Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Samuel Johnson Edition: Refutation of Darwinism by quotation and the misery of Darwin according to observation.

Anonymous Samuel Johnson has said: 
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they cannot comprehend."
Johnson: Rambler #117 (April 30, 1751)
" Jon Woolf said...
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat drivel, Radar.  It's still drivel. "A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity."  Your material brain generates non-material thoughts.   Thus I refute it."

One of our commenters seemed to think that a Samuel Johnson quote would help his cause in a vain argument against the non-material nature of information/intellect.    In so doing he wound up admitting that intellect/intelligence/information are non-material.   Finally!   I have been leading horses to water for some time but one of them finally drank in the hope of spewing it back out at me.  But he has at last and by mistake acknowledged that there is both natural and supernatural to be considered when studying the Universe.   This should have been obvious to him, as the great Western scientists of the Pre-Darwin period based their scientific studies on the concept that a logical man could make logical deductions and suppositions about the Universe and test these hypotheses and expect to be able to discover logic within the laws and forces of the Universe because they were formed by a Logical Mind!

Possibly Jon Woolf is not well-versed in the philosophy of the man, but it seems logical to me to allow Johnson's words to be applied to the subject at hand...

"When a man employs himself upon remote and unnecessary subjects, and wastes his life upon questions which cannot be resolved, and of which the solution would conduce very little to the advancement of happiness; when he lavishes his hours in calculating the weight of the terraqueous globe, or in adjusting successive systems of worlds beyond the reach of the telescope; he may be very properly recalled from his excursions by this precept [Know Thyself], and reminded that there is a nearer being with which it is his duty to be more acquainted; and from which his attention has been hitherto withheld by studies to which he has no other motive than vanity or curiosity."
Johnson: Rambler #24 (June 9, 1750)

The above could be applied nicely to nonsensical endeavors such as SETI and Evolutionary Biology and such "disciplines" which are fanciful science fiction stories arbitrarily stuffed into what would otherwise be real science.  'Twas memesy, and the cladograms, did pan and spermia in the primordial soup!'

What would Johnson say about the NCSE and the NAS and the other representatives of the Darwinist ruling paradigm that censor dialogue and information from non-Darwinist sources?  All quotes from Samuel Johnson will come from that same site and be in black font.

Regarding Arepagitica, a Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of unlicensed Printing: "The danger of such unbounded liberty and the danger of bounding it have produced a problem in the science of Government, which human understanding seems hitherto unable to solve. If nothing may be published but what civil authority shall have previously approved, power must always be the standard of truth; if every dreamer of innovations may propagate his projects, there can be no settlement; if every murmurer at government may diffuse discontent, there can be no peace; and if every skeptick in theology may teach his follies, there can be no religion. The remedy against these evils is to punish the authours; for it is yet allowed that every society may punish, though not prevent, the publication of opinions, which that society shall think pernicious: but this punishment, though it may crush the authour, promotes the book; and it seems not more reasonable to leave the right of printing unrestrained, because writers may be afterwards censured, than it would be to sleep with doors unbolted, because by our laws we can hang a thief."
Johnson: Milton (Lives of the Poets) (bolded section by me)

"If nothing may be published but what civil authority shall have previously approved, power must always be the standard of truth;"

I submit to all that power must NOT be allowed to determine what "science" will be published, read, spoken of or researched and especially must not be the standard by which truth is determined.   That is the way of tyranny!  Science questions must not be determined by courts of law or by censorship and bullying, science must be driven by the evidence!  We supposedly live in a free land and yet Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are denied tenure, fired, their literature is rejected out of hand before receiving peer review and the most accomplished of them at the very least must deal with censure and recriminations for their failure to submit to the Darwinist party line.

The commenter is not too familiar with Johnson's thoughts on the matter of faith or naturalism, for that matter.   For instance...

"The knowledge of external nature, and the sciences which that knowledge requires or includes, are not the great or the frequent business of the human mind. Whether we provide for action or conversation, whether we wish to be useful or pleasing, the first requisite is the religious and moral knowledge of right and wrong; the next is an acquaintance with the history of mankind, and with those examples which may be said to embody truth and prove by events the reasonableness of opinions. Prudence and justice are virtues and excellences of all times and of all places; we are perpetually moralists, but we are geometricians only by chance. Our intercourse with intellectual nature is necessary; our speculations upon matter are voluntary and at leisure."
Johnson: Milton (Lives of the Poets)

"Nothing can afford any rational tranquillity, but the conviction that, however we amuse ourselves with unideal sounds, nothing in reality is governed by chance, but that the universe is under the perpetual superintendence of him who created it; that our being is in the hands of omnipotent goodness, by whom what appears casual to us is directed for ends ultimately kind and merciful; and that nothing can finally hurt him who debars not himself from the divine favour."
Johnson: Rambler #184 (December 21, 1751)

"Life is not the object of science: we see a little, very little; and what is beyond we can only conjecture. If we enquire of those who have gone before us, we receive small satisfaction; some have travelled life without observation, and some willingly mislead us. The only thought, therefore, on which we can repose with comfort, is that which presents to us the care of Providence, whose eye takes in the whole of things, and under whose direction all involuntary errours will terminate in happiness."
Johnson: Adventurer #107 (November 13, 1753)

In point of fact, the quote Woolf used was from an argument that concerned whether matter was real or ideal.   A good Christian and a good scientist would argue that material reality is tangible and real.   The problem is not that we can clearly see the material but that Woolf cannot clearly see the Divine.   The great scientists who established the basis for biology and physics and chemistry and so on were men who believed that God created and acted upon their belief.   Historically one has to be ignorant not to know this.   Darwin's failed hypothesis has been hanging on like the USSR and Communist East Germany in the late 80's, still somehow in charge but doomed to complete failure at any time. 
Samuel Johnson could be expected to dismiss Darwinists as follows:

"The present age abounds with a race of liars who are content with the consciousness of falsehood, and whose pride is to deceive others without any gain or glory to themselves."
Johnson: Adventurer #50 (April 28, 1753)

For it is the sad-but-truth that many Darwinists know that they face impossibilities within their belief system but prefer absurd falsehoods to the dreaded truth.  

One wonders what thoughts hounded Charles Darwin on his death bed but there is evidence that his defiance of God caused him much internal grief...Just as a careful review of the evidence available to us in the information age should be grievous to a Darwinist to the point of being willing to change his mind.  Unlike a computer, once a man is powered off completely he cannot be rebooted, for whereas electricity is a force that man can generate, life is a supernatural non-material essence man cannot duplicate or govern.   On this day before Thanksgiving Day I would hope and pray that you who have sold out to Darwinism will give careful consideration to the matter rather than allowing your closed mind to remain under lock and key.

Darwin’s mystery illness

Charles Darwin suffered extreme ill-health for most of his working life. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica says, ‘Some of the symptoms—painful flatulence, vomiting, insomnia, palpitations—appeared in force as soon as he began his first transmutation notebook, in 1837. [This is the year after he returned to England from his five-year voyage aboard H.M.S. Beagle.] Although he was exposed to insects in South America and could possibly have caught Chagas’ or some other tropical disease, a careful analysis of the attacks in the context of his activities points to psychogenic origins.’1 (Psychogenic means originating in the mind or in mental condition.) Other symptoms included ‘nausea, headache … sensitive stomach, spells of faintness, twitching muscles, spinning head, spots before the eyes.’2 Today we would call this an anxiety-caused psychoneurosis.3

So then, what caused this condition of extreme stress in Darwin? What was he so worried about? And how is it relevant to us today?

Rejection of religious influences

Charles’s thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject all the religious influences in his life. One of these was William Paley.

In his early twenties Charles was willing to become an Anglican clergyman. As part of his theological studies at Cambridge he read William Paley’s book Natural Theology,4 which begins with the famous ‘watch’ argument for creation (a watch requires a watchmaker and so design requires a Designer), about which Charles said, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology. I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’5
Another religious influence was his wife Emma, whom he married in 1839, and who used to read the Bible to their children.

As Charles developed his theory of natural selection, these influences diminished. His son Francis recalled him as saying, ‘I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.’6 And the death of his eldest daughter Annie from fever at this period of his life hammered the final nail in the coffin of his Christianity.

More than all this however, Darwin knew that his theory was sheer atheistic materialism—a bombshell which when released on Victorian society would undermine people’s faith in God, the Bible, and the Church. In effect, he was shaking his fist at Almighty God. Professor Adam Sedgwick of Cambridge, the foremost geologist of his day and a creationist, recognized this as soon as he read the Origin, about 1861. He wrote, ‘From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up…And why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, except to make us independent of a Creator.’7
Darwin’s chief proponent was the most prominent unbeliever, hater of religion, and arch-enemy of the Church of his day—Thomas Henry Huxley, nicknamed ‘Darwin’s bulldog’. Sir Julian Huxley, Thomas’s grandson, who gave the keynote address at the centenary celebration of the publishing of the Origin, held in Chicago in 1959, said, ‘Darwin’s real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.’ 8,9
Psychologically there can be little doubt that Charles Darwin suffered from feelings of guilt. These undoubtedly arose from his desire to escape from God and from the force of Paley’s arguments about design in his Natural Theology. That is, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was his attempt to explain design without the need for an intelligent Designer. Professor Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University concurs; he believes that ‘Darwin constructed the theory of natural selection in large measure as a direct refutation of the argument from design’.10,11

However, there is more to it than that. Natural selection to Darwin was not something progressive, as many modern writers portray it, much less a process that God used to create, as theistic evolutionists proclaim it; rather it was something which was utterly planless and purposeless—Gould refers to it as ‘the naturalism of purposelessness’.12 Darwin knew that this was an idea which could and would destroy the faith of millions of believers—and he was the one who was about to unleash it on an unsuspecting world. But what if he was wrong? How could he accept the responsibility for what it would do to others? It is little wonder that he ‘broke out in boils’ (see below), referred to the Origin as ‘my accursed book’13 and seems to have thought of himself as a ‘Devil’s Chaplain’.14

Publication of On the Origin of Species

The result was that Darwin put off publishing his work for 20 years. It was only the fact that in June 1858 he received a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace (a naturalist working in the Malay Archipelago) with a manuscript that perfectly summarized the theory of natural selection which Charles had for so long been contemplating that finally galvanized him into action. As a result, he abandoned his plans to write a multi-volume epic and instead produced a single-volume ‘Abstract’, as he described it several times in the Introduction. This ‘Abstract’ was published on November 24, 1859, with the title, On the Origin of Species.15
There was considerable trauma associated with this. In the year leading up to publication he was rarely able to write for more than 20 minutes at a time without stomach pains, and he finished the proofs on October 1, 1859, in between fits of vomiting.

Ten days before the proofs were bound he wrote to his friend J.D. Hooker, ‘I have been very bad lately; having had an awful "crisis" one leg swelled like elephantiasis—eyes almost closed up—covered with a rash & fiery Boils: but they tell me it will surely do me much good.—it was like living in Hell.’16,17 His modern biographers talk of his ‘self-doubt, his nagging, gnawing fear that "I … have devoted my life to a phantasy"’.18

He was too sick to be on hand in London when the first copies were sold, or to attend the debate between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce held at Oxford on June 30, 1860, or to attend the Royal Society of London meeting that awarded him its Copley Medal in November 1864. 19,20 The same year he wrote to Hooker, ‘I shd [sic] suppose few human beings had vomited so often during the last 5 months.’ 21


What Darwin did not know

We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming scientific developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned that his theory might one day be proved wrong.

In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and published his work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents according to precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance random processes in what Darwin called ‘blending inheritance’.

James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so the present universe could not have created itself), and the second law of which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward degenerating direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do not of themselves become more organized with time).

Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which showed that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-life.

The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the odds of life’s occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet been applied to the theory of evolution.

Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so enormously complex that it could not possibly have been formed by chance, had not yet commenced.

The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently for palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that chains of intermediate ‘links’ do not exist.

Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin at the time he was writing his Origin (1856–59), would have been enough to torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of evolution stone dead!


Relevance today


Today all these counters to the theory of evolution are known and, as such, form a compelling case against evolution. In short, they indicate that evolution could not have taken place, while the fossil record shows that evolution did not take place. The incredible thing is that otherwise rational scientists continue to cling to the concept of evolution, modifying it in any way they can to get around the proofs against it, regardless of the destructive moral and social effects that evolutionary theory has on society. As Michael Denton says, ‘… today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and sceptical outlook of the twentieth century.’22 Darwin did well to be anxious about the long-term effects of his theory!

But why has this happened? Why has the theory become so much more important than the evidence necessary to sustain it?

Answer: Because of what the alternative involves. If the biblical account of creation is true, then there will be a Day of Judgment, for God the Creator has said that He has ‘appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained [namely Jesus]; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He raised Him from the dead’ (Acts 17:31).

Related articles

References and notes

  1. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992, Vol. 16, p. 980. Return to Text.
  2. Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, pp. 108–9. Return to Text.
  3. Sir George Pickering, the renowned English clinical researcher and Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, described in Chambers Biographical Dictionary as ‘a key figure in medical education in Britain from the 1950s’, wrote concerning Darwin, ‘The case for a psychoneurosis is first that the symptoms suggest it, and, taken in their entirety, they fit nothing else. Second, there is no evidence that any physical signs were ever found as they should have been after forty years of organic disease, and Darwin consulted the best physicians of his day….Third, the circumstances precipitating the attacks are right. Fourth, the illness got better towards the end of his life, which is quite unlike organic disease. Lastly, no other diagnosis that has been proposed, or that I can think of, fits all the facts.’—George Pickering, Creative Malady, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1974, p. 142. Return to Text.
  4. William Paley, The Works of William Paley, Vol. 4, ‘Natural Theology’, William Baynes and Son, London, 1825, p. 1ff. Return to Text.
  5. Cited from William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan, New York, 1984, p. 178. Return to Text.
  6. Cited from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, Michael Joseph Ltd, London, 1991, p. 658. Return to Text.
  7. Cited from Ronald Clark, The Survival of Charles Darwin, Random House, New York, 1984, p. 139. Return to Text.
  8. Cited from Ref. 5, p. 213. Return to Text.
  9. English psychiatrist Dr Rankine Good links Darwin’s health symptoms with his feelings of resentment towards his tyrannical father and says, ‘Thus, if Darwin did not slay his father in the flesh, then he certainly slew the Heavenly Father in the realm of natural history.’ Cited from Ralph Colp, To Be An Invalid, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977, p. 123. Return to Text.
  10. Transcript of a talk given by Prof. Stephen Gould on June 6, 1990, at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, entitled ‘The Darwinian Revolution of Thought’. See Carl Wieland, ‘Darwin’s real message: have you missed it?’, Creation magazine, Vol. 14 No. 4, (September–November 1992), pp. 16–18. See also Darwin’s comments on ‘design in Nature, as given by Paley’ in Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Edited by Francis Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pp. 278–79. Return to Text.
  11. It is true that in the second edition of the Origin (1860) Darwin added ‘by the Creator’ after the word ‘breathed’ in the last sentence of his book, which read in the first edition, ‘There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one…’. However, as this concept is totally foreign to the entire ethos of the Origin, the addition would appear to have been ‘a sop to mollify the Christian community’—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, p. 463, n.9. Return to Text.
  12. Ref. 10. Return to Text.
  13. Ref. 6, p. 475. Return to Text.
  14. Ref. 6, p. 449. Return to Text.
  15. The full title of the first five editions was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In the sixth edition Darwin dropped the word ‘On’. We shall refer to it as the Origin. Return to Text.
  16. Cited from Ref. 6, p. 476. Return to Text.
  17. These symptoms suggest a physical cause, but it is well known that extreme psychological stress makes physical illness more likely. Return to Text.
  18. Cited from Ref. 6. p.477. Return to Text.
  19. Sir George Pickering wrote, ‘The symptoms of psychoneurosis are the patient’s own answer to his otherwise intolerable conflict.’—Ref. 3, p. 33. Return to Text.
  20. In further support of this thesis it should be noted that, ‘Throughout the next decades Darwin’s maladies waxed and waned. But during the last decade of his life, when he concentrated on botanical research and no longer speculated about evolution, he experienced the best health since his years at Cambridge.’—Ref. 1, p. 980. Return to Text.
  21. Cited from Ref. 9, p. 77. Return to Text.
  22. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, Maryland, 1986, p. 358.


Anonymous said...

Nice copypasta job, Radar!

radar said...

Thank you. Incisive comment!

Jon Woolf said...

"Science questions must not be determined by courts of law or by censorship and bullying, science must be driven by the evidence!"

It is.

When tested against the evidence -- the real evidence, not your mix of wishful thinking and wilful distortion -- creationism fails every time.

"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they cannot comprehend."

A perfect description of the standard creationist treatment of evolution and its defenders -- as exemplified by your contemptible attempt to turn Charles Darwin's crippling physical ailments into phony "evidence" of his alleged duplicity. You should be ashamed of yourself, Radar.

radar said...

Actually I post real evidence on this blog on a regular basis while Darwinists call names and use sarcasm because they cannot answer the questions I raise.

Charles Darwin, as I have said before, is in part a victim of bad parenting with a hypocrite for a father and a atheopathic grandfather.

But that is not an excuse for his evil deeds. It was a creationist who first thought up and expressed the idea of natural selection, William Blyth and that man correctly saw that selection removed genetic information. Darwin stole parts of his work and the work of Hutton and Wallace and plain plagiarized Wallace in writing his first book.

Worse yet, he took the wrong-headed idea of uniformitarianism thought up by men who did not know much about rock formations and used it as a weapon against the belief in a Creator God. Few men have done more harm to mankind in the last few centuries than Charles Darwin. He and his ludicrous hypothesis have led to terrible excesses and murders in the name of Eugenics and Ethnic Cleansing and Family Planning, let alone the depravities of Hitler and Stalin and Mao, all of whom adopted the general Darwinist humanist worldview. I owe Darwin no apology but, to the contrary, he is the one who has caused great harm to humanity.

Jon Woolf said...

"Actually I post real evidence on this blog on a regular basis..."

What you post is creationist doubletalk. When anybody tries to discuss the real evidence, you run for cover.

How do you tell whether a given mutation increases or decreases the information-content of a gene, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for age-specific trace molecules in crude oil, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossils in marble and slate, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for broken, weathered, and scavenged fossils, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for ecological ghosts, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for index features such as the K-T clay layer, Radar?

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together, Radar?

Why aren't rhamphorhynchoids and neornithines ever found together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs and allosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

How did we get magmatic intrusions -- that is, underground lava flows that took time to occur and more time to cool and solidify -- in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?

No answer was the sad reply...

Anonymous said...

It was a creationist who first thought up and expressed the idea of natural selection, William Blyth and that man correctly saw that selection removed genetic information

Back to this. Radar, how do you know selection is "removing" information? You never provided a definition of information that allows one to quantify it. Asserting information is lost during selection without being able to quantify it is a bit ridiculous, no?


Anonymous said...

To add to Jon Woolf's impressive list, I'd like to add some more questions Radar can't answer:

1. Can you define an experiment that you would not in hindsight claim was "intelligently designed"?

2. Where did the added information in the NASA genetic algorithms come from?

3. When you turn on your computer, are you suddenly activating something supernatural?

4. Is there any evidence that the information stored in the human brain can survive past the physical demise of that human?

Anonymous said...

Lava, I noticed that bit too. Radar, what is the scientific evidence by which Blyth "correctly saw" this?

Also, Radar, you never came up with an explanation for why the Nazis BANNED books on Darwinism, called it a "false scientific enlightenment", and promoted books on Christianity.

Anonymous said...

"Actually I post real evidence on this blog on a regular basis"

Not evidence that refutes the theory of evolution, unfortunately. Mere evidence of complexity of any kind (which you post relatively often) is NOT evidence of a Creator. You've fallen victim to an Argument from Incredulity, which is neither science nor evidence.

Sheer volume won't some day make that logical fallacy not a logical fallacy.

"while Darwinists call names and use sarcasm because they cannot answer the questions I raise."

1. The questions you raised have been dealt with quite quickly, though you often ignore the answers and then lie about the questions not being answered. For any of Radar's readers that don't know about this, a clear example can be found in the previous comment thread.

2. As for name-calling, I suggest you look in the mirror sometime. Or at your own posts and comments.

Anonymous said...

One of our commenters seemed to think that a Samuel Johnson quote would help his cause in a vain argument against the non-material nature of information/intellect.

Looks like you completely missed the point that the commenter refuted your argument in the sentence before the Johnson quote. What an elaborate evasion.

Anonymous said...

"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they cannot comprehend."
Johnson: Rambler #117 (April 30, 1751)

A creationist posting this? The irony is sublime.

Hawkeye® said...

Great post. It looks as if your "jeering section" remain to have closed minds that are "under lock and key".

(:D) Best regards...

Hawkeye® said...

The Nazis most likely banned books on "primitive Darwinism" because they had different ideas. Nazis didn't leave anything to chance, not even evolution. They felt evolution could be directed and manipulated, hence their "master race" breeding programs. And exactly which Christian books did they promote?

Anonymous said...

"And exactly which Christian books did they promote?'

Don't know if they did, but they banned books that in any way spoke out against Christianity. From the list of writings banned by the Nazis:

"All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk."

So the Nazis deemed the Christian religion and its institution and faith in God as being holy to the healthy sentiments of the German Volk.

"The Nazis most likely banned books on "primitive Darwinism" because they had different ideas. Nazis didn't leave anything to chance, not even evolution."

Can we take it these musings are speculative, Hawkeye? The Nazis called Darwinian evolution "false scientific enlightenment". That sounds like a little more than quibbling over whether it should be left to chance.

Anonymous said...

Can't say I blame the Christianists for being too stunned to reply to this. What more is there to say? All is not as rosy as they would like it to be.

radar said...

Stunned? More like bored. Having written this blog for six or seven years and studying the field of worldviews for, well, actually since I was in fourth grade, repetitive boilerplate arguments are boring.

Woolf's statement was no refutation because it was simply a description. The answer to "why do we see colors?" is not going to be "red."

As to the Nazis, they were propagandists who issued official statements to mollify the church and mollify the Catholics in particular (and took great advantage of them) and mollify the rest of the Western World by making statements that were often totally opposite to their actual beliefs.

Of course Hitler did not tell the world he foresaw a world-wide Aryan Nation that over time eliminated all other races and cultures and all combined under one government, beginning with Hitler's Third Reich. He saw his country first taking on the land of the former Holy Roman Empire and then to go on from there.

Do you understand what he was trying to do? He would lie to Chamberlain and to Roosevelt and in fact also to Stalin and the Emperor of Japan and Mussolini but his plan was to eventually either subdue or eradicate all non-Aryans and every other government. That his belief system was rooted in Darwinism is obvious.

radar said...

Here is a summary of Hitler's beliefs -

Evolution was a struggle for survival as described by Darwin. But Hitler did not prefer Darwin's belief that change would take place over time to "improve" the human race, so first he would identify the ruling, "most evolved" people, the Aryans, who were the Volk or The People.

The People were meant to rule the world by implementing Eugenics as a working model for gleaning the wheat from the chaff of humanity while forming a socialist state under the absolute dictatorship.

The NAZI party was a socialist statist party, called at that time fascist. Fascists were from the left, not the right, for those of you who have not studied world history and political science.

Hitler was a megalomaniac to a great extent, but his compatriots did not understand how far out and how crazed he was until he began planning to attack his nominal ally, Russia. We can be very glad that Hitler was so in love with his own idealistic world that he saw no negatives in throwing away the military advantage of the Axis Powers comprised largely of Germany, Japan, Italy and Russia.

Hitler was Machievellian. He was a believer in destiny and that destiny was predicted by Darwinism. Germany was rife with this kind of thought, the Wagnerian Imperial attitude that had led to the Kaiser's attempt to rule Europe that led to WWI.

radar said...

One of Hitler's inspirations was Nietzsche, whose concept of the "ubermensch" (literally over-man or often read as superman). So when I say that Darwinism was a precursor to fascism, well, it was a precursor to communism as well and in both cases it is simply a necessary part of the overall worldview and not necessarily the key component.

The German people had accepted the ideas of the German/Prussian royal line that God had bequeathed ruling power to their rulers and although the royal family had been deposed Hitler stepped in to fill the void that many older Germans felt had existed since the Armistice. The German people had felt cheated and once the Depression had hit there was a general distrust of the non-German world just waiting for the right snake-oil salesman to come along and whip them up to become an organized, powerful military force.

So I do not claim that Darwin birthed Hitler, for the Nietzsche super-German concept and the idea of rule by destiny was still accepted by the people as well, so Fascism was a soup in which Darwin was a key ingredient but certainly not the only one and perhaps not even the primary one. Tyrants seeking to rule look for excuses and reasons, excuses and reasons do not seek out tyrants. But please do not insult the intelligence of the readership by refusing to see the obvious and integral portion of the Nazi worldview that was propped up by Darwin.

radar said...

Also, keep in mind that a comment might simply be ignored. I may or may not come back to older posts and I am not a paid blogger whose job is to monitor comments, so if you say something and no answer comes back and this annoys you, come up to the newest post and say it again.

Anonymous said...

"repetitive boilerplate arguments are boring"

Sadly, that would dispose of most of your blog. Especially since your boilerplate arguments were long falsified or consist of a web of logical fallacies to begin with. But anyway. I doubt you'll ever have the courage to honestly defend your beliefs among anything other than a pre-converted crowd.

"Woolf's statement was no refutation because it was simply a description."

Yeah, a description of something counter to your assertion. Did you miss that connection? You posted the claim "A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity". Jon Woolf responded with the observation that "Your material brain generates non-material thoughts", which directly contradicts that claim and falsifies it. Really not that hard to understand.

Anonymous said...

"if you say something and no answer comes back and this annoys you, come up to the newest post and say it again."

Point taken, Radar, but it would be easier to buy your "good faith" if you didn't dismiss opposing views wholesale without addressing them.

Anonymous said...

As for Hitler, he was hardly keeping his expansionist plans a secret. You may have heard of that book he wrote. His ambitions were well known and were welcome fodder to the German people at the time.

You dismiss the Nazis banning Darwin while favoring Christianity with a simple "they lie all the time", but for some peculiar reason don't back that up with any facts to support your specific claim re. the banning of these specific books.

I hope you understand this was not some poster or press release, this was their actual policy, and they weren't exactly shy about expressing their thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Now, political science. Funny how you so quickly disqualify yourself on this subject as you already did on modern science. You claim to know something about political science, but in just about the same breath equate communism, socialism, national socialism and fascism. Political science is not just reading a few Glenn Beck books, you know.

For starters, crack a dictionary and look up the terms above. See if you notice anything.

Maybe read up on the Axis a little too. Russia was in the Axis? Good luck trying to pass a history class with that nugget.

Can't tell the difference between left and right? You wouldn't make it out of a poli sci class with that blind spot.

Anonymous said...

As for your desperate attempt to pin Hitler on Darwin, all you've demonstrated so far is a fervent belief on Hitler's part in artificial selection. It looks pretty close to animal husbandry when you think about it, and that's hardly news. No connection whatsoever to evolution demonstrated.

Which in turn lines up perfectly with the Nazis banning books on Darwinian evolution - because to them Darwin's theory of evolution would vastly reduce the status of the Nietzschean "superman" - very similar to the way the notion offends some Christians' minds, like yours. Can you imagine the Nazis believing their Aryan demigods shared an ancestor with a chimp? Yeah, right.

(On a sidenote, I noticed that when you call something "obvious", I've learned to get suspicious - you tend to use it as shorthand for not wanting to back something up. Same for your belief in creationism.)

Darwin's theory of evolution is no friend to anyone who believes in the complete superiority of man over all creation or a particular race being superior to all others. That's closer to religious belief. It's more compatible with some notion of "God's chosen people" than the acceptance that we are just one of many, many species on this planet - a humbling thought you shouldn't dismiss too flippantly.

Jon Woolf said...

Anonymous, above:

"Russia was in the Axis?"

You want to be careful with this. Radar may be clueless on evolution and science, but on other topics he occasionally gets something right. The USSR was never part of the Tripartite Pact, but for a while in 1939-41 it was nominally an ally of Germany, under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement.

And if you look at what they actually did, rather than what they said, there are some fairly strong similarities between socialism as practiced in the Soviet Union, Fascism as practiced in Mussolini's Italy, and National Socialism as practiced in Nazi Germany. There are plenty of differences too, mind you, but the similarities do exist.

Anonymous said...

"Radar may be clueless on evolution and science,"

Amen to that.

"but on other topics he occasionally gets something right."

Sadly, not in this case.

"The USSR was never part of the Tripartite Pact, but for a while in 1939-41 it was nominally an ally of Germany, under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement."

Yes, but that alone doesn't make it a member of the Axis. The Soviet Union even tried to join the Axis, but HItler ignored them and then simply invaded.

So no, the Soviet Union was clearly never a member of the Axis.

Anonymous said...

"And if you look at what they actually did, rather than what they said, there are some fairly strong similarities between socialism as practiced in the Soviet Union, Fascism as practiced in Mussolini's Italy, and National Socialism as practiced in Nazi Germany. There are plenty of differences too, mind you, but the similarities do exist."

Again, that alone doesn't lay the differences to waste. The Nazis hated communism, consistently and from day one.

"The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility to small businessmen, and its atheism." - WIkipedia citation: Bendersky, Joseph W. A history of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945. 2nd ed. Burnham Publishers, 2000. p. 72.

I'm sure you could find similarities between Nazi Germany, the US today and Russia today. I think we can all agree that that wouldn't suffice to simply equate them.

Radar with his usual black-and-white thinking seeks a neat, simplistic divide of "right-wing = ALWAYS GOOD" and "left-wing = "ALWAYS BAD", but even a casual glance at political science doesn't bear his wishful thinking out.

Jon Woolf said...

"Radar with his usual black-and-white thinking seeks a neat, simplistic divide of "right-wing = ALWAYS GOOD" and "left-wing = "ALWAYS BAD", but even a casual glance at political science doesn't bear his wishful thinking out."

On this, we agree. Simple answers are for simple minds. Politics and history are always more complex than we think they are.

Kind of like evolutionary theory, in that respect.