Intelligent Design

[Bryan]

Gee, what a stretch to move from Darwin to Darwinism.

No difference between the man and the ideas, I suppose.

Btw-I've seen the film. Stein explicitly blames Darwin to the point of having a staredown with a statue of him.

Sounds like you're going on subjective impression if you're relying on Stein going face to face with Darwin's bust.

Still waiting for support of your claims, coward.

What claims do you feel I haven't supported? Quote me.

What are the differences between Lamarckism and Darwinism? Still waiting.

There's no reason for you to wait. Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution and retained Lamarckism to a substantial degree. There isn't much difference until you get to much later versions of Darwinism.

As I said (and you ignored) the ideas of Lamarckian evolution that Hitler's policies.

I pointed out (and you presently ignore) that Darwin believed in Lamarckism in important respects.

Yeah, that was me equivocating even though utopian communism recieves its own chapter in The Communist Manifesto. Some gift.

Which chapter would you say is the chapter on utopian communism?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...nist-manifesto/

[Guest *Autonomous*]

What are the differences between Lamarckism and Darwinism? Still waiting. As I said (and you ignored) the ideas of Lamarckian evolution that Hitler's policies

Well that was odd...

...were based on are the ones not found in Darwinian evolution. There is no 'genetic purity' or 'master race' in Darwinian evolution. In fact, you could make a decent case that Hitler's policies are more a case of misunderstanding genetics than misunderstanding evolution.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

No difference between the man and the ideas, I suppose.

I didn't use either Darwin OR Darwinism. Apparently Stein and the producers don't see a difference-look, we agree!

Sounds like you're going on subjective impression if you're relying on Stein going face to face with Darwin's bust.

What claims do you feel I haven't supported? Quote me.

I already did

There's no reason for you to wait. Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution and retained Lamarckism to a substantial degree. There isn't much difference until you get to much later versions of Darwinism.

I pointed out (and you presently ignore) that Darwin believed in Lamarckism in important respects.

I already pointed out that of course they share a lot in common-they were studying the same thing. I'm still waiting for you to describe the differences-it isn't just natural selection, though that is one hell of a difference.

Which chapter would you say is the chapter on utopian communism?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...nist-manifesto/

Oops-sub-chapter:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...esto/ch03.htm#c

Sadly-it can't be cut-and-pasted.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

I can remember when Star Wars came out, the critics panned the movie all day. It was called

stupid and rediculous. It turned out to be the highest grossing film of all time.

I can understand your angst, you loony atheists are afraid of the truth. Remember: "The truth

shall set you free".

I'm pretty sure no one said it was rediculous.

What truth?

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

[Guest Guest]

I can remember when Star Wars came out, the critics panned the movie all day. It was called

stupid and rediculous. It turned out to be the highest grossing film of all time.

I can understand your angst, you loony atheists are afraid of the truth. Remember: "The truth

shall set you free".

Perfect comparison. Both films are fiction.

Did you have to take lessons to be this stupid?

[Guest Guest]

I can remember when Star Wars came out, the critics panned the movie all day. It was called

stupid and rediculous. It turned out to be the highest grossing film of all time.

The key difference is that the makers of Star Wars weren't trying to convince people that their fiction was fact.

I can understand your angst, you loony atheists are afraid of the truth. Remember: "The truth

shall set you free".

Remember: without evidence, ID will never be anything more than a laughingstock. The best IDiots can come up with is essentially "I don't get it, therefore it's wrong." I can understand your angst at being laughed out of the scientific community, you loony IDiots are afraid of the truth.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

There's no reason for you to wait. Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution and retained Lamarckism to a substantial degree. There isn't much difference until you get to much later versions of Darwinism.

Perhaps you'll find it easier to answer if I rephrase the question-precisely what parts of Lamarckism did Darwin retain?

[Bryan]

Well that was odd...

...were based on are the ones not found in Darwinian evolution.

... if you expunge Darwin's Larmarckian streak from the equation, anyway. Hitler wrote specifically of the cultural superiority of the German Volk, one of the aspects of race that Darwin believed was heritable. In like manner, the Jewish culture could be expected to dilute German culture through interbreeding.

There is no 'genetic purity' or 'master race' in Darwinian evolution.

Weren't you the one who pointed out that Darwin did not understand genetics in the first place? As for "master race," it is implied in the struggle for survival. Darwinism predicted struggle and extinction for weaker races. Hitler envisioned his people as the survivors of the struggle. That would make them the master race by implication.

In fact, you could make a decent case that Hitler's policies are more a case of misunderstanding genetics than misunderstanding evolution.

And now we're probably supposed to believe that it was a coincidence that Darwin didn't understand genetics either.

Right?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

One thing that I thought was surprising about the movie was the overt identification of ID with religion. This is something that the cdesign propentists have tried to avoid. I wonder if that will hurt them in the long run-the only chance for ID to be taught was deniability. In fact, the 'alien designer' that they repeatedly mock Dawkins for was an example given repeatedly by IDers to show that the Designer didn't have to be God.

[Guest 2smart4u]

One thing that I thought was surprising about the movie was the overt identification of ID with religion. This is something that the cdesign propentists have tried to avoid. I wonder if that will hurt them in the long run-the only chance for ID to be taught was deniability. In fact, the 'alien designer' that they repeatedly mock Dawkins for was an example given repeatedly by IDers to show that the Designer didn't have to be God.

Easy on the Kool-Aid, you're going off the track.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Blah blah blah

Why are you even writing about a movie you haven't seen?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

... if you expunge Darwin's Larmarckian streak from the equation, anyway. Hitler wrote specifically of the cultural superiority of the German Volk, one of the aspects of race that Darwin believed was heritable. In like manner, the Jewish culture could be expected to dilute German culture through interbreeding.

Care to cite your claim about Darwin's belief? From Darwin, if you please.

Weren't you the one who pointed out that Darwin did not understand genetics in the first place? As for "master race," it is implied in the struggle for survival. Darwinism predicted struggle and extinction for weaker races. Hitler envisioned his people as the survivors of the struggle. That would make them the master race by implication.

:lol: God you're an idiot. Natural selection favors those able to reproduce, it has nothing to do with master races or weaker races.

And now we're probably supposed to believe that it was a coincidence that Darwin didn't understand genetics either.

Right?

Darwin was a contemporary with Mendel, so how could he? Genetics was in its infancy. I suppose he understood it as well as any one else of the time.

Here's the thing-even if Darwin believed everything you think he did, he's about as responsible for Hitler as the Wright brothers are for 9/11.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Easy on the Kool-Aid, you're going off the track.

Talking about the movie Expelled in a thread about the movie is going off the track? What are you smoking?

[Bryan]

Care to cite your claim about Darwin's belief? From Darwin, if you please.

What's the matter? Did Ask.com crash or something?

Darwin's Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism.[1] Darwin called his Lamarckian hypothesis Pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication, after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

The recent historiography of science has too readily dismissed this instance of Darwin's theorizing as too patently ad hoc to merit serious attention. But the strength of such criticism is undermined by closer examination. It must be seen that it was Darwin's firm conviction that no

general theory of inheritance was acceptable unless it equally explained important, exceptional phenomena. These he initially listed as: instances of noninheritance; dominance simultaneous with blending; exact duplica-tion of parent through both sexual and asexual repro- duction; inheritance of the effects of use, disuse, and habit; atavism; and saltations.

http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-69

Page one confirms Darwin's lingering Lamarckism:

http://www.esp.org/books/darwin/variation/...n-chap-27-i.pdf

Man prompted by his conscience, will through long habit acquire such perfect self-command, that his desires and passions will at last yield instantly and without a struggle to his social sympathies and instincts, including his feeling for the judgment of his fellows. The still hungry, or the still revengeful man will not think of stealing food, or of wreaking his vengeance. It is possible, or as we shall hereafter see, even probable, that the habit of self-command may, like other habits, be inherited.

http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/.../4?term=culture

:lol: God you're an idiot. Natural selection favors those able to reproduce, it has nothing to do with master races or weaker races.

How are such races distributed over the world; and how, when crossed, do they react on each other in the first and succeeding generations? And so with many other points. The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals.

http://www.online-literature.com//descent_man/1/

Perhaps you'll argue that extinct races continue to be able to reproduce. I suppose we'll see.

Here's the thing-even if Darwin believed everything you think he did, he's about as responsible for Hitler as the Wright brothers are for 9/11.

Because we cannot ever separate personal responsibility from the consequences of an idea?

[Guest Truthteller]

HA! Autonomous can't even respond to Bryan now! Bryan wins!

[Guest Guest]

HA! Autonomous can't even respond to Bryan now! Bryan wins!

The hell are you talking about, fool? Bryan goes on and on forever without really saying anything, and the obvious flaws in his arguments have been pointed out by probably over a dozen posters already.

[Bryan]

HA! Autonomous can't even respond to Bryan now! Bryan wins!

He'll respond. He'll post to tell me he's not avoiding addressing anything.

[Bryan]

The hell are you talking about, fool?

He's probably talking about the fact that I met autonomous' challenge regarding Darwin's Lamarckianism, after which autonomous has been scarce.

Bryan goes on and on forever without really saying anything, and the obvious flaws in his arguments have been pointed out by probably over a dozen posters already.

The obvious flaws in the supposedly "obvious flaws" have also been pointed out. That's why anonymous Guests like you have to show up to just repeat the refuted argument as if it was gold.

Seriously, now. It's obvious that Darwin sustained Lamarckian beliefs, isn't it?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

He's probably talking about the fact that I met autonomous' challenge regarding Darwin's Lamarckianism, after which autonomous has been scarce.

The obvious flaws in the supposedly "obvious flaws" have also been pointed out. That's why anonymous Guests like you have to show up to just repeat the refuted argument as if it was gold.

Seriously, now. It's obvious that Darwin sustained Lamarckian beliefs, isn't it?

Of course. Which was why when you brought it up I posted the following:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85395

I'm sure you've enjoyed mauling your straw man though. You've done little else since I clobbered your commie idea. That's why I stopped.

What's the matter? Did Ask.com crash or something?

Awwww-isn't that cute. You actually think this is work for me.

Darwin's Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism.[1] Darwin called his Lamarckian hypothesis Pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication, after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics.[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

The recent historiography of science has too readily dismissed this instance of Darwin's theorizing as too patently ad hoc to merit serious attention. But the strength of such criticism is undermined by closer examination. It must be seen that it was Darwin's firm conviction that no

general theory of inheritance was acceptable unless it equally explained important, exceptional phenomena. These he initially listed as: instances of noninheritance; dominance simultaneous with blending; exact duplica-tion of parent through both sexual and asexual repro- duction; inheritance of the effects of use, disuse, and habit; atavism; and saltations.

http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-69

Page one confirms Darwin's lingering Lamarckism:

http://www.esp.org/books/darwin/variation/...n-chap-27-i.pdf

Man prompted by his conscience, will through long habit acquire such perfect self-command, that his desires and passions will at last yield instantly and without a struggle to his social sympathies and instincts, including his feeling for the judgment of his fellows. The still hungry, or the still revengeful man will not think of stealing food, or of wreaking his vengeance. It is possible, or as we shall hereafter see, even probable, that the habit of self-command may, like other habits, be inherited.

http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/.../4?term=culture

Precisely which of these shows that Darwin believed that cultural superiority was inheritable? That was the claim you made, and clearly the one I questioned. Heck-I even quoted you.

How are such races distributed over the world; and how, when crossed, do they react on each other in the first and succeeding generations? And so with many other points. The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals.

http://www.online-literature.com//descent_man/1/

Perhaps you'll argue that extinct races continue to be able to reproduce. I suppose we'll see.

Darwin was wrong there, clearly. Technology trumps biology. However, evolution is simply about the ability to survive long enough to reproduce. There is nothing about the 'Master Race' in there. That might be why the Nazis banned Darwin:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bu...s/documents.htm

(The section Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 #6.

Because we cannot ever separate personal responsibility from the consequences of an idea?

Expelled apparently cannot. Thing is-you already said theat evolution was in the air before Darwin.

As far as the consequences of ideas go-exactly where did anti-Semitism come from again? Yhe ADL certainly disagrees with the movie:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

[Guest *Autonomous*]

He'll respond. He'll post to tell me he's not avoiding addressing anything.

Which would make me like you harping on something I never claimed for three pages.

[Guest Guest]

He's probably talking about the fact that I met autonomous' challenge regarding Darwin's Lamarckianism, after which autonomous has been scarce.

The obvious flaws in the supposedly "obvious flaws" have also been pointed out. That's why anonymous Guests like you have to show up to just repeat the refuted argument as if it was gold.

Seriously, now. It's obvious that Darwin sustained Lamarckian beliefs, isn't it?

"Darwin sustained Lamarckian beliefs." They're both dead. Who cares?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

"Darwin sustained Lamarckian beliefs." They're both dead. Who cares?

That and neo-Darwinist synthesis theory had replaced strict Darwinism well before Hitler's time. Not to mention that "Lamarckism" refers to a very specific part of Lamarck's theory that Darwin believed but wasn't a working part of his theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

It really doesn't matter, as evolution doesn't rely on Darwin's authority. Let's face it-by our standards Darwin was certainly racist. He considered the different races subspecies, and almost certainly believed that whites were superior. But his theory opened the door to understanding that inherent superiority isn't the issue (even if he himself didn't take it that far). Take the Native American holocaust, for instance. While not a seperate species, Europeans managed to settle America largely because they brought diseases with them that devastated the pre-existing population. They were in no way superior-they just had an advantage in surviving the disease.

In the end-it isn't faith or philosophy that will bring about the end of racism-it is science proving that race is a social construct. Genetics have shown that race is just an inherited set of identifiers. That's it. Race really is only skin deep.

[Guest Truthteller]

Of course. Which was why when you brought it up I posted the following:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85395

I'm sure you've enjoyed mauling your straw man though. You've done little else since I clobbered your commie idea. That's why I stopped.

Awwww-isn't that cute. You actually think this is work for me.

Precisely which of these shows that Darwin believed that cultural superiority was inheritable? That was the claim you made, and clearly the one I questioned. Heck-I even quoted you.

Darwin was wrong there, clearly. Technology trumps biology. However, evolution is simply about the ability to survive long enough to reproduce. There is nothing about the 'Master Race' in there. That might be why the Nazis banned Darwin:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bu...s/documents.htm

(The section Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 #6.

Expelled apparently cannot. Thing is-you already said theat evolution was in the air before Darwin.

As far as the consequences of ideas go-exactly where did anti-Semitism come from again? Yhe ADL certainly disagrees with the movie:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

Don't you Kool-aid drinkers know when your beaten?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Don't you Kool-aid drinkers know when your beaten?

psst-I'm laughing at you.

[Bryan]

Of course. Which was why when you brought it up I posted the following:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85395

How did you arrive at the notion that Lamarckian evolution would imply a progression while Darwinism does not?

I'm sure you've enjoyed mauling your straw man though. You've done little else since I clobbered your commie idea. That's why I stopped.

You "clobbered" the commie idea by doubling down on your equivocation.

I doubt you could clobber a dessicated planarian.

Awwww-isn't that cute. You actually think this is work for me.

I know for a fact that it is difficult for you because of the results you achieve, though my comment was intended to tweak you for not looking up the information for yourself (which you could assuredly do if it was easy for you). You give another example of horrendous results in your current post. More on that in a moment.

Precisely which of these shows that Darwin believed that cultural superiority was inheritable? That was the claim you made, and clearly the one I questioned. Heck-I even quoted you.

Meh. You quoted me generally (using quote tags around my response as I did with yours above) but not in your question. You asked me to support my claims about Darwin's beliefs without specifying what you were talking about.

Lastly, habit in the individual would ultimately play a very important part in guiding the conduct of each member; for the social instinct, together with sympathy, is, like any other instinct, greatly strengthened by habit, and so consequently would be obedience to the wishes and judgment of the community. These several subordinate propositions must now be discussed, and some of them at considerable length.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_04.html

Now, if some one man in a tribe, more sagacious than the others, invented a new snare or weapon, or other means of attack or defence, the plainest self-interest, without the assistance of much reasoning power, would prompt the other members to imitate him; and all would thus profit. The habitual practice of each new art must likewise in some slight degree strengthen the intellect. If the new invention were an

important one, the tribe would increase in number, spread, and supplant other tribes. In a tribe thus rendered more numerous there

would always be a rather greater chance of the birth of other superior and inventive members. If such men left children to inherit their

mental superiority, the chance of the birth of still more ingenious members would be somewhat better, and in a very small tribe decidedly better. Even if they left no children, the tribe would still include their blood-relations; and it has been ascertained by agriculturists* that by preserving and breeding from the family of an animal, which when slaughtered was found to be valuable, the desired character has been obtained.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_05.html

The same conclusion may be extended to man; the intellect must have been all-important to him, even at a very remote period,

as enabling him to invent and use language, to make weapons, tools, traps, &c., whereby with the aid of his social habits, he long ago

became the most dominant of all living creatures.

A great stride in the development of the intellect will have followed, as soon as the half-art and half-instinct of language came

into use; for the continued use of language will have reacted on the brain and produced an inherited effect; and this again will have

reacted on the improvement of language. As Mr. Chauncey Wright* has well remarked, the largeness of the brain in man relatively to his

body, compared with the lower animals, may be attributed in chief part to the early use of some simple form of language,- that wonderful

engine which affixes signs to all sorts of objects and qualities, and excites trains of thought which would never arise from the mere

impression of the senses, or if they did arise could not be followed out. The higher intellectual powers of man, such as those of

ratiocination, abstraction, self-consciousness, &c., probably follow from the continued improvement and exercise of the other mental

faculties.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_21.html

Darwin was wrong there, clearly. Technology trumps biology. However, evolution is simply about the ability to survive long enough to reproduce.

Darwin didn't see it that way, obviously, and his Lamarckian notion of acquired characteristics (capable of being passed on) demonstrates this. Moreover, he saw evolution as progressive in man.

Many of the faculties, which have been of inestimable service to man for his progressive advancement, such as the powers of the

imagination, wonder, curiosity, an undefined sense of beauty, a tendency to imitation, and the love of excitement or novelty, could

hardly fail to lead to capricious changes of customs and fashions.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_03.html

Progressive advancement.

There is nothing about the 'Master Race' in there.

Read again the passage about the higher tribes supplanting the lower tribes.

That might be why the Nazis banned Darwin:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bu...s/documents.htm

(The section Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 #6.

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bu....htm#guidelines

You're a poor researcher.

Which of Darwin's works were "philosophical and social"?

Haekel's Monism was certainly that, and was opposed by the Nazis (with Haeckel's Monist society banned in 1934 as a result. Grouped as they are, "primitive Darwinism" as a philosophical/social notion probably represents something similar.

In short, you have provided no reasonable evidence that any book by Charles Darwin was banned in Germany.

Expelled apparently cannot. Thing is-you already said theat evolution was in the air before Darwin.

It was, and Darwin put it over the top giving it incredible social momentum. The subtitle "THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE" on such a best-selling work naturally got people to thinking how their race stacked up in the struggle for life.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frames...3&pageseq=2

As far as the consequences of ideas go-exactly where did anti-Semitism come from again?

For Hitler, Jews represented a competing race and a challenge to the survival of the Aryan race represented by Germany. For Luther they represented a religious group opposed to an orderly society. The Nazis made use of the historical German antisemitism (which also predated Luther) but set the concept in a Darwinian frame. Science was used to provide the ad hoc justification for antisemitism.

Yhe ADL certainly disagrees with the movie:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

The ADL isn't always coherent.