Saving Us from Darwin [Multiple Book Review]

The New York Review of Books ^ | October 4, 2001 | Frederick C. Crews

[budlt2369]

On the Formation of the Races of Man.- In some cases the crossing of distinct races has led to the formation of a new race. The singular fact that the Europeans and Hindoos, who belong to the same Aryan stock, and speak a language fundamentally the same, differ widely in appearance, whilst Europeans differ but little from Jews, who belong to the Semitic stock, and speak quite another language, has been accounted for by Broca,* through certain Aryan branches having been largely crossed by indigenous tribes during their wide diffusion. When two races in close contact cross, the first result is a heterogeneous mixture: thus Mr. Hunter, in describing the Santali orhill-tribes of India, says that hundreds of imperceptible gradations may be traced "from the black, squat tribes of the mountains to the tall olive-coloured Brahman, with his intellectual brow, calm eyes, and high but narrow head"; so that it is necessary in courts of justice to ask the witnesses whether they are Santalis or Hindoos.*(2) Whether a heterogeneous people, such as the inhabitants of some of the Polynesian islands, formed by the crossing of two distinct races, with few or no pure members left, would ever become homogeneous, is not known from direct evidence. But as with our domesticated animals, a cross-breed can certainly be fixed and made uniform by careful selection*(3) in the course of a few generations, we may infer that the free inter-crossing of a heterogeneous mixture during a long descent would supply the place of selection, and overcome any tendency to reversion; so that the crossed race would ultimately become homogeneous, though it might not partake in an equal degree of the characters of the two parent-races.

Darwin ch 7

No excuse is needed for treating this subject in some detail; for, as the German philosopher Schopenhauer remarks, "the final aim of all love intrigues, be they comic or tragic, is really of more importance than all other ends in human life. What it all turns upon is nothing less than the composition of the next generation.... It is not the weal or woe of any one individual, but that of the human race to come, which is here at stake."*

* "Schopenhauer and Darwinism," in Journal of Anthropology, Jan., 1871, p. 323.

Darwin ch 20

for more on rats and jews go to:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml

[budlt2369]

can u defend darwin's ideas?? does this seem like science?

The culturally superior, but less ruthless races, would in consequence of their limited soil, have to limit their increase at a time when the culturally inferior but more brutal and more natural t peoples, in consequence of their greater living areas, would still be in a position to increase without limit. In other words: some day the world will thus come into possession of the culturally inferior but more active men.

Then, though in a perhaps very distant future, there will be but two possibilities either the world will be governed according to the ideas of our modern democracy, and then the weight of any decision will result in favor of the numerically stronger races, or the world will be dominated in accordance with the laws of the natural order of force, and then it is the peoples of brutal will who will conquer, and consequently once again not the nation of selfrestriction.

No one can doubt that this world will some day be exposed to the severest struggles for the existence of mankind. In the end, only the urge for self-preservation can conquer. Beneath it so called humanity, the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know-it-all conceit, will melt like snow in the March sun. Mankind has grown great in eternal struggle, and only in eternal peace does it perish.

Ch 4

[Junior]

Give it up, donh. Evolution upsets the average creationist's pat little world view. You can lead a creationist to evidence, but you cannot make him think...

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking.

[gore3000]

See my previous answer to Phaedrus.

I read it, and it was only the usual doubletalk about some people say that Behe is wrong, etc., etc. but it did not show any refutation of what he said. In other words, it was just some more inane blather.

AND, there is no such thing as proof in natural sciences,

Of course there is. That is why we have electric light bulbs, automobiles, televisions and space ships. They are living proof of scientific theory. Evolution cannot give proof for one simple reason: evolution is not science.

[dbbeebs]

evolution is not science

This statement isn't true. But you have a problem with science, facts, and truth. Don't you?

It must be terrible to live in the gore3000 world. Where scientific fact must be hidden, and if it comes to light, it must be rejected. Disproving evolution (which you haven't done) doesn't make the creation myth accurate. "Our Invisible Buddy who lives in the Sky" isn't awarding anyone brownie points for his/her posts.

Sad. Almost pathetic.

[donh]

Of course there is. That is why we have electric light bulbs, automobiles, televisions and space ships. They are living proof of scientific theory. Evolution cannot give proof for one simple reason: evolution is not science.

I patiently await your proof of the theory of gravity.

[donh]

I read it, and it was only the usual doubletalk about some people say that Behe is wrong, etc., etc. but it did not show any refutation of what he said. In other words, it was just some more inane blather.

I patiently await your refutation of the three journal articles I cited which are living contradictions of key predictions in Behe's book. Obviously, you haven't, in fact, read what you are defending, have you?

I patiently await your alternative explanation as to how oil companies search for oil.

[gore3000]

The man hung out with atheists and knew darned well that his theory was an attack on religion. Also view the link by an evolutionist who says quite plainly that Darwin formulated the theory of evolution as an atheistic theory. Also view his following of another atheist Malthus, the high praise he gives him and his crediting him for giving him the impetus to formulate the theory of evolution.

As the letter I posted shows quite clearly, Darwin was a liar and a hypocrite about his religious views.

[gore3000]

I patiently await your refutation of the three journal articles

You can wait a long time. If you have proof - you post it here. I will not do your work for you. I post my proof right here where everyone can see it.

The truth of the matter is that you have no proof, you do not even have the names of the articles. You are a total phony who has completely lost the argument and are lying. If there were such articles and they had refutations, you would have given the refutations right here.

Evloutinists like evolution itself always say the proof is somewhere else. Like McCarthy they have the proof right in their hands - but will not tell it to anyone.

[gore3000]

evolution is not science-me-

This statement isn't true.

Of course it is, that is why neither you nor any of your fellow evos is able to refute my statements and indulge yourselves in constant slimes and character assassination of your opponents. If you had a shred of proof none of you would have to lower yourselves to the level of slimy Clintonite to promote your views.

[gore3000]

I patiently await your proof of the theory of gravity.

The proof is real easy, we used the theory of gravity to guide our men to the moon. That is proof, practical real proof, the kind evolution can never give.

[donh]

The truth of the matter is that you have no proof, you do not even have the names of the articles. You are a total phony who has completely lost the argument and are lying. If there were such articles and they had refutations, you would have given the refutations right here.

Anyone can see, in post #100 above, that I, in fact, did give the titles of the articles, which are a direct and palpable refutation of several key predictions Behe made in his book, which, quite obviously, you also did not read. Persistently ignoring or misrepresenting what's said to you only serves you well for a while--eventually everyone catches on.

Now, lets take up your theory of light bulbs. I am aware of your spurious theory of light bulbs, BUT, yesterday, I screwed in a light bulb, and IT DID NOT LIGHT, and furthermore, that's happened to me more than once! So, you see, there are these irrecoverable light gaps in the theory of light bulbs, and no one will ever see the missing light. So much for your vaunted Edison, you fraud.

...

Try to learn the difference between a proof, and an inductive demonstration. A proof requires a formal domain of discourse, a set of theorems, and an hypothesis demonstrated in deductive steps on the theorems to reach the conclusion. An inductive demonstration, or a million inductive demonstrations, help improve your confidence, but they do not constitute a proof.

[donh]

The proof is real easy, we used the theory of gravity to guide our men to the moon.

Which theory of gravity? How is that different from oil companies using evolutionary theory to locate probable oil fields?

[dbbeebs]

Slimer.

Say, where are those quotes from US Supreme Court decisions
in which you CLAIM requires the teaching of evolution?

And while you're at it, where are the citations from biological science
journals stating that "ID" is an actual theory competing with the Theory of Evolution?

I've been patiently waiting for months.
You don't produce on your BS claims because you CAN'T.

[donh]

The proof is real easy, we used the theory of gravity to guide our men to the moon. That is proof, practical real proof, the kind evolution can never give.

The failure of the classic theory of gravity to predict the perihelion of Mercury accurately is a devastating indictment of the theory of gravity. The calculations weren't wrong--they just failed--therefore, the theory of gravity is athiest trash.

[donh]

The man hung out with atheists and knew darned well that his theory was an attack on religion.

He also hung out with the best the Anglican church had to offer. Does that make him a priest? Of course he knew a battle line would form around his theory. That is why he went out of his way to point out that his theory had no enlightenment to offer concerning the ultimate origin of life. The battle lines had already formed up for a century or more around what was then called "spontaneous generation"--and concerned itself only incidently about the question of whether God was responsible or not--and he wanted to distance his theory from that embroglio.

Also view the link by an evolutionist who says quite plainly that Darwin formulated the theory of evolution as an atheistic theory.

Oh piffle, I can say the moon is green cheese, but nobody will take me seriously until they taste a chunk. Somebody else has pushed a bunch of quotes from Darwin up above here, kindly point to one that suggests God couldn't have got the whole shebang rolling, according to Darwinian Evolutionary theory.

Also view his following of another atheist Malthus, the high praise he gives him and his crediting him for giving him the impetus to formulate the theory of evolution.

As the letter I posted shows quite clearly, Darwin was a liar and a hypocrite about his religious views.

WHO BLEEDIN' CARES?--what a bunch of irrelevant whining. The question was, does Darwinian evolutionary theory necessarily eliminate God from the picture, and, regardless of how much you want to badmouth Darwin, the answer is, obviously not--on the official word of Darwin, and, incidently, the Catholic Church, and common sense.

[democratsexy]

I think the only reason us democats are considered atheists is because of our stance on homosexual equality which the Bible doesn't approve of. But about Darwin, I've yet to make a judgement about his theory.

[donh]

You can wait a long time. If you have proof - you post it here. I will not do your work for you. I post my proof right here where everyone can see it.

uh huh. If you posted your proof, than it should only take you a few seconds to point out to me what the domain of discourse is, and where the tabular list of lemmas that lead to the conclusion are.

You are a total phony who has completely lost the argument and are lying. If there were such articles and they had refutations, you would have given the refutations right here.

I already told you I wouldn't be posting the articles from scientific journals for your amusement. That you don't understand the nature of proof, and disdane the practices of modern scholarly & technical debate is no reflection on me. When you learn to belly up to the intellectual bar like a man instead of acting like a bullying three-year old going "oh, yea!" over and over, you might discover that people persistently treat what you have to say with a bit of respectful attention. It might be a refreshing experience.