• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Darwinism lead to bigotry?

I can't investigate if there are no sources.

If you were unaware of the information around the topic, and made a negative assertion anyways, then you were making an assertion from ignorance. That is, unless you were under the impression that all available data was presented to you here
 
If you were unaware of the information around the topic, and made a negative assertion anyways, then you were making an assertion from ignorance. That is, unless you were under the impression that all available data was presented to you here

I was making a warranted assertion when there appeared to be no sources. After you cited what you'd considered evidence, I retracted my assertion and will gladly investigate. I have no problem doing so, as long as there is evidence.
 
The most interesting aspect of this thread is the attempt to divorce Darwin from macro evolution. Darwinism is alive and well as is punctualism. Punctualism exists only because the slow changes predicted by Darwin, and his modern disciples, are not seen in the only evidence available, the fossil record. It has been evident since Darwin. So evident that Goldschmidt seriously suggested the birth of a 'Hopeful Monster' to explain the rapid appearance in the fossil record of myriads of creatures. Gould et al promoted the idea of punctualism, a form of the 'Hopeful Monster' idea.

Cladists tend not to rely on the direct descent idea of Darwin for the same reason. The fossil record simp[ly does not support it. For example ancestors often times show up in the record later than their descendants. The late Colin Patterson was a strong proponent of cladism.

And yes, Darwin was a racist, as were most of his generation. And also yes, it led to Eugenics. Racism is evident today in the idea that American Blacks are not capable of great things. That idea is espoused constantly by the Progressives\Liberals. No doubt some rascals in history have achieved great things. Attila the Hun is a prime example, ditto Ben Franklin.

Darwin's greatest gift to humanity seems to be a scientific support for atheism. At least that's the conclusion of some atheists. Huxley, Azimov, most Humanists, most scientists, Dawkins and others.

Two refreshing commentaries by atheists:

"Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism."

Bozarth, G. Richard, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, Sept. 20, 1979, p. 30.

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. "

Nagel, Thomas - The Last Word (Oxford, Oxford Press, 1997) p. 130

Ph.D., Harvard
Professor of Philosophy and Law
Fiorello La Guardia Professor of Law
NYU

And finally, my favorite rant of a Secular Humanist; an organization that in reality deifies Darwin.

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of the new faith...These teachers must imbody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach, regardless of the educational level-preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new-the rotting corpse of Christianity...and the new faith of humanism."

Dunphy, John `A Religion For A New Age' in, THE HUMANIST, Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26
 
Nice little bit of cut and paste from AnswersinGenesis, ICR and a couple of other clueless sites.

No humanist "deifies" Darwin - no matter how often the fundies say such nonsense.


As with the rest of the post, the statements about the fossil record do nothing more than illustrate the ignorance of the creationist.
 
Nice little bit of cut and paste from AnswersinGenesis, ICR and a couple of other clueless sites.

No humanist "deifies" Darwin - no matter how often the fundies say such nonsense.


As with the rest of the post, the statements about the fossil record do nothing more than illustrate the ignorance of the creationist.

"Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809. The theory of evolution, which he propounded, revolutionized the world of science and impacted society at large. As we approach his birthday in February, the Centers for Inquiry will be celebrating the contributions of Darwin and all the science teachers who labor in the schools to teach evolution and ward off continuing attacks from Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates."

Ed Buckner - Spring, 2002 Secular Humanist Bulletin

"...humanism is the dominant theme of the modern intellectual world because it provides a perspective on man and nature that is derived from the natural, biological, and behavioral sciences. It is a picture of a universe at least fifteen billion years old in which human life evolved by natural causal pressures."

Kurtz, Paul - IN DEFENSE OF SECULAR HUMANISM, (Buffalo: Prometheus Press, 1983) p. 8

BTW: I've read these source and not from AnswersinGenesis, ICR etc. More on Darwin Day and Humanists

Darwin Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin Day » British Humanist Association
Support the Darwin Day Resolution: Contact Your Representative Now!

You're welcome.

Fossil record:

For openers...

“The only illustration Darwin published in 'On The Origins of Species' was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin’s theory of evolution it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species to another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fosssils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin‘s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which in turn demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms.”

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. - Sudden Origins (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999) p. 3

I'd be happy to provide more about the record from other evolutionists if you'd like. Ignorance indeed.
 
"Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809. The theory of evolution, which he propounded, revolutionized the world of science and impacted society at large. As we approach his birthday in February, the Centers for Inquiry will be celebrating the contributions of Darwin and all the science teachers who labor in the schools to teach evolution and ward off continuing attacks from Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates."

Ed Buckner - Spring, 2002 Secular Humanist Bulletin

"...humanism is the dominant theme of the modern intellectual world because it provides a perspective on man and nature that is derived from the natural, biological, and behavioral sciences. It is a picture of a universe at least fifteen billion years old in which human life evolved by natural causal pressures."

Kurtz, Paul - IN DEFENSE OF SECULAR HUMANISM, (Buffalo: Prometheus Press, 1983) p. 8

BTW: I've read these source and not from AnswersinGenesis, ICR etc. More on Darwin Day and Humanists

Darwin Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin Day » British Humanist Association
Support the Darwin Day Resolution: Contact Your Representative Now!

You're welcome.

Fossil record:

For openers...

“The only illustration Darwin published in 'On The Origins of Species' was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin’s theory of evolution it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species to another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fosssils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin‘s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which in turn demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms.”

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. - Sudden Origins (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999) p. 3

I'd be happy to provide more about the record from other evolutionists if you'd like. Ignorance indeed.

You do realize that Sudden Origins isn't saying evolution doesn't happen, right? Also, Darwin Day doesn't prove that Darwin is being deified, no more than President's day is deifying presidents. Plus, even if it were, I don't see how it'd matter, considering scientists don't use statements like "Darwin said so" to prove that evolution has and is happening.
 
"You do realize that Sudden Origins isn't saying evolution doesn't happen, right? Also, Darwin Day doesn't prove that Darwin is being deified, no more than President's day is deifying presidents. Plus, even if it were, I don't see how it'd matter, considering scientists don't use statements like "Darwin said so" to prove that evolution has and is happening."

Yes I do. It is interesting to see the spin since Darwin to demonstrate macroevolution even though the only source for evidence, the fossil record is a bit skimpy. Saltation theoriies, Hopeful Monsters and punctualism all refute the Darwinian approach, a slow gradual change over long periods of time. Scientists say certain things to certain audiences. For example:

"I suspect there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty on this issue. Consider the following fantasy: the National Academy of Sciences publishes a position paper on science and religion stating that modern science leads directly to atheism. What would happen to its funding? To any federal funding of science? Every member of the Congress of the United States of America, even the two current members who are unaffiliated with any organized religion, profess to be deeply religious. I suspect that scientific leaders tread very warily on the issue of the religious implications of science for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research. And I think that many scientist feel some sympathy with the need for moral education and recognize the role that religion plays in this endeavor. These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest. "

Provine, William - Evolutionary Progress (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1988) p. 69

Ph.D. University of Chicago
Professor of Biological Sciences
Cornell University

A hypothetical? Probably not in historical terms.

and this:

"...we can no longer leave things to the breath of the creator. It turns out that although Darwin did not think
seriously about the problem, his theory of evolution provided us with the only satisfactory definition of life,
and hence with the only clear way of formulating the problems of origins."

Smith, John Maynard - EVOLUTION NOW: A CENTURY AFTER DARWIN, ed. Smith, John Maynard: (SF: W.H. Freeman, 1982) p. 7

No, scientists don't say it is so because Darwin said so, but, the apprecitiation for his secular foundation for a 'science' is well established.
 
hfd just admit it - you are a creationist. The use of certain key words and phrases are a dead giveaway. Amongst these are "Darwinist", "deification of Darwin", "macroevolution", "the only source for evidence, the fossil record", "evolutionist"


When attempting to refute 150+ years of research carried out by hundreds of thousands of scientists, maybe, just maybe, you should do a bit of studying. Although I will admit that for the True Believer, no evidence will ever be enough.

As many 'evolutionists' have pointed out, the fact that some scientists have promoted their own ideas about the causes and paths of evolutionary development does not negate other ideas in all instances. Punctuated equilibrium and gradual change over millenia can both be true and do not negate each other.


I wonder if you are getting your 'quotes' from this site- Evolution and Atheism
 
hfd just admit it - you are a creationist. The use of certain key words and phrases are a dead giveaway. Amongst these are "Darwinist", "deification of Darwin", "macroevolution", "the only source for evidence, the fossil record", "evolutionist"


When attempting to refute 150+ years of research carried out by hundreds of thousands of scientists, maybe, just maybe, you should do a bit of studying. Although I will admit that for the True Believer, no evidence will ever be enough.

As many 'evolutionists' have pointed out, the fact that some scientists have promoted their own ideas about the causes and paths of evolutionary development does not negate other ideas in all instances. Punctuated equilibrium and gradual change over millenia can both be true and do not negate each other.


I wonder if you are getting your 'quotes' from this site- Evolution and Atheism

". . . if an individual with ambition to study nature rejects neo-Darwinist biology in today's ambience, he becomes a threat to his own means of livelihood . . .

Lynn Margulis, "Big Trouble in Biology," chapter 20 in Slanted Truths (Ed. by Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997), p. 279

Margulis was no creationist.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. ŒThe answer can be given as a clear, No."

Lewin, Roger"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883

Paleoanthropologist
New Scientist
Science

"The fossil record, and only the fossil record, provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota."

Stanley, Steven M. - THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE (NY: Basic Books, 1981) p. 72

Stanley, like Margulis and Lewin, is no creationist. They are both staunch evolutionists.

I have already provdied information about Darwin and those who attempt to elevate him.

I get my quotes from 35 years of reading. The idea of punctualism and gradualism are opposed. To say that periods of rapid evolution is followed by long periods of stasis is simply not compatible with Darwinian evolution.

Again, my personal beliefs are that of an agnostic. Unlike my friends who are believers and those who are atheists, I simply don't know.
 
Last edited:
Darwinism is alive and well as is punctualism

Come again? Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis that exists entirely within the Darwinist framework.

(And it is a popular myth, that Darwin could not see his ideas workable outside of the perptual gradual changes. Indeed, he pointed out that species do not change at the same rate - how could they, if adaptation determines the rate, and not some mystical drive toward perfection? Some species adapt better to a given environment, some environments last for longer periods of time...There bound to be periods of stagnation in evolution.
 
Last edited:
". . . if an individual with ambition to study nature rejects neo-Darwinist biology in today's ambience, he becomes a threat to his own means of livelihood . . .

Lynn Margulis.

You are completely ignoring the context. "In today's ambience" are the key words. Margulis was, of course, the early and strong proponent of symbiotic origin of mitochondria and plastids. We are talking, more generically, about "horizontal gene transfer" these days. It appears that on the level of prokaryotes at least, there are no real "evolutionary trees" with insulated branches, but rather a mesh of cross-linked evolutionary lines. The "neo-Darwinists in today's ambience" had insisted that there is nothing at all but head-to-tail generational gene transfer, even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Well, that's their problem, not Darwin's.
 
You are completely ignoring the context. "In today's ambience" are the key words. Margulis was, of course, the early and strong proponent of symbiotic origin of mitochondria and plastids. We are talking, more generically, about "horizontal gene transfer" these days. It appears that on the level of prokaryotes at least, there are no real "evolutionary trees" with insulated branches, but rather a mesh of cross-linked evolutionary lines. The "neo-Darwinists in today's ambience" had insisted that there is nothing at all but head-to-tail generational gene transfer, even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Well, that's their problem, not Darwin's.

Go back and read Somerville's comments to me and then consider context.
 
Come again? Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis that exists entirely within the Darwinist framework.

(And it is a popular myth, that Darwin could not see his ideas workable outside of the perptual gradual changes. Indeed, he pointed out that species do not change at the same rate - how could they, if adaptation determines the rate, and not some mystical drive toward perfection? Some species adapt better to a given environment, some environments last for longer periods of time...There bound to be periods of stagnation in evolution.

Basically a safe haven for evolutionary thought. Stasis and gradualism are miles apart. Even though Darwin was aware of the problem he nevertheless continued to promate gradual change through time via natural selection. And, natural selection does not create the new, it simply conserves what is. The old survival of the fittest construct is meaningless. Of course the fittest survive, and generally speaking, as pointed out by Eldredge, they move from a hostile environment.
 
Go back and read Somerville's comments to me and then consider context.

it would be easier if you had quoted him, or gave a link.

In any case, you seem to be objecting to the core of Darwinism - the idea that random individual variations and natural selection are responsible for emergence of new species. And you appear to cite developments and elaborations on this core - as if they were refutations. They are not.
 
Stasis and gradualism are miles apart.

No, they are not. Stasis occurs - has to occur - whenever adaptation is adequate and selective pressures are low. It doesn't mean that changes do not occur - when they occur - by increments - on the level of individual variability.
 
Last edited:
natural selection does not create the new, it simply conserves what is.

It does not "create" or "conserve" anything. It simply favors better-adapted versions. If versions with new emergent features are better adapted, why would it not favor them?
 
Last edited:
The old survival of the fittest construct is meaningless.

The "survival of the fittest" is nonsense - and a "construct" of popularizing media (gee, thanks, Mr.Spencer). There's no one out there to decide on who is "the fittest". Relatively more adapted organisms have a better chance of survival and reproduction, that's all. It doesn't mean that there is some mechanism at work in speciation other than natural selection working on the available variability.
 
Last edited:
the fittest survive, and generally speaking, as pointed out by Eldredge, they move from a hostile environment.

What does this have to do with anything? "Moving from a hostile environment" means simply swapping one set of selection parameters for another. Birds colonizing the predator-free southern continent had lost the selective pressure that supports flight, but they came under rigorous selective pressure favoring the abilities to fish underwater and survive absurdly low temperatures - penguinization!
 
it would be easier if you had quoted him, or gave a link.

In any case, you seem to be objecting to the core of Darwinism - the idea that random individual variations and natural selection are responsible for emergence of new species. And you appear to cite developments and elaborations on this core - as if they were refutations. They are not.

I did quote him. Go back to post 459. And you are correct, I do object to th core of Darwinism. The promoters of punctualism have in fact refuted the idea of gradualism and the idea that natural selection creates the new. Variations? Again I call to authority.

"Indeed, most gradual change with which I am familiar in the fossil record seems to be more a to-ing and froing-a sort of oscillation within a spectrum of possible states."

Eldredge, Niles - TIME FRAMES (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1985) p. 145
 
I do object to th core of Darwinism. The promoters of punctualism have in fact refuted the idea of gradualism and the idea that natural selection creates the new.

Then you misrepresent what "promoters of punctualism" are actually promoting. And they certainly do not propose any mechanism for "creating the new" other than natural selection. Out-of-context quotes cannot change the fact that in relation to the "core" both Gould and Eldredge were 100% Darwinists.
 
"Indeed, most gradual change ....

Most gradual change, indeed. As in: change that fits with the time frames favored by "phyletic gradualism". And then there are periods - the Cambrian explosion grandest of them all - when rates of change are much faster, and speciation is much more pronounced (mutations occur more often, environment changes more often, or both). Doesn't mean at all what you seem to think it means.
 
Then you misrepresent what "promoters of punctualism" are actually promoting. And they certainly do not propose any mechanism for "creating the new" other than natural selection. Out-of-context quotes cannot change the fact that in relation to the "core" both Gould and Eldredge were 100% Darwinists.

They are 100% evoltuionists. They are/were not 100% Darwinists. They reject both gradualism and uniformitarianism. Eldredge is still alive, not so Gould. Again, your charge of out of context is old and worn. I have in no way misrepresented the position of either Gould or Eldredge.
 
I have in no way misrepresented the position of either Gould or Eldredge.

Sure you had. What mechanism did they propose for "creating the new", other than natural selection?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...this new picture is not un-Darwinian, let alone anti-Darwinian. Selection is there—keeping species stable instead of inexorably changing them. And selection is there as the opportunity for change comes—for the most part, if not exclusively, when the physical environment changes the conditions of life"
Niels Eldredge in Virginia Quarterly Review (Spring 2006):

http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2006/spring/eldredge-confessions-darwinist/#fn11 (the whole thing is here, not just a quote ripped out of context)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom