish when he agreed that the Saxons were innately superior to the Celts. He saw natural selection at work in the genocide carried out by the British against the native people of Tasmania (Banton and Harwood 1975). He saw that Hottentots were intermediate between apes and humans and, in the Descent of Man, the Negro or Australian was seen as being intermediate between the Caucasian and the gorilla (Gould, 1981). He also wrote:

We civilized men...do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment... Thus the weak member of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. (Haller, 1963:4).
Here Darwin thought, in Lamarckinan fashion, that acquired traits like poverty, injury, and illness could be passed on. More importantly, when he implied that interference with the process of "elimination" weakened the human race, he was paving the way for the eugenics movement which would later promote the segregation and serialization of the "unfit".

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/2003/msg01877.html

[Stultis]

Yep, Darwin was sexist, but no more so (and probably less so) than the average Victorian male.

Do you actually endorse this sort of ahistorical "gotcha" relativism, or do you only practice it with hypocritical selectivity? Are you going to join in with the bilious leftists next time they denounce America's founding fathers as racists, sexists, etc?

[ALS]

Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all. MEIN KAMPF - (CHAPTER 11)

[gore3000]

Alas some meat to discuss!:

1311 -You've read the articles about the pet fish that they are selling in Asian pet stores that glow in the dark?

Does not seem to me that such fish would live too long in the wild eh?

Never Say Never. Just not with you, anymore.

Don't blame you, constantly losing in discussions is very disheartening for you I am sure.

[ALS]

Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all. MEIN KAMPF - (CHAPTER 11)

coincidence?

[ALS]

o i c
"everybody does it"

ahh

[Aric2000]

It would be only fair, if he doesn't, he could rather easily be called a hypocrite, but that is NOT surprising to me either.

For he does claim that he is a Christian, I have yet to see it though. So, if the shoe fits.....

[ALS]

defending darwood the racist sexist, eh?

[bondserv]

Many Theologians believe that Heli was the father of Mary.

There has been speculation as to Heli being the Half brother of Jacob (Josephs real father) and that he married the widowed mother of Mary.

The passage could be more accurately read "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph) which was the son of Heli." By removing the parenthetical thought it would be "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, which was the son of Heli." The first male in Jesus' lineage on Mary's side would be Heli.

[Stultis]

First of all, Leslie Carr is simply wrong. Second of all, on checking out your source, the Progressive Sociology Network, it's not at all suprising why. Oh, Good Lord, do actually read any of the other messages here? These people are literally (well, figuratively, well maybe literally) peeing all over themselves about the horrors of institutional WHITE racism, the fear that we might offend a muslim by looking in his carryon bag, etc.

I realize that I am engaging in circumstantial ad hominem, but, really, these folks are SOOOO over the top!

[ALS]

There is an overlooked source of darkness at the trial that is well worth bringing into the light, the very high-school biology textbook at issue in the trial, George William Hunter's A Civic Biology. Few have even heard of it. Even fewer have read it. I happen to run across a copy, of all places, at a local thrift store.

Simply put, the textbook which John Scopes was using was offensively racist and blatantly eugenic, and the racism and eugenics were both part and parcel of Hunter's presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Hunter ranked the races according to how high each had reached on the evolutionary scale. There are "five races or varieties of man…the Ethiopian or Negro type…the Malay or brown race…the American Indian…the Mongolian or yellow race…and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." [emphasis added] By implication, we can surmise who, for Hunter, was on the bottom.

Well, now. I don't remember that in the movie. Nor have we been made aware of Hunter's eugenic ruminations. "If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection."

For Hunter, not only genetic predispositions for diseases such as tuberculosis and epilepsy are handed on by careless human breeding, but also "feeble-mindedness" and "immorality." Since it would be "not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity," weeding out the unfit is part of good human husbandry. "The science of being well born is called eugenics."

For support, Hunter trotted out the notoriously bad breeders, the Jukes family, the matriarch of whom had "a feeble-minded son from whom there have been to the present time 480 descendants," of which "33 were sexually immoral, 24 confirmed drunkards, 3 epileptics, and 143 feeble-minded."

The eugenic moral was clear. "Hundreds of families such as those [Jukes] described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. The take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites."

Hunter then declared that "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race."

All this from the most famous, but unread book, the book John Scopes used to teach biology, Hunter's A Civic Biology. This is what Scopes was teaching his students down at Dayton. So much for the forces of reason and light.

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/television/television-wiker021602.shtml

[Aric2000]

You have to wonder if he is for Reparations as well.

Since we are supposed to feel guilty that Darwin was only human and not morally above his fellow man of the time, most of whom thought that the other races were lesser and that women were for the pleasure and fortitude of men.

So, if we are supposed to feel guilty about an attitude that was prevalent of Darwins time, then he therefore must feel guilty about slavery as well.

Slavery was kosher back in those times as well, so if we are supposed to feel guilty about Darwin, then he should feel guilty about slavery and open his pocketbook to every descendant of slaves in the US, if of course he wishes to be consistent and not a hypocrite.

Yeah, right..... Like he is actually going to be consistent, and NOT a hypocrite, but I am beginning to think that "hypocrite" is a moniker that he wears PROUDLY.

[gore3000]

I missed the 4th of July with this one, however being that the real Patrick Henry is being discussed here is the speech we have all heard about, but few have read in its entirety:

PATRICK HENRY:
"Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death"

From Proceedings of the March 23, 1775, Virginia Convention.

---

Mr. President: no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country.
For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery;
and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.
It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country.
Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly things.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope.
We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts.
Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?
Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience.
I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.
And judging by the past I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.
Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.

Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comprts with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.
Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation?

Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love?

Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission?
Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it?
Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other.
They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.
And what have we to oppose them?

Shall we try argument?

Sir, we have been trying that for the past ten years.
Have we anything new to offer on the subject?
Nothing.
We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable;
but it has all been in vain.
Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication?
What terms shall we find which have not already been exhausted?

Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on.
We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated;
we have prostrated ourselves before the throne,
and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted;
our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult;
our supplications have been disregarded;
and we have been spurned with contempt from the foot of the throne.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free --
if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending --
if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged,
and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight!

I repeat it, sir, we must fight!
An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary.

But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or next year?
Will it be when we are totally disarmed and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?

Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction?. . .

Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.
Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty and in such a country as that which we possess are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave . . .

Besides, sir, we have no election.
If we were base enought to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!
Our chains are forged!
Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!
The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.
Gentlemen may cry peace, peace -- but there is no peace!
The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!

Our brethren are already in the field!

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take; but as for me,
give me liberty or give me death!!!

__________________________________

[ALS]

I take it you believe the National Review is "soooooooooo over the top" too?

[gore3000]

You left out "spew." Sorry, but you have to work "spew" into your rants somewhere. It's the rules.
Extra bonus points for "antics."

No need to, the facts in post# 2527 speak much louder than rhetoric.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

If God inspires you to interpret the Bible one way, and He inspires someone else to interpret it differently, are you both right?

Yes indeed, by definition, if we are both interpreting under His inspiration.

As an example, there was a disagreement among the apostles on the interpretation of Scripture, whether to hold the Gentiles to the requirements of Jewish law. Both were within God's will for different "missions" – one to the Jew and the other to the Gentile. An agreement was reached not to burden the Gentiles with Jewish law with a few exceptions (all noted in Acts 15.)

Protestants have rarely felt the need to council together to resolve such disagreements. Notably, the meeting to formulate fundamentalism was one such instance and the first determination was the inerrancy of the Bible.

But for the most part, the differences among the denominations are not taken as “poison pills.” Many of them are interpretations of prophesy and metaphors – although some are more pressing, like faith v works.

Getting back to the subject at hand, I do not dispute the inspiration of the interpretation of Young Earth Creationists that the universe is some 6,000 years old.

My interpretation, which is also inspired (though only personally) is that the universe is approximately 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates, and 6-7 days from the space/time coordinates of its inception. My view is consistent with relativity, the inflationary model, the big bang – and most importantly, the Word. God was the creator, observer and author of the Genesis revelation and therefore I use the space/time coordinates at inception and it works out very nicely indeed!

Evidently, my mission for having this view is different from the Young Earth Creationists. IOW, we must have a different target, as they did in Acts 15.

Some Lurkers may wonder, since there is only one Truth, why God would want and/or permit different interpretations. The answer may be in this passage:

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

Howbeit [there is] not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat [it] as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. – I Corinthians 8:6-13

You continued… I have to say, interpreting a foreign language using a dictionary is almost universally acknowledged to be fraught with peril. The rule of thumb in translations is to translate from your strong language to your weak one. In other words, the appropriate person to translate Greek into English would be someone whose native tongue is Greek.

Indeed. Some of the translations are word-for-word and others are oriented to context and meaning. I strongly recommend parallel Bibles to get a feel for the different translations before plunging into the lexicons.