>>Danny Denier: "That is a mighty bold claim for someone who comes across as a scientific illiterate, Joey. Have you ever taken a science course above introductory or survey courses? Just curious."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Yes, enough to know the difference between real science and denier theology masquerading as science.
You don't appear to have much of a scientific aptitude, Joey.
*****************
>>Danny Denier on St. Augustine: "Show us what you are talking about, Joey."
>>Delusional Joey said: "I already did, post #284.
I recall that you were attempting to interpret the words of a young earth creationist (Augustine) as if he was an old-earth deist. Is that what you are referring to?
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "So? How does that contradict this statement where Augustine is crystal clear that not 6,000 years had passed?"
>>[Kalamata quoting Augustine] "They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed." [Philip Schaff, Augustine, City of God, 'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02.' Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886, Book XII.10, p.232]
>>Delusional Joey said: "I agree that's exactly what Augustine believed."
That quote by Augustine reveals you have been misconstruing his words to make them appear to endorse your worldview. Augustine says those who believe history is more than 6,000 years old are deceived.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "So, which is it? Is a thousand years a day, or a day a thousand years? Will the thousand-year reign of Christ last a day? Was Christ in the ground 3,000 years? It is a metaphor Joey, to let us know that God exists outside of time."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Right, Danny boy, your last sentence is the answer to the first four."
That statement is about God's time, Joey, not man's. But when God created the heaven, the earth, and all its host, he used man's time. Augustine understood that God could have created everything in an instant, if he chose to do so; but he took 6 days to set a standard for man's work-week.
"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." -- Exo 20:9-11 KJV
Augustine's words also contain this warning to those who are dismissive of the Word:
"[L]et those people now restrain themselves, who are so puffed up with their knowledge of secular literature, that they scornfully dismiss as something crude and unrefined these texts which are all expressed in a way designed to nourish devout hearts." [Saint Augustine, "On Genesis: The Literal Meaning of Genesis." New City Press, Book I.20.40, p.187]
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "I will agree that evolutionism is not science, nor will it ever be science, but religious dogma."
>>Delusional Joey said: "More of Danny boy's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5 & #6.
No, Child. It is called faithfulness to the Word of God.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Those are some pretty powerful endorsements of Isaac Newton, Joey; and you rarely even mention him, if at all. Do you have something against creationists?"
>>Delusional Joey said: "So far as I know Newton had nothing to say about evolution. He did however make a comment that I think highly appropriate: [Joey quoted this by Newton:]
"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." [Life of Sir Isaac Newton, by N. W. Chittenden, in Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, p.58]
I believe Newton is saying that scientists should be leery of claiming any principle or theory to be a fact.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "BTW, I seriously doubt if Augustine was mentioned very much, if at all, in the debates leading up to the Constitution."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Many of our Founders studied the ancient philosophers, historians & theologians, to learn from history which systems of government worked best and lasted longest. St. Augustine of Hippo did not philosophize on republican forms of government, but he did have something to say on two subjects of great interest to our Founders: Christian service in a just war -- he favored it. Slavery -- he opposed it, especially child slavery.
My statement about Augustine and his noticeable absence from the constitutional narrative was in response to this statement you made in #341:
[Joey] "I am "selling" the traditional idea that, what our Founders called "natural philosophy" or "natural science" has its roots in ancient philosophy (i.e., Aristotle) and theology (i.e., St. Augustine of Hippo) and is the beginnings of modern science."
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "I know that Charlie's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a leading figure in the European "enlightenment", so-called. And I know that both promoted the apes-to-man myth; Charlie much more so."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Erasmus Darwin was a figure in what's called the British Midlands Enlightenment centered around Birmingham and focused on science & industry. . . .
More Wikipedia, Joey? Anyone can search Wikipedia, should they desire to do so.
*****************
>>Danny Denier on Shermer: "No, he is your hero. He is my enemy, and an enemy of Christianity and our republic. I do have to admit, Joey, that was a very slick misdirection by you."
>>Delusional Joey said: "No misdirection, exactly on point because... as with Graur, Danny boy, you trash him up one side and down the other until, until... until you need him to make your point and then suddenly his words are golden, not to be disputed.
You are lying again about Graur, Joey; either that, or you are too ignorant to understand what was actually said. I agreed with Graur's words when taken out of context, but not in context. In other words, I didn't agree with Graur.
Forget it. That is probably over your head, as well.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "The fact is that neither Shermer nor any other credible historian claims Hitler learned anti-Semitism from Darwin or needed evolution theory to justify his Holocaust ideas."
Shermer is not a credible historian, Joey. History Professor Richard Weikart is:
"At first glance, it might seem that Hitler's pantheistic worship of nature is incidental, a bit of trivia that does little or nothing to help us understand the man and the atrocities that he committed. But to suppose this would be a mistake. Hitler's devotion to nature as a divine being had a grim corollary: the laws of nature became his infallible guide to morality. Whatever conformed to the laws of nature was morally good, and whatever contravened nature and its ways was evil. When Hitler explained how he hoped to harmonize human society with the scientific laws of nature, he emphasized principles derived from Darwinian theory, especially the racist forms of Darwinism prominent among Darwin's German disciples. These laws included human biological inequality (especially racial inequality), the human struggle for existence, and natural selection. In the Darwinian struggle for existence, multitudes perish, and only a few of the fittest individuals survive and reproduce. If this is nature's way, Hitler thought, then he should emulate nature by destroying those destined for death. Thus, in his twisted vision of religion, Hitler believed he was serving his God by annihilating the allegedly inferior humans and promoting the welfare and prolific reproduction of the supposedly superior Aryans." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Introduction, p.iv]
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Why did you stop there, Joey? The very next sentence, citing Bowler, 2003, states: "His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it... "You tried to pull another fast one, Joey. That is a no, no."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Danny boy, when are you going to stop lying?
When are you going to learn how to keep things in context, Child?
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "Your own quote, in many more words, made the same point I did: [Joey quoting a small part of my quote] "For Darwin, at least, 'fitness' in the human context did not include the kind of immorality which would justify any action by the motto 'Might is right.' The fit were the able and energetic, not those who cheated or forced their way to success."
Yes, in the last sentence, Joey, but not in the words in between. The entire paragraph insinuates that Darwin spoke out of both sides of his mouth; but when called on it, cried, "My intent was to speak only out of this side of my mouth, and not the other." Did I mention Charlie was also a slick politician?
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "So there is no possible way Darwin would support the Holocaust, and your suggestions here are flat out lies, Danny.
Where did I say he did? Be specific.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Perhaps so [that is, perhaps Charile himself would not have supported the Holocaust,] but that doesn't justify your underhanded attempt to downplay your own reference."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Nothing justifies your repeated lies here blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, Danny boy.
I merely quoted historians, Hitler, Dalton, Charlie, and perhaps a few others. What have I written that makes you think I believe Charlie was responsible for the holocaust, the World Wars, Eugenics, the corruption of societal mores, and the explosion of racism after his 1859 release of "Origin"? Just curious.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "The following quote from Mein Kampf sounds like something Charlie's eugenicist cousin, Francis Galton, might write: "The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker..."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Such ideas did not originate with Darwin."
>>Kalamata: "That sounds like Darwin 101, to me."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Nonsense.
I posted this statement in #280. Reposting:
We cannot ignore the contribution of Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and his promotion of the un-natural selection of man, called eugenics:
"I conclude that each generation has enormous power over the natural gifts of those that follow, and maintain that it is a duty we owe to humanity to investigate the range of that power, and to exercise it in a way that, without being unwise towards ourselves, shall be most advantageous to future inhabitants of the earth." [Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences." MacMillan & Co., 1869, Intro., p.2]
Darwin himself was caught up in the "euphoria" of un-natural selection, as expressed in this letter to Galton about Galton's book:
"I have only read about fifty pages of your book (to the Judges), but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original. And how well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself just in the same terms, tells me the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these later chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference." [Letter to Francis Galton, Dec 23, 1870, in Darwin, Charles, "More Letters of Charles Darwin, a Record of His Works in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Vol II." John Murray, 1903, p.41]
[1. Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences, by Francis Galton, London, 1869. "The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865" is the heading of a section of this work (p. 55). See Descent of Man (1901), p. 41.]
Charlie was referring to Galton's notion (see below) that man's gifts were all hereditary, including his work ethic:
"the combination of high intellectual gifts, tact in dealing with men, power of expression in debate, and ability to endure exceedingly hard work, is hereditary." [Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences." MacMillan & Co., 1869, p.110]
It is not difficult to see how, with only minor extrapolation, the Nazi's were able to take un-natural selection to another "level", breeding only the "fittest" of men to become members of a master race (Aryans, or course), and eliminating all but the slave nations they were to rule over. And don't forget the other 20th century butchers: Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Stephen Jay Gould claimed that racism "increased by orders of magnitude" after evolution was accepted:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Your own quote says biological arguments for racism existed before Darwin, Darwin did not invent them.
I never said he did.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "And Gould did not say racism increased, only that biological arguments for it increased.
Quibble much, Joey? This is Gould's statement, in context. On page 126 he writes:
"For anyone who wishes to affirm the innate inequality of races, few biological arguments can have more appeal than recapitulation, with its insistence that children of higher races (invariably one's own) are passing through and beyond the permanent conditions of adults in lower races. If adults of lower races are like white children, then they may be treated as such—subdued, disciplined, and managed (or, in the paternalistic tradition, educated but equally subdued). The 'primitive-as-child' argument stood second to none in the arsenal of racist arguments supplied by science to justify slavery and imperialism. (I do not think that most scientists who upheld the primitive-as-child argument consciously intended to promote racism. They merely expressed their allegiance to the prevailing views of white intellectuals and leaders of European society. Still, the arguments were used by politicians and I can find no evidence that any recapitulationist ever objected.)"
"Biological arguments based on innate inferiority spread rapidly after evolutionary theory permitted a literal equation of modern 'lower ' races with ancestral stages of higher forms. But similar arguments were far from unknown before 1859. Several of the leading pre-evolutionary recapitulationists ranked human races by the primitive-as-child argument. Schiller, a godfather of Naturphilosophie, wrote: 'The discoveries which our European sailors have made in foreign seas... show us that different people are distributed around us... just as children of different ages may surround a grown-up man"."
Now, to the next page:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths. But the data were worthless. We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups—a meaningless notion anyway since environments cannot be standardized."
[Stephen Jay Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny." Belknap Press, 1977, pp.126, 127]
Gould's emphasis on recapitulation could not be more damaging to the notion that Darwin was an innocent bystander.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: "The levels of racism in the USA, for example, were not a function of Darwin's words, but were related to words in the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments and to Democrat terrorists like the KKK."
This is Gould applying blame where blame is due:
"Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot be diminished, either morally or scientifically, because later racists and warmongers perverted the concept of a "struggle for existence" into a rationale for genocide. However, we must admit a crucial difference between the origin and later use of a biological feature, and the origin and later use of an idea. The first, or anatomical, case involves no conscious action and cannot be submitted to any moral judgment. But ideas originate by explicit intent for overt purposes, and we have some ethical responsibility for the consequences of our deeds. An inventor may be fully exonerated for true perversions of his purposes (Hitler's use of Darwin), but unfair extensions consistent with the logic of original motivations do entail some moral demerit (academic racists of the nineteenth century did not envision or intend the Holocaust, but some of their ideas did fuel the "final solution")." [Stephen Jay Gould, "I Have Landed.", p.336]
Mr. Kalamata
Danny Denier post #438:
"You don't appear to have much of a scientific aptitude, Joey." Says our anti-science theologian.
Danny Denier: "I recall that you were attempting to interpret the words of a young earth creationist (Augustine) as if he was an old-earth deist.
Is that what you are referring to?"
In post #228, I quoted St. Augustine's warning against people like you Danny boy:
"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
Danny Denier:
"That quote by Augustine reveals you have been misconstruing his words to make them appear to endorse your worldview.
Augustine says those who believe history is more than 6,000 years old are deceived." I agree that Augustine took scripture to mean the Earth was "not 6,000 years" old.
But even in his own time Augustine noticed that men would sometimes quote scripture foolishly, bringing discredit on both themselves and the Bible.
How did Augustine define such "reckless and incompetent expounders"?
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience."
Augustine is telling Christians not to talk nonsense on such subjects, even if you can find Biblical texts which seemingly support your opinions.
Danny Denier: "That statement is about God's time, Joey, not man's.
But when God created the heaven, the earth, and all its host, he used man's time. "
So you claim.
The Bible itself makes no such clear distinctions and instead allows us to believe that a "day" to God can be as long or short as He wants it to be.
Danny Denier: "Augustine's words also contain this warning to those who are dismissive of the Word:"
""[L]et those people now restrain themselves, who are so puffed up with their knowledge of secular literature, that they scornfully dismiss as something crude and unrefined these texts which are all expressed in a way designed to nourish devout hearts."
[Saint Augustine, "On Genesis: The Literal Meaning "
Nobody here deems the Bible
"crude and unrefined", far from it.
The question on the table here is whether the Bible is necessarily at war against natural-science?
You say it is, I say it's not and I say Augustine would agree with me, oh Danny boy.
Danny Denier: "No, Child.
It is called faithfulness to the Word of God."
Right, I "get" that -- you fantasize the Bible at war against natural-science so you take the Bible's "side".
I disagree the two are necessarily in conflict and would allow science methodologically whatever physical space it needs.
Philosophically & theologically I remain committed to traditional, classical ideas of God as Creator of everything natural and spiritual.
Danny Denier: "I believe Newton is saying that scientists should be leery of claiming any principle or theory to be a fact."
Well... that's actually not what he said or meant in this particular quote, though I'm pretty sure if/when you ask him, he'll agree with you on it, since such ideas come from traditional scientific understandings.
But that particular Newton quote -- "a boy playing on the sea-shore" -- referred instead to the fact that science as a metaphor for reality is vastly tinier than the great unknown reality before us.
Danny Denier: "My statement about Augustine and his noticeable absence from the constitutional narrative was in response to this statement you made in #341:..."
But you are mixing apples & oranges.
Augustine was a theologian, not a philosopher of (small-r) republican government.
As such I was referring to books like this one which trace the course of Western Civilization from ancient Greek philosophers though early Church theologians like Augustine and to Aquinas in the High Middle Ages.
Indeed, at grave risk of oversimplifying, let me dramatize my point by saying traditional Western Civilization can be thought of as the offspring of Jewish theology, Greek philosophy and Roman government ideals, launched to world domination by Western European science & industry.
So, Kalamata, I see you here as working to split those apart, making one the enemy of the others, and I'm hoping to stop you, FRiend.
Danny Denier: "More Wikipedia, Joey?
Anyone can search Wikipedia, should they desire to do so."
Well... I gathered you think poor Erasmus Darwin was some kind of demon from... heck, so I put him in his proper context -- British Midlands Enlightenment.
Danny Denier: "You are lying again about Graur, Joey; either that, or you are too ignorant to understand what was actually said.
I agreed with Graur's words when taken out of context, but not in context.
In other words, I didn't agree with Graur.
Forget it.
That is probably over your head, as well."
No, no, I did finally figure out what's going on inside your devious little mind regarding young Graur -- you heartily agree with what he said while you strongly disagree with what he meant by it!
Sorry, I'm a little slow on some things, took me awhile to "get" all that.... ;-)
Danny Denier: "Shermer is not a credible historian, Joey.
History Professor Richard Weikart is:"
Your point here is the same one you made in posts #505 & #506 among others, quoting Bergmann: "Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain and others...".
"As modified by..." is a ludicrous standard, you might as well say, "Christ's teachings as modified by the devil are to blame for X, Y and Z..."!
Utter nonsense.
Danny Denier: "When are you going to learn how to keep things in context, Child?"
Nonsense, just more Danny Denier Rule #12.
Danny Denier: "Yes, in the last sentence, Joey, but not in the words in between.
The entire paragraph insinuates that Darwin spoke out of both sides of his mouth; but when called on it, cried, "My intent was to speak only out of this side of my mouth, and not the other."
Did I mention Charlie was also a slick politician?"
But it's total, pure malicious fantasy on your part, Danny baby, to claim that Darwin would somehow support the Holocaust.
Really, that's just hate speech.
Danny Denier on Darwin & Holocaust: "Where did I say he did?
Be specific."
Oh, so now you want to back away from it?
Having spent post after post equating Darwin to Hitler and Holocaust, now you wish to deny it?
Now you're going to run for the hills, whining, denying & lying about it?
I'm calling you for Denier Rule #11, ten yard penalty.
Danny Denier: "I merely quoted historians, Hitler, Dalton, Charlie, and perhaps a few others.
What have I written that makes you think I believe Charlie was responsible for the holocaust, the World Wars, Eugenics, the corruption of societal mores, and the explosion of racism after his 1859 release of "Origin"?
Just curious."
Oh Danny boy, by Free Republic traditions, when you are trying, trying, trying to make a funny like that, you are supposed to end it with a tag like this: </sarcasm>
Danny Denier: "It is not difficult to see how, with only minor extrapolation, the Nazi's were able to take un-natural selection to another "level", breeding only the "fittest" of men to become members of a master race (Aryans, or course), and eliminating all but the slave nations they were to rule over."
Since you see fit to repost your own comments originally from #280, I'll repost my original response from #299: 
post #299: "Your point here is not entirely untrue, but there is more to this story.
I'll repeat, Nazis didn't need Darwin to justify their ideas of racial superiority because they had a much better example they could easily see and carefully study -- of just how "herrenvolk" should treat their despised "untermenschen".
It was the United States 1920s era South, of course."
The fact is, Hitler was strictly a political opportunist, taking ideas from wherever he could find them.
When, for example, he planned his 1935 Nuremburg Laws against Jews, he had Nazi officials study the American examples:
"Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States.
Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis?
The unsettling answer is yes.
In Hitler’s American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime.
Both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws―the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law.
Contrary to those who have insisted otherwise, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies.
He looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened but too harsh.
Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler’s American Model upends the understanding of America’s influence on racist practices in the wider world."
Sure, I "get" that you most desperately wish to blame the
Brit Darwin for pretty-darn-near everything, but in this particular case, the source of Hitler's discrimination laws was much closer to Americans' own home.
Enough post #438 for now, will finish it up later. ![]()