Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem

beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer

[GodGunsGuts]

The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust deniers?...

[dennisw]

How exactly is that not true, when GGG can libel Dawkins over a blatantly false claim of antisemitism?

Not saying it has to be anti Semitic but Dawkins has publicly sided with Palestinians and against Israel
The best part is Dawkins books will be burned and banned when the Muslims take over England due to high birthrates and immigration
And believers always have higher birthrates than atheists
Even believers in false prophets like Muhammad

Year 2002 Dawkins and Israel--->>
Prof Baker is one of the signatories of a British-led petition of more than 700 academics from several countries launched by Steven Rose, an Open University professor. Signatories including Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities".

[YHAOS]

”. . . I have never denied the Christianity of Catholics.”

And other denominations in possession of varying doctrines, I presume? So, you do acknowledge the “Biblical Truth” that the final judge is Christ as to who is or is not a Christian, and do not reserve that judgment for yourself alone. You do admit, then, that you can find no quarrel with tpanther’s declaration to that effect.

”There’s absolutely nothing unchristian about humor.”

A final retreat into plausible deniability. All one has to do is to suspend belief and swallow whole the proposition that there is no difference between “humor” and “having a good time at your expense.” It must be, then, that you will admit to no difference between humor and mockery.

[count-your-change]

Which is why I have no time for nonsense like this, ““don’t confuse “projection” with having a good time at your expense.”

[Buck W.]

“And other denominations in possession of varying doctrines, I presume?”

Yes, as I have said on numerous occasions: Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc.

All are Christian. Do you deny that?

“All one has to do is to suspend belief and swallow whole the proposition that there is no difference between “humor” and “having a good time at your expense.”

No suspension of (dis)belief required.

Perhaps you should have your ox looked at—that’s a mighty deep gore he’s got.

[Buck W.]

“Which is why I have no time for nonsense like this...”

You seem to be spending a lot of time on something that you have no time for, Forrest.

[count-your-change]

#91

[Agamemnon]

If you read Darwin you may see that he didn't think strict biological natural selection was important for us. He thought that social cohesiveness, regardless of physical traits, is what makes one society stronger than another. Specifically, he wrote about "sympathy." The more sympathetic society, the one that helps the weakest among it, will be more socially cohesive and thus will be stronger in the long run.

Yes, let's read some Darwin, shall we?

"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 lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316)

Why, this man is just bubbling over with "sympathy" and "social cohesiveness" here, isn't he! If you like this, just wait till you read what Dar-wikipedia wrote about his views on "physical traits." If you need more commentary on what Dar-witless meant, just summon up a contemporary sampling of Dar-dickless's "Bull Dog," little Tommy-boy Huxley. (/sarc)

OK, Charlie. So in human terms "lower races" are fit for -- in your words -- "elimination," are they now?

Better be careful, One might think some crazy German in the not too distant future might take you up on that idea.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

"At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., blacks – ed.], as Professor Schaffhausen has remarked, (Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chap. vi)

Ouch! You even used that term "exterminated" this time!

Really now, upChuckie. Don't you realize exactly how your evolutionist acolytes in the 20th and 21st centuries will apply what you have written here to justify under the color of science what is nothing more than the evolutionist-materialist's inherent bigotries, and the abortion mills, which fulfil their plans for what they consider "undesireables?"

It's pretty much a direct argument against abortion and eugenics.

Right. And who was it, anti-Repuli-crackpot, who coined the term, "eugenics" and who were the immediate philosophical and family inheritors of the mantle who ultimately carried forward dear Charlie's vison? Try the members of the estimable Eugenics Society and those who were formal recipients of the Darwin Medal, first awarded in 1890 as a tribute to Darwin: "A silver medal... given... in reward for work of acknowledged distinction in the broad area of biology in which Charles Darwin worked" - The Royal Society.

Let's see if you can recognize a few names:

Francis Galton Darwin Medalist 1902. Charles Darwin's cousin. Coined the word eugenics in the early 1880s. Founded the Eugenics Society (the British one).

Only Chuckie Darweenie's cousin.

Francis Darwin Darwin Medalist 1912. Cambridge Eugenics Society member.

Just some Chuckie spawn.

Horace Darwin Cambridge Eugenics Society.

More Chuckie spawn.

George Howard Cambridge Eugenics Society. Charles Darwin's son

Sill more Chuckie spawn.

Charles Galton Darwin Eugenics Society life fellow, vice-president 1939, director 1939, president 1953-1959, committee 1960. Chairman of Promising Families. Grandson of Charles Darwin, son of George Howard Darwin. Wrote for the racist journal Mankind Quarterly, which was edited by Otmar Von Verschuer (Josef Mengele's mentor at Auschwitz).

Grandspawn of dear Chuckie.

OK, only Chuck's grandson, but, hey, cut the guy some slack right, anti-Republi-crack-head?

Thomas Henry Huxley Darwin Medalist 1894. Tireless anti-religious polemicist, Darwin's "Bulldog". Huxley expended massive effort attacking God, Christianity, the Catholic Church, and even the Salvation Army. "In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind--the Catholic Church" - T.H Huxley, Darwiniana.

Just has that oh so charitable cachet to it, doesn't it?

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas Huxley, 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)

Such a lovely, charitable fellow was Charlie's sidekick, Tommy boy, wasn't he!

Julian Huxley Darwin Medalist 1956. Grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley. Eugenics Society member, fellow, council member, vice-president, president. Euthanasia Society executive committee. Abortion Law Reform Society vice-president. Co-founder of UNESCO. First director general of UNESCO, 1946-1948. Author of Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942). Collaborated with J.S. Haldane and H.G. Wells on the popular 1920s evolution propaganda ("The Incontrovertible Fact of Evolution") series Science of Life. Popularized the French works of Teilhard de Chardin (Piltdown Man, Peking Man.). Huxley was a long-time friend of Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz, who worked on Nazi Racial hygene. Humanism, transhumanism. Socialism.

Oh just "Hucky's" grandspawn. Nothing to see here. Friend of a Nobel lureate racial hygeine philosophist no less! Evolutionism-Liberalism-Socialism-United Nations-Leftism-Communism-Euthanasia. Yeah, nothing to see here. Really....

Paul Popenoe Pro-Nazi. American Eugenics Society member, director. Human Betterment Foundation. The German Sterilization Law (J Heredity, 1934): "Hitler... bases his hopes of a national regeneration solidly on the application of biological principles to human society."

Whew! Finally an honest to goodness racist, nazi, Eugenicist who wasn't in the physical spawn-line of either Chuckie or Hucky! Hey I'll bet that J Heredity article was even peer reviewed, too!

Margaret Sanger Eugenics Society, life fellow. American Eugenics Society. Founder of Planned Parenthood. The Negro Project Girlfriend of Havelock Ellis (eugenist) and H. G. Wells (eugenist).

Ah Yes, THAT Margaret Sanger. Let's look at Margaret Sanger's take on the value she placed upon "charity" too shall we? Such a pesky thing that Salvation Army organization must have been in the minds of Tommy Huxley and Margaret Sanger:

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. “

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].

Well there you have it: evo-turds in their own words. These godless eugenic evo-schlubs have contributed so much to the establishment and preservation of conservative thought, and traditional values, haven't they? (/sarc)

How conveniently the phony "conservative" evo-crud puking atheists would like true conservatives to forget what their philosophical roots REALLY are!

[goodusername]

“Why, this man is just bubbling over with “sympathy” and “social cohesiveness” here, isn’t he!”

—Darwin did comment on the less technologically advanced (“savages” in the lingo of the time, which didn’t have some of the negative connotations as it does today) getting wiped out, but he wasn’t predicting that it would occur because it *should* happen, but based the prediction on what he himself witnessed on his travel around the world. In fact, he often spoke out against the treatment of such people. I don’t deny that Darwin was a racist, but for his own time he was astonishingly egalitarian. Read enough stuff from his time and Darwin’s ideas become a breath of fresh air.

Let’s read some more Darwin. Here’s what Darwin thought of sympathy:
“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless; it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”

And social cohesiveness:
“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shows us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. ... This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honored and practiced by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.”

Darwin even argued that the advancement of civilization in Europe was due to cultural, not biological, evolution (although there are a few times he seems to waffle on that idea and suggest that some groups may be mentally inferior; he may have been unsure himself if it was wholly cultural or partly innate):
“The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.”

“”At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., blacks – ed.], as Professor Schaffhausen has remarked, (Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) will no doubt be exterminated.”

—I don’t know who put “blacks” there, but whoever did doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Darwin is referring to chimps, gorillas, orangutans, etc which were being quickly wiped out.

[antiRepublicrat]

Read some from Descent of Man:

"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind."

That is an absolute statement against eugenics. According to Darwin, Eugenics gives a "contingent benefit" at best, but at the cost of "overwhelming evil."

[YHAOS]

”All are Christian. Do you deny that?”

It is not for me to either affirm or deny. That is what tpanther and I have been trying to explain to you. But, you will have none of it. Apparently, it allows you insufficient room to perpetrate your quarrels and advance your little schisms.

It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian. Do you deny that?

If someone claims Christianity, I accept their declaration. Don’t protest. You do worse when you refuse reciprocity. You have arrogated to yourself the authority to declare who is, and who is not, worthy of the sobriquet “Christian,” while condemning others for allegedly identical behavior (and in apparent ignorance of the actual meaning of the Biblical injunction, “Judge not”). Further, it seems you think yourself sufficiently righteous to possess the authority to subject others to as intimate an inquisition as needed in order to determine their precise state of grace. Again . . . look to the beam in your own eye, pilgrim.

“No suspension of (dis)belief required.”

So you assert. An assertion does not prove the fact. Essential to mockery is that it be markedly evident. Your denial defies the obvious.

“Perhaps you should have your ox looked at—that’s a mighty deep gore he’s got.”

Another assertion – of even less credibility than the former.

[GodGunsGuts]

While it is true that Darwin did not have the intestinal fortitude to follow the logic of his own evo-religious creation myth, it is clear that he had much sympathy for his eugenicist supporters, and he left it to them to do the dirty work of advocating for the extermination of those that did not live up to the master race. This was made clear every time Darwin made comments like the following (notice who he recommends, and says he took his comments from!):

“Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2) Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, 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. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised 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. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168)

[goodusername]

Hmm, that quote you gave looks very familiar. Oh yeah… it’s from the same paragraph that *I had just quoted from*. heh

Do Creationists disagree with the logic Darwin brings up in that quote? Even most of the Creationists here believe in so-called ‘micro-evolution’, and it has the exact same consequences that Darwin just mentioned. I have seen it argued by Creationists many times that humans are “de-evolving” for precisely the same reasons Darwin gave. Many early Darwinists had been eugenicists, but so had many anti-Darwinian Creationists (e.g. William Tinkle, Frank Marsh, who are among the founders of the Creation Research Society). One doesn’t even need to believe in speciation to believe that eugenics can have benefits (Hitler likely didn’t believe in speciation).

And here, of course, is the end of the paragraph, where Darwin “made clear” that he was arguing *against* such eugenics:
“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”

I think most Creationists would also agree on this reason Darwin gives for why such eugenics shouldn’t be practiced - because it would be an “overwhelming present evil”. Thus, as far as I can tell, most Creationists would agree with both the argument Darwin gives *for* eugenics and also with the bigger reason he gives *against* eugenics. So what, exactly, is the problem?

[Agamemnon]

”At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., blacks – ed.], as Professor Schaffhausen has remarked, (Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) will no doubt be exterminated.”

—I don’t know who put “blacks” there, but whoever did doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Darwin is referring to chimps, gorillas, orangutans, etc which were being quickly wiped out.

All this tells us is that you obviously don't know the meaning of the word, "anthropomorphous." Why don't you break out a dictionary and look that up before you post another apologetic about Darwin's intentions.

Anthropomorphous

How could anyone possibly even think that Darwin's evolutionary concepts would have anything to do with destroying human beings of African descent or other "undesirables" for that matter in the name of obtaining a racial "purity" and preservation of "culture" in an "astonishingly egalitarian" context? (/sarc)

“The African colonies and concentration camps also served racial scientific inquiry. Post-mortems were performed to study causes of death and bodies of executed prisoners were preserved and shipped to Germany for dissection.

“A 1907 chronicle reported that: 'A chest of Herero skulls was recently sent to the Pathological Institute in Berlin, where they will be subjected to scientific measurements. “Probably the most well-known study was the physician, Eugen Fisher’s evaluation of Basters, the mixed-blood children of Dutch men and Nama women. 'He argued that "Negro blood" was of "lesser value" and that mixing it with "white blood" would destroy European culture, and advised that Africans should be exploited by Europeans as long they were useful, after which they could be eliminated.'"

--quote German science and black racism—roots of the Nazi Holocaust by François Haas, The FASEB Journal. 2008;22:332-337 (New York University Institute of Community Health and Research, New York University School of Medicine, NY, NY)

So who was Eugen Fischer anyway? One must understand Fischer's connection to Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was a protégé of Rudolf Ludwig Carl Virchow, who was appointed head of the Pathological Institute of Berlin from 1893-1902.

“Eugen Fischer became head of the Berlin Institute in 1908. Germany’s African colonies rebelled under German rule about the same time as Haeckel’s evolutionary political and Monist activity became most prominent.

“Fischer went on to co-author the seminal Outline of Human Genetic and Racial Hygiene with Fritz Lenz and Edwin Baur.

“Echoes appear in Hitler’s Mien Kampf (Hitler had been given a copy while in jail and writing Mein Kampf) and eventually in the Nuremberg racial laws.”

--quote, Haas, op. cit.

So what's with all this with dehumanized "Africans," theoretical "monists" and the "volk" thing anyway, all happening at the same time all those earliest Darwin Medals were being awarded to all those Eugenics Society members?

“ALTHOUGH THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS has been a repeating theme throughout human history, only the Nazi-led extermination of millions of people deemed undesirable was framed in the scientific context of ‘racial hygiene.’ At the core of Nazi philosophy was the view of the nation as a living organism.”

“Using Herder’s concept of Volk, (-ed. “The movement he founded in Germany was proto-Nazi in character; romantic Volkism and the Monist League (established 1906), along with evolution and science, laid the ideological foundations of [German] National Socialism.”

---quote —*Michael Pitman, "Adam and Evolution" (1984), p. 48.

So who was Haeckel and what was his relation to Darwin and his subsequent link to Naziism?

Remember all that crap about "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"? Yeah, that was Haeckel. Virchow actually lambasted Haeckel as the total fraud he was eventually revealed to be.

Darwin liked Haeckel's ideas and drawings though. He said so in a complimentary letter replying back to Haeckel, who had sent Darwin a copy of his radiolaria monograph and drawings in 1862 along with slobbering praise of Darwin's "Origin...." .

Darwin gushed that the images: "...were the most magnificent works which I have ever seen and I am proud to possess a copy from the author."

"Haeckel was the first German advocate of organic evolution and early supporter of Darwin and evolution. Haeckel enunciated biogenetic law that in the development of the individual animal the stages in the evolutionary history of the postulating species are repeated, postulating as illustration a hypothetical ancestral form (gastraea) represented by the gastrula stage of the individual; first to draw up a genealogical tree relating the various animal orders.”

-- quote: Professor Dr. Robert A. Hatch, University of Florida

Haeckel didn’t hold a mere pedestrian interest in evolution. He openly contributed to the textbooks to furnish doctored up comparative embryonic drawings in order to lie on behalf of evolutionary dogma, and was a founder of the Monist movement to promote the intellectual, scientific, and thus social applications of Darwinistic premise.

“In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests….“

—quote Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488.

Nah.... Neither Schaffhausen nor Darwin could have possibly meant "blacks." (/sarc)

I don’t deny that Darwin was a racist, but for his own time he was astonishingly egalitarian. Read enough stuff from his time and Darwin’s ideas become a breath of fresh air.

Not surprised that an evolutionist like yourself would find the writings of this admitted racist to be so "astonishingly egalitarian" and such "a breath of fresh air." I'll just let the readers themselves judge you on this point.

"Astonishingly egalitarian...." (lifts tea cup to lips with pinky extended) Care for a spot of gellato with that parfait a la mode?

Good grief, you sound like you're auditioning for a spot on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

Ever notice how Darwin kinda reads like the Koran with all the author's "astonishingly egalitarian" internal contradictions? I'll bet if Darwin were alive today, they would have found a place for him in the auditions line up. These guys appear ready to take in anything internally that contradicts the design for which it the object is intended.

Darwin even argued that the advancement of civilization in Europe was due to cultural, not biological, evolution...

Sure, tell that to his mouthpiece Huxley

Darwin did comment on the less technologically advanced (“savages” in the lingo of the time, which didn’t have some of the negative connotations as it does today) getting wiped out....

"Technologically advanced"? I call Bullsh!t. “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” was not a tome about technological advancement.

You are supposedly quoting from Darwin, but if you don't even know the title of Darwin's stupid book, that fact along with your failure to know the meaning of "anthropomorphous," tells readers that you don't do an adequate amount of research before you post.

...cultural, not biological, evolution (although there are a few times he seems to waffle on that idea and suggest that some groups may be mentally inferior; he may have been unsure himself if it was wholly cultural or partly innate)....

Yes, Darwin "waffles" on his answers about as well as you do.

[Buck W.]

“It is not for me to either affirm or deny. That is what tpanther and I have been trying to explain to you.”

Sorry—cop out. Weak faith drives a person to do strange things, including denying the obvious Christianity of Catholics. It would be absurd for me to argue that tpanther is not Christian because he is not Catholic, yet that is the analog of your (and his) argument.

“Essential to mockery is that it be markedly evident. “

It was, and it was a scream. Keep trying.

“Another assertion – of even less credibility than the former.”

I find it odd that one as opinionated as you can take offense at another’s assertions. Unless, of course they are contrary to yours. Therefore, it’s the position with which you take issue, not the fact that it’s wrapped in an assertion.

Just say so!

[antiRepublicrat]

While it is true that Darwin did not have the intestinal fortitude to follow the logic of his own evo-religious creation myth

No, it isn't. Darwin saw the whole picture, society and genetics. The others only saw the genetics. He realized they were right from a purely genetics standpoint, but also knew they were wrong because, as Darwin says:

In however complex a manner this feeling [sympathy] may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it will have been increased through natural selection; for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.

The society that is most sympathetic will survive. As I have shown, Darwin thought eugenics to be evil, IOW, not sympathetic. According to Darwin, eugenics would make a society weaker. This would also apply to abortion.

He goes further to state how a courageous man, full of sympathy, might sacrifice himself for the good of the larger society (in opposition to genetic natural selection), but a weak, timid man would not. The hero will motivate others to have sympathy, giving strength and cohesion to the society. A society of the timid would of course be weaker than one whose members would perform heroic acts to save the society.

Your quote still shows him discussing the purely genetic standpoint, which he later says will not work in a more advanced society, as I have shown.

[YHAOS]

”Sorry—cop out.”

It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian. Do you deny that?

[goodusername]

“All this tells us is that you obviously don’t know the meaning of the word, “anthropomorphous.” Why don’t you break out a dictionary and look that up before you post another apologetic about Darwin’s intentions.”

—Hmm, let’s see: “anthropomorphous: Having or suggesting human form and appearance.”
Soooo, I’m guessing by “anthropomorphous apes” he means… apes with a human appearance? Oh wait, that’s right, I don’t have to guess… I’ve actually *read* Darwin:

Descent of Man, ch 6:
“The anthropomorphous apes, namely the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and Hylobates, are by most naturalists separated from the other Old World monkeys, as a distinct sub-group.”
(This is where if I had more creativity I’d pull up a cute picture… maybe one with “PWNED” on it).

“How could anyone possibly even think that Darwin’s evolutionary concepts would have anything to do with destroying human beings of African descent or other “undesirables” for that matter in the name of obtaining a racial “purity” and preservation of “culture” in an “astonishingly egalitarian” context? (/sarc)”

—Not sure why the sarcasm tag, considering Darwin never talked about “racial purity”. There is a good place to go for stuff like that though – Gobineau. He came up with “Aryanism” and was very popular in Germany. He also wrote a book called “Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races”. Gobineau argues that unless the Aryan or Nordic (German) race stays racially pure that their civilization will fall due to mixing with inferior blood, and his ideas became a movement called “Gobinism”.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/236572/Joseph-Arthur-comte-de-Gobineau
“The Essai had a marked effect on the thinking of such men as the Germans Richard Wagner and Friedrich Nietzsche, and, in time, a movement called Gobinism developed. In the 20th century, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an English disciple of Wagner, and Adolf Hitler were among those who turned to Gobineau for inspiration.”
BTW, Gobineau was a pre-Darwinian Creationist.

“Not surprised that an evolutionist like yourself would find the writings of this admitted racist to be so “astonishingly egalitarian” and such “a breath of fresh air.” I’ll just let the readers themselves judge you on this point.”

—I understand that those (like yourself) who haven’t read much of Darwin - let alone other contemporary writers - may not agree with that.

“”Technologically advanced”? I call Bullsh!t. “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” was not a tome about technological advancement.”

—And, umm, what, pray tell, do you think the book was about? Human races? Neither human races nor human evolution is mentioned anywhere in the entire book. “Races” in Darwin’s time simply meant “populations” (separate groups within a species which don’t interbreed). Under Darwinian evolution, speciation occurs via different populations (races) of the same species diverging to become new species via adaptation (if ‘favoured’ under Natural Selection) and thus there are 2 or more species where there was previously one. Look at the quote I gave again (which, btw, was not from Origin) – he’s attributing the superiority of Europe to cultural evolution – not biological evolution.

“You are supposedly quoting from Darwin, but if you don’t even know the title of Darwin’s stupid book, that fact along with your failure to know the meaning of “anthropomorphous,” tells readers that you don’t do an adequate amount of research before you post.”

—(shakes head) Such irony actually hurts.

[Buck W.]

“It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian. Do you deny that?”

Do you deny that the practice of Catholicism is devoid of the judgment of Christ as to its Christianity?

[Buck W.]

“How conveniently the phony “conservative” evo-crud puking atheists would like true conservatives to forget what their philosophical roots REALLY are! “

From my Christian perspective, evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible. Don’t you agree?

[metmom]

Darwin and his cohorts were no benign, altuiristic bunch of humanitarians.

A bad man can make good sounding statements, but the bad things he says reveal what he’s really all about. It really pretty much contaminates the batch for the rest of what he says. It makes all the good sounding stuff ring hollow.