What mean photo ID to vote?
Posted on 05/12/2008 9:05:36 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
On the German side of the Darwinism-Eugenics story, you may be interested in Eugen Fisher's essay on the evolution of the Jews (1938). Hitler read Eugen Fischer's Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene.
"There is a good deal of evidence that the feeble-minded are increasing in numbers in this country. They are careless of the consequences of their actions, and they reproduce rapidly. They appear to be a real danger to the State." - John R. Baker
Another installment in your ongoing effort to smear the theory of evolution and those who study it?
What mean photo ID to vote?
That looks like Sam Elliot as “Tell Sackett” from the late ‘70s.
Don’t bother trying to use logic and facts - it just confuses them and makes them madder.
Eh, why not. It cuts the other way as well, with evolution believers trying to smear those who disagree with the theory. (Please don't be so disingenous as to try to deny it. The only way you could do so honestly is to have been in isolation for the past 50 years.)
If you have problems with the theory of evolution, be prepared to present evidence.
(See tagline.)
Darwinism is only a half truth. While species do in fact evolve to their surroundings every day more evidence comes out that kills the Darwin evolution chain of thought.
Here’s a fact I find interesting (even if useless): Darwin and Lincoln were both born on 2/12/1809.
“The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves”
“We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them.”
“The blind Jews are truly stupid fools”
“Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people.”
“eject them forever from this country”
“they are nothing but thieves and robbers”
“What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?”
“Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews”
“They are the real liars and bloodhounds”
“We are at fault for not slaying them.”
“I shall give you my sincere advice: first to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.”
“Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them”
“If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs”
“If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words `I baptize thee in the name of Abraham’.”
A fascinating anti-Semitic diatribe composed by the famous founder of Protestant Christianity, Martin Luther.
“That looks like Sam Elliot as “Tell Sackett” from the late ‘70s.”
Hell. That looks like ME from the late 70’s. ;O)
You might want to actually read my post. I didn't say anything about the theory itself, but about the behavior of human beings in the debate about evolution.
That’s a pretty good paper. It lays out the trail of discoveries of early man and his progenitors very well and puts it in a way even a man of average education can readily understand. Modern science writers would do well to make their work so accessible.
"Four years later some workmen were digging gravel at Piltdown in Sussex, when a fossil human skull was discovered. This was a priceless specimen. One feels that one would have sacrificed a hand or an eye to preserve this treasure so that it could be examined by an expert... That is why the recent discoveries near Peking are so tremendously important, for now an essentially ape-like lower jaw has been found in the same lump of rock as part of an essentially human brain-case, and the Piltdown skull and lower jaw are thus confirmed as belonging to one individual."
Yeah, I read the whole paper. It was good.
The moral of Piltdown is that science is a fallible, human activity which does not always take the most direct route in fulfilling its aim of understanding nature. When an anomaly such as the discovery of a human cranium with an ape's jaw occurs one must either fit it into a new theory, re-examine the evidence for error in discovery or interpretation, or show that the so-called anomaly is not really an anomaly at all but in fact fits with current theory. Which route a scientist takes may be guided more by personal hopes and cultural prejudices than by some mythical objectivity characterized by the collection and accumulation of colorless, impersonal facts to be pigeonholed dogmatically into a General Theory of Objective Truth and Knowledge.But to characterize scientists as arrogant buffoons making claims that often turn out to be false, and to make a caricature out of science because it is not infallible and does not arrive at absolutely certain claims, belies a grave misunderstanding of the nature of science. The buffoons are those who demand absolute certainty where none can be had; the buffoons are those who do not understand the value and beauty of probabilities in science. The arrogant ones are those who think that science is mere speculation because scientists make errors, even egregious errors, or at times even commit fraud to push their prejudices. The arrogant ones are those who can't tell the difference between a testable and an untestable hypothesis and who think one speculation is as good as another. The buffoons are those who think that since both scientists and creationists or other pseudoscientists pose theories, each is doing essentially the same thing. However, all theories are not empirical, and of those that are empirical not all are equally speculative. Furthermore, those creationists who think that Piltdown demonstrates that scientists can't accurately date bones should remember that methods of dating such things have greatly improved since 1910.
Because of the public nature of science and the universal application of its methods, and because of the fact that the majority of scientists are not crusaders for their own untested or untestable prejudices, as many pseudoscientists are, whatever errors are made by scientists are likely to be discovered by other scientists. The discovery will be enough to get science back on track. The same can't be said for the history of quacks and pseudoscientists where errors do not get detected because their claims are not tested properly. And when critics identify errors, they are ignored by true believers.
Did you like Eugen Fischer's paper too?
"That we should discover such a race as Piltdown, sooner or later, has been an article of faith in the anthropologist's creed ever since Darwin's time."- Sir Arthur Keith, Antiquity of Man, 1924.
Who is Eugen Fischer and where is his paper? I only saw the one posted here. ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.