“Making a Monkey out of Darwin,” by Patrick Buchanan

_{William Dembski

June 30, 2009

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s nice to see people like Pat Buchanan feeling more at ease about going after Darwin. In citing Eugene Windchy’s THE END OF DARWINISM, Buchanan writes:

Darwin … lied in “The Origin of Species” about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

SOURCE: worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102589

Comments

FWIMBW: http://www.isteve.com/2001_kenyan_runners_nature_or_nurture.htmCabal_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

djmullen, To be honest, I don't remember the content exactly. I read a lot of comments, and the normal criteria applies to all of them, so I recollect that it was offensive or vilifying or rude in some manner.Clive Hayden_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Clive, I see you deleted what would have been message #128. Would you mind telling me what you objected to in that message?djmullen_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

"You missed David’s point." I didn't miss David's point. This absurdness has been covered several times before in the last couple years and I am quite familiar with the arguments. By pointing to one instance or a set of instances does not mean that there isn't a direction going on for a lot of life. If someone disagrees then they should ponder that as they type a response in their computer. You represent a direction. And just because the road of life has a lot of dead ends or cul de sacs it does not mean there are not a lot of long winding roads that are still heading off into the sunset.jerry_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

They further note:
Many controversial questions still need to be answered, e.g., how signaling molecules and other proteomics candidates, with relative low abundance, precisely translocate from or to mitochondria in a matter of milliseconds while crossing a huge ocean of soluble and insoluble barriers. And more importantly, how such molecules further selectively bind their targets to provoke their tidy streaming cascades. The answer could be the contribution of cytoskeleton proteins or the presence of specific carriers or even pH changes etc. This might be true, but we still need to know the secret behind this disciplined organized wisdom.
They conclude
We realize so far that mitochondria could be the link between the body and this preserved wisdom of the soul devoted to guaranteeing life.
sparc_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

From Warda and Han's paper:
Alternatively, instead of sinking in a swamp of endless debates about the evolution of mitochondria, it is better to come up with a unified assumption that all living cells undergo a certain degree of convergence or divergence to or from each other to meet their survival in specific habitats. Proteomics data greatly assist this realistic assumption that connects all kinds of life. More logically, the points that show proteomics overlapping between different forms of life are more likely to be interpreted as a reflection of a single common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator than relying on a single cell that is, in a doubtful way, surprisingly originating all other kinds of life.
sparc_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

Clive
Anything that describes things on the bodily level is bound to separate into races if one wants to see it that way, even on a genetic level as Lewontin shows, which is why I prefer a qualitative measurement, like the soul endowed by their Creator, (which cannot be a quantitative measurement), to dispel the notion of race. Quantitative measurements won’t do it.
Then you may be interested in interested in Warda and Hans recent paper "Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence".sparc_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Clive
Modern day phrenology isn’t going to dispel racism.
What does Intelligent Design have to say about race and racism? Anything at all?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

As Erasmus write at the Site Which Shall Not Be Named, Clive is essentially arguing that names make you racist. Clive, again: suppose a group (say, Australian aborigines) has a strong susceptibility to a disease. Does noticing that make you racist?David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

KRiS_Censored:
And of course, I hope it’s not a case where you’re intentionally taking me too seriously to continue the parody and I’m taking you too seriously in return.
Yeah, that one. Maybe the W3C can standardize a tag for parody/satire, or sites can make good use of javascript's rollover event so we can just keep these things running indefinitely.dbthomas_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

dbthomas: lol. I hope you're not trying to mock me :) I always forget about Poe's Law and that I need to unambiguously state when I'm making an intentionally absurd point. And of course, I hope it's not a case where you're intentionally taking me too seriously to continue the parody and I'm taking you too seriously in return. Poe's Law can be confusing enough without second and third order parodies popping up.KRiS_Censored_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

KRiS_Censored: As the late Ed McMahon was said to have said: "You are correct, sir!" Par example: The Sun appears to revolve about a stationary Earth. The stars appear to rotate through the night sky. The Earth itself appears to be flat. A number of insects appear to spontaneously generate from dead flesh. David Copperfield apparently made the Statue Of Liberty disappear one time. I must bow to inexorable logic, and so I am now a confirmed flat-earther, geocentrist, Aristotelian, and am deeply, deeply afraid of Mr. Copperfield's vast sorcerous powers.dbthomas_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

The quote in the previous post was from Clive, who buys the appearance/reality duality when it suits him and dismisses it when it does not.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

"I also see what’s really there" As opposed to what appears to be there? Seriously, if there were a disease that significantly affected a population group -- say, Australian aborigines -- you would not want to know about that because it's a difference, therefore racist?David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

David: Appearance is paramount here. If something appears one way, then it is necessarily that way. Life appears designed, therefore it is necessarily designed. Aboriginals appears unique, therefore they are necessarily unique. Appearance is necessarily reality, and so your claim that appearance is not so appears to be nonsensical...therefore, it is necessarily nonsensical.KRiS_Censored_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Clive: "That’s a designation of race, which is, quite honestly, racism. He says that they are a unique group." Let's go back to the dictionary definitions. 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Clive - which of the characteristics that I've bolded does Lewontin exhibit in his paper? All, some or none?JTaylor_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

David, I read the essay, I'm the one who referenced it. I also see what's really there, in spite of what Lewontin is asserting.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

I give up. Your failure to read the essay for what it says is remarkable, and shameful. As far as I can tell, you just want to call it racist because Lewontin is an evolutionist. You'll do whatever you have to to make that charge.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, If the Aboriginals "appear" as a unique group, presumably provisionally, then all of the other races "appear" similar, presumably provisionally, in the same way, until nothing of any value is actually asserted because of the passive language. Don't you get that by now for crying out loud? Consistency, my friend, it's important.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Clive,
He says that they [Australian aborigines] are a unique group.
No, no, no, and again no. He says they appear as a unique group. Don't you get that by now? For crying out loud.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Clive, Population genetics isn't "modern day phrenology." All I see you saying is that a highly imaginative person could, with effort and against the explicit point of Lewontin's essay, abuse Lewontin's meaning, change "appear as" to "are," and make an argument for classifying humans into two races: Australian aboriginals and everyone else. Recall your original brief against Lewontin:
Read Lewontin’s paper on race. The aboriginals are markedly different from all other races on the planet, meaning they are less evolved, and therefore inferior, and therefore that position is racist, empirically racist, much like The Bell Curve was.
This was, and remains, utterly wrong.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

dbthomas, Make no mistake about it, the Aboriginals didn't fit in with the rest of humanity in Lewontin's paper. His measurement precluded them from the pool of other races. That's a designation of race, which is, quite honestly, racism. He says that they are a unique group. His theory on race being dispelled is mostly true, except for those darn pesky Aboriginals that he gave a nod to, presumably out of intellectual honesty, and passed right over the implications that follow, including the disconfirmation of his purpose of writing the paper that they evidence.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, I agree with you that measurements are, in themselves, neutral. But, when they show uniqueness, they separate, and that separation is itself a guideline of what designates race. Even Lewontin claimed this. And his paper, if it did address racism, (i.e. if the measurements refute racism by refuting race), then they went beyond any neutrality of measurement, into the realm of meaning; and on this, the same measurement could be used to support racism, for differences, (and there are differences) no matter how large or small, could be used to bolster the claim that races exist, depending on how you interpret them and the meaning you assign them. Modern day phrenology isn't going to dispel racism.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

Clive, here's what I wrote in 81:
Clive, your response [75] ignores the substance of what I wrote. Measurements are not racist. Lewontin used the word “appear” deliberately (think “appearance vs. reality”). Genetic differences in populations are not bumps on the head. You write:
The opposite of racism would be total equality, no difference
That is untrue in part because it uses “equality” and “difference” wrongly. Here’s an observation: African-Americans are significantly more likely than white Americans to have sickle cell disease and lupus. Is that racist? A number of diseases are significantly more prevalent in Jews than others. Is that racist? Was it racist for American Indians to be especially vulnerable to European diseases? No. It was, however, racist for the Europeans to give those Indians blankets embroidered with smallpox.
David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Clive, correctly interpreted, Lewontin undermines the entire basis of racism by demonstrating that the concept of "race" simply makes no biological sense at all. The differences people latch onto to define races are entirely superficial (including those of the Australian Aborigines you are so concerned about). So, if races don't actually exist, then they can't possess the supposedly "superior" or "inferior" traits people have tried to impute to them. It's really that simple: No races == no grounds for racism. Now, obviously, the article itself won't dispel anything. It's just words. However, if you read it, understand it, and are persuaded by its argument, then it stands to reason that you'd start questioning any racist opinions you might currently hold. They might even be dispelled.dbthomas_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

JTaylor, My point is that Lewontin's paper cannot dispel racism if it doesn't speak to the matter at all, as you're suggesting.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Clive: "If race is an attitude, then Lewontin didn’t deal with racism or races. You can’t have it both ways." That's not what I said. Being racist is an attitude. Race and racists do not have the same meaning (even though they are etyomologically related). You are using the word racist incorrectly. Unless you have a dictionary definition that shows otherwise?JTaylor_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

JTaylor, If race is an attitude, then Lewontin didn't deal with racism or races. You can't have it both ways.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Mr Hayden, What were your points in 81? You’ll have to quote them, I’m not looking at the thread like you are, I’m in the Wordpress backend, where I can view all comments, but I cannot see their corresponding number in the thread. Thanks. It might be helpful to create a different account for yourself where you can see what others see. You wouldn't need it as a sockpuppet, just for quality control. Just a suggestion. Other people have said Wordpress is a problem.Nakashima_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Clive: "The mere fact that the measurement that Lewontin used separates the Aboriginals as a unique race, is racism" Go back and read the dictionary definitions. Racism is an ATTITUDE held by individuals or groups of people, not just merely physical differences. It may be BASED on physical differences but those differences in of themselves cannot be classified as 'racist'. Unless you are using an entirely different kind of dictionary, I think you are quite wrong here.JTaylor_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply