The Night Before Christmas 1776
Posted on 12/23/2002 7:26:26 AM PST by Deadeye Division
While not material to the core of your thesis your misuse of the word "affected" detracts from the overall argument since the obvious word should be "effected."
Problem with using that is that references to his atheism were taken out from the publication at the insistence of his wife.
This is so very tedious. You are wrong again, gore. Amazingly (if typically) all you had to do to avoid error was to click on my link and read the first few lines! Emphasis added, in red:
Partial credit: You are correct that editions of Darwin's autobiography previous to Barlow's were expurgated, and I believe (off the top of my head) that you are correct in the particular passage (ending with, "And this is a damnable doctrine.") that you cite in this regard. You are also correct that this was at the request of Darwin's wife, Emma. She actually made a notation to the effect on her husband's manuscript, and Darwin's son, Francis, who originally published the autobiography, honored his mother's request wrt this passage. All the details can be found in the notes at the end of the linked page.
Actually, what Darwin said was that his theory was itself perfect (survival of the fittest) but unfit for application to mankind within a societal framework because of the inherent flaw of compassion - man would not only allow the defective to breed, he would encourage it by providing for those who could not or would not provide for themselves and they would then proceed to reproduce apace, bringing ever more of their kind until, at last, all would fail. But, that was a problem for the future and a fruitful field for his cousin, Francis Galton (Social Evolution).
Culling the herd still works for all craetures when ruthlessly applied, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work for men.
The fatal flaw in this approach is who gets to determine what is desirable?
That's right. One would be better off believing nothing, than believing in evolution. :)
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true
Yes. Darwin did eventually abandon his belief in Christianity. He details the gradual process whereby this occured. (Many scholars believe that it was not so gradual as all that, and more directly attributable to the deaths of Darwin's father, and especially the horrible death of his daughter Annie, but Darwin does in any case acknowledge that connection.)
This passage does you no good. "Non-Christian" does not equal "atheist". Indeed Darwin himself makes the distinction, treating his belief in Christianity versus his belief in theism as distinct matters.
A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of lower animals throughout almost endless time.
Same problem. Darwin's being aware of the problem of theodicy, and reflecting on it, does not make him an "atheist."
That Darwin was totally dishonest about his religious views in public, there is tons of evidence:
Now this is much better. Leaving aside your tiresome and fanatical hyperbole (e.g. totally dishonest) I don't dispute the general point at all. Darwin is probably best described as a "free thinker," but unlike many of that ilk he was genuinely reluctant to oppress others with his own doubts, or to upset more orthodox friends and family members. And, yes, he also concealed his views (with judicious exceptions) for "political" reasons, as well as out of general aversion to controversy.
A good while back I posted an article that related Darwin's response, in a particular instance late in his life, to more outspoken and agressive "free thinkers". It provides, IMHO, a very illuminating glimpse into Darwin's views and tendencies concerning such matters:
The "gentle squire of Down" (Charles Darwin) & the day the Pinko Atheists came to lunch
BTW, I can't help but point out that, if Darwin had beat people over the head with his religious skepticism, you would doubtless be pissing and moaning about that too.
The Night Before Christmas 1776
That's ethnic/genetic cleansing. How can nature perfect something through such horrific practice? There is something deeply wrong with the idea of "evolution" by dumping prototypes with the "bathwater" of unwanted genes.
While not material to the core of your thesis your misuse of the word "affected" detracts from the overall argument since the obvious word should be "effected."
Like you I am often horrified at the misuse of affected for effected and vice versa as well as other similar sounding words such as principal and principle. However, in this instance I meant affected in the sense that 'tweaking' an old species would be the way to create a new one.
If you consider Darwin's calling himself agnostic instead of an atheist in your quote in Post# 67 it does not seem that it is sufficient. In fact in the link you provide in this post to The Gentle Squire of Down it says:
They lit cigarettes and Darwin, completely out of character, pitched in. "Why do you call yourselves atheists?" In his dotage, forty years since his covert notebook days, he finally dragged the issue into the open. He preferred the word agnostic, he said. "'Agnostic' was but 'Atheist' writ respectable,"
Clearly from the above, to Darwin the difference between atheist and agnostic was not one of difference in belief, but a difference in how much noise one made about it. So I do not think that my calling him an atheist in spite of his calling himself an agnostic is incorrect.
BTW, I can't help but point out that, if Darwin had beat people over the head with his religious skepticism, you would doubtless be pissing and moaning about that too.
Again you seem to confirm that we do not disagree on the facts, but on their meaning. As the quotes on Post #72 show he deliberately hid his atheism from the public. I call this dishonest. It really shows the principle of 'the ends justifies the means' (as does your sentence). I think such lying is inexcusable. That you and Darwin consider such lying to be justified shows again that truth is not the agenda of evolution and evolutionists. The promotion of atheistic materialism is the agenda of Darwinism and the means to do it need not involve the truth.
You could not even wait till midnight to declare Christmas to be over?
Just because you don't like the process does NOT mean that isn't the way the world works. I suggest you spend a little time actually observing nature (either in the woods or via. cable nature channels). "Mother Nature" IS "red of fang and claw".
Also, your understanding of the evolutionary process is flawed--SUCCESSFUL mutations survive--only unsuccessful ones get "pruned". Is this a wasteful process?? Yes. Unfortunately, that IS the way it works.
It's not that I do not like it, it is just that it does not work that way from where I am seeing it, period. I choose an axiom, you choose yours. Don't impose your crap, I wont impose my own bath water.
But I guess your heart is into final solutions, so be it.
No such pruning occurs. D'ambricour proved that there is a mechanism that allows "chance" mutations to follow a strange attractor. Just as a tree grows branches by chance but in a coherent way because of the strange attractor, so do the "mutations". Why this strange attractor is programmed we do not know, but what it tells is that the "undesirables" should not get pruned, except in extreme cases, because they are just as capable as desirables to branch off into something better. "Nature" just does not throw the baby away with the bathwater.
It's not that I do not like it, it is just that it does not work that way from where I am seeing it, period.
Jumping in here, hoping to clarify...
Leaving evolution aside for the moment, are you denying the phenomena of super-fecundity: that, in nearly every species, many more (often vastly more) offspring are produced than will eventually themselves reproduce?
4 -2 does not equal 6 no matter how much rhetoric and pseudo-scientific nonsense you and other evolutionists say. You do not create anything by destroying things, you do not create new genes, functions and abilities by destroying them. Evolution has been a joke since the word go.
Balderdash--the "strange attractor" is natural selection. The "program" is the particular "universe" of survival/anti-survival stressors that the current generation of a species is exposed to. "Nature" throws away MOST of the "babies" on a daily basis. Only a minority of species individuals born survive to breed.
Ah, the ignorant fool bleats again. GENES don't get destroyed--they get CHANGED. Species individuals get destroyed in the process of natural selection. The GENE MODIFICATIONS are random, the stressors of natural selection are anything BUT random.
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.