“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

JTaylor, My apologies. It seems to me that dividing people into groups based on a physical characteristic is to categorize them as a race. Of course the measurement will be arbitrarily defined, and any difference used for whatever purpose one has in mind. The mere fact that the measurement that Lewontin used separates the Aboriginals as a unique race, is racism. He is not saying anything about which race is superior or not, but by the very method of measurement that separates, is a division of two races, and therefore racist. If we are all one, we would not be two.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 80:
So is nearly all the world. Big deal. why is it relevant?
Jerry @ 30
Whenever an anti ID person wants to criticize ID the sprinkling of the term “creationist” is not far behind. Just look at the Wikipedia excerpts for Charles Thaxton and Dean Kenyon.
If you hadn't noticed, you brought it up. Seriously: search this page and you will find that you were the first person to use the word "creationist" in a post. I merely attempted to correct a misunderstanding on your part that in using the word Wikipedia was somehow smearing Kenyon and Thaxton, rather than simply stating a biographical fact, which is entirely appropriate for biographical entries in a work of reference about two men who hold and promote a certain view of science (and particularly of biological science). It's even more appropriate in light of this subsequent complaint @ 76:
Until the term creationist is defined it is a meaningless concept and one should not use it.
As you know by having visited their entries, Wikipedia has helpfully linked the word "creationist" in each to the entry for creationism, which entry goes far beyond the level of detail of the definition you say is required before the word can be used.dbthomas_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

David, 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.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Hi Clive - I feel left out. Lots of people got responses, but I noticed you haven't responded to my comment regarding dictionary definitions of the word racist. How these definitions jive with the way you have been using the word?JTaylor_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Clive,
Right, evolution means anything that ever does anything
I don't understand what you mean, here. Evolution means the change of organisms over time to best adapt to their ecological niche. Their niche might require strength and complexity, or it might require weakness and simplicity. Some anti-evolutionists, in trying to equate evolution with Hitler and racism, think that natural selection means better, bigger, faster, stronger, Nietzsche's Superman, etc. It does not imply that at all. That is my only point.SingBlueSilver_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Clive, I suppose, given your persistent misrepresentation and your failure to address my points in 81, I suppose it's to be expected that you'll encourage jerry to persist in his misunderstanding as well. Is there an educational value in that? Lewis would be ashamed.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

jerry, Don't you know, don't you understand by now, that evolution means anything that ever does anything? ;)Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver, ------"The point is that evolution does NOT necessarily favor bigger, more beatiful, more complex, etc." Right, evolution means anything that ever does anything................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Echidna, ------"How does one go about measuring a soul?" One doesn't, and that's the point.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

djmullen, ------"Are you saying that it used to be okay with God to smash infant’s heads open on the rocks until Jesus spoke 2000 years ago? Eye for an eye? What’s that got to do with the Waters of Babylon? The Babylonian infants didn’t hurt the Israelis, why smash their heads open?" The verse is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is describing the thoughts of the Psalmist who is crying out against Babylon. It is not an exhortation. It is a raw emotion being put into words. The fact that the Psalmist writes it doesn't mean that God condones it. There are lots of verses in scripture that tell of events, without making them prescriptive. The OT is not a cookbook in which every step is an instruction, it tells events and histories too. Maybe you should read C.S. Lewis's work Reflections on the Psalms. He explains that the Psalms are lyrical poetry rather than as doctrinal treatises or sermons. https://christianaudio.com/product_info.php?products_id=1240 Thanks for giving me the opportunity for clearing this up, and yet again defend scripture, and recommending more enlightenment from C.S. Lewis. King David went and worshiped God after his baby died. You see, when everything belongs to God, he can take back what he gives, without moral imprecation. The same can be said about the children in Exodus. These children, literally, go directly to Heaven, so it is a change of real-estate for them, but not an everlasting death, as you assume death means. You have to take the whole context of scripture if you're going to argue using some of it. And sure, you can advocate that things that don't exist are nasty based on someone else's version of that thing, but you're still not vilifying it unless you assume it actually exists. But the problem with doing this with God is that He makes all standards, so you cannot use any standard that He gives you, even one for "goodness" and use it against Him, for you would then be agreeing with Him in His standard. "If a Brute and Blackguard made the world, then he also made our minds. If he made our minds, he also made that very standard in them whereby we judge him to be a Brute and Blackguard. And how can we trust a standard which comes from such a brutal and blackguradly source? If we reject him, we ought also to reject all his works. But one of his works is this very moral standard by which we reject him. If we accept this standard then we are really implying that he is not a Brute and Blackguard. If we reject it, then we have thrown away the only instrument by which we can condemn him. Heroic anti-theism thus has a contradiction in its centre. You must trust the universe in one respect even in order to condemn it in every other." C.S. LewisClive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

jerry, You missed David's point. The point is that evolution does NOT necessarily favor bigger, more beatiful, more complex, etc. Evolution favors whatever allows an organism's genes to become more numerous in the population. Sometimes that means smaller, such as mammals of the Mesozoic. Thanks to large land predators, smaller was a better survival advantage.SingBlueSilver_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Blind cavefish evolved to be "simpler" a long time ago, losing their sight.
Earlier studies found that the evolutionary impairment of eye development - as well as the loss of pigmentation and other cave-related changes - results from mutations at multiple gene sites, or loci. Reports also showed that eye loss has evolved independently at least three times and that at least some of the genes involved differ between the different cave populations.
David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

"David Kellogg types his absurd argument . . that life forms have not gotten more complex . . ." Of course they have. Some of them. Some of them haven't. That has always been my point. In any particular case, you can't say in advance what will count as an advantageous trait. "More capable" in some cases might mean simpler, smaller, uglier, etc. It's not that hard, and I don't see what you gain by misrepresenting Darwin.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

And David Kellogg types his absurd argument on a keyboard some place attached to his computer that life forms have not gotten more complex and more capable by pointing to protozoa and ignoring the 8,000 pound gorilla sitting next to him. Thus, pushing Darwin into the ash heaps because as David Kellogg has said, Darwin cannot explain evolution. So what does, an intelligent input? As last we agree on something. Thank you for making my point. Adios for the day.jerry_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

If you're going to argue against evolution, jerry, you're going to have to understand it first. Come to think of it, that's not true, as your own comments prove.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

“Many simple organisms (molds, bacteria, jellyfish) have had great evolutionary success” What kind of stupid argument is this?
The stupid argument of Darwin 101?
Is anyone who supports Darwin going to argue that organisms have not gotten faster, smarter, stronger or are more beautiful.
Some have. Others haven't. 65mya large size and great strength turned out not to be an advantage.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

"Many simple organisms (molds, bacteria, jellyfish) have had great evolutionary success" What kind of stupid argument is this? It ignores what is obvious to the eye and evolutionary biologists, namely that there is greater complexity and capability as time moved on. By pointing to some simple things that still exist does not eliminate the self evident. I am not going to retract anything. If you want to take the absurd path that David Kellogg did, then be my guest. But the evidence is that there is direction. Is anyone who supports Darwin going to argue that organisms have not gotten faster, smarter, stronger or are more beautiful. Oh what was sexual selection about. Give me a break and stop presenting these juvenile arguments.jerry_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

lamarck,
What do you mean yes they do? No, they do not.
I provided several peer-reviewed scientific papers showing this is the case. You did not respond to them. Phylogenetic tree congruency is one of the most basic tools of paleontology. If it doesn't' work, they never would have found half the fossils they have. Phylogenetic trees predict a) about when two animals had a common ancestor and b) about where in the strata the fossils will be found. This has been confirmed over and over and over ad nauseum. One well-known fossil is Tiktaalik, but every time it is brought up IDers descend into squabbling over details. "It's an evolutionary dead end" "It wasn't capable of walking" etc. when the point is that common descent predicted where it would be and what age of rock it would be in, and there it was. And there are many more examples just like it. Please let paleontologists know that their most basic tool does not work. People who have devoted their entire lives to paleontology probably need to know about this.
Investigating Evolution: Homology on youtube
The video criticizes homology as being evidence of relatedness. First of all, the people who study these things are ANATOMISTS. They know more things about bones that you could ever dream of. It's EXTREMELY condescending and arrogant to throw away the hard work of people who have devoted their entire lives to studying bones by saying "psha! what do you know! just because they LOOK the same doesn't me they ARE! pshah!" as if paleontologists were children playing with blocks. Dunning-Kruger Syndrome soldiers forward as strong as ever. Secondly, common descent is not proven JUST through homologous body structures. Matching phylogenies, biogeography, molecular studies, paleontology, etc all add up to the big picture of evolution. Third, is this idea, that homology is not indicative of relatedness, scientific? Has it been vetted by peer review? Or is it just someone's opinion? You do realize that the Internet is loaded with people writing just anything they want to, right? And that many of these ideas are complete caca?SingBlueSilver_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Clive,
I’m just being consistent with the measurement. 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..
How does one go about measuring a soul?Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Jerry,
If you stop and think about it one realizes that evolution according to Darwin most definitely has a direction.
Then you won't have any trouble substantiating that with a quote from Darwin? http://darwin-online.org.uk/
Certainly Darwin believed that humans were more advanced than other creatures.
That does not equate to evolution having a direction. Provide a quote, or retract pleace. And anyway, what is your metric here? Are humans more advanced then birds if the metric is "innate flying ability"?Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Those who survived did so often by getting better at something. Faster, stronger, taller, smarter, more beautiful, etc. It is basic Darwin 101.
No. Basic Darwin 101 doesn't specify in advance what counts as an advantageous trait. It's possible that being slower, weaker, shorter, stupider, uglier, etc. can offer greater survival either (a) directly (as smaller and uglier may do in some times) or (b) indirectly, in a trade-off with another, more advantageous trait. Many simple organisms (molds, bacteria, jellyfish) have had great evolutionary success.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

"Yet if you stop and think about it, that only works if you have a target, otherwise how do you measure “more” evolved" If you stop and think about it one realizes that evolution according to Darwin most definitely has a direction. It is too greater complexity and greater capability. That is an essential part of Darwin's theory which relied on his idea of Malthusian competition for resources to survive. Those who survived did so often by getting better at something. Faster, stronger, taller, smarter, more beautiful, etc. It is basic Darwin 101. The number of cell types in the Cambrian was about 30-40 and now in many mammals over 200 and some who support natural evolution believe it will continue to grow over the eons. The capabilities that these cell types enable allow for more complex and myriad of actions. Such as writing on a blog and saying absurd things that there is no direction in evolution. That there is no direction in evolution is a canard used by those who have a particular thing to promote but disappears under minimal thought. Certainly Darwin believed that humans were more advanced than other creatures. Whether variants of humans were more or less advanced I will leave to others to decide. Such a scenario would have fit nicely into his theory. Oh, by the way does Malthusian competition explain evolution. Apparently not, because one can identify millions of ecologies all over the world without any evidence of ongoing macro evolution happening as its inhabitants struggle for existence. For an increase in complexity and capability one has to look elsewhere.jerry_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Clive:
Since they show a uniqueness, which is a division, between the Aboriginals and the rest of us, that is a racial distinction, and thus racist. The opposite of racism would be total equality, no difference.
Since the term "racist" implies the notion of superiority, in essence you are claiming that the mere act of recognizing differences necessarily imposes criteria by which superiority and inferiority must be evaluated. Moreover, because you seem to believe that evolutionists must necessarily reach such a conclusion you are also claiming that evolution necessarily dictates what those criteria must be. So exactly what criteria is used to determine superiority and/or inferiority, and exactly how do those criteria follow from the theory of evolution? If you're answer is something along the lines of being "more/less evolved", the same question applies: Exactly what criteria is used to determine more and/or less evolved, and exactly how do those criteria follow from the theory of evolution? Here are some examples of possible criteria for either question: population size, population density, technological advancement, rate of procreation, average height, average foot to forearm ratio, relative "hairiness", religious affiliation. Of course, none of these are criteria that are necessitated by the ToE. Rather they are all equally arbitrary choices (especially when comparing species' that have no feet, forearms, or hair). Please indicate the one(s) that I missed that are necessitated by the ToE.KRiS_Censored_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Logic says that no group of people is any more evolved then any other. I can see where the mistake might be made. If you start off thinking that evolution has a direction then you would mistakenly divide any two groups of people into "less" and "more" evolved. Slavery was justified using such thoughts. Yet if you stop and think about it, that only works if you have a target, otherwise how do you measure "more" evolved. To say that evolution can say one race is more or less evolved seems to continue the racism that darwinism has been abused in support of - for those of you saying that simply identifiying a group of people that have a particular trait is racist, then, well is it racist to note somebody's hair colour? Or eye colour? Clive
Since they show a uniqueness, which is a division, between the Aboriginals and the rest of us, that is a racial distinction, and thus racist.
As David said, measurements are not racist. To note a difference is not racist. To say that that difference means somebody is less evolved and can therefore be treated differently *is* racist. Much like the idea that some people don't have souls and so can then be treated differntly to those that do.Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

NB: the phrase "blankets embroidered with smallpox" is from Paul Muldoon's poem "Meeting the British," in the volume of the same name.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

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
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

"Under his own definition, he’s a creationist." So is nearly all the world. Big deal. why is it relevant? Why don't you point out the parts of Kenyon's definitions that are controversial and cause for alarm for anyone. "calling Thaxton and Kenyon creationists was a slur, " I just remarked that it was one of the first things people who object to their science seem to do so someone thinks it is negative. Do you think it is a negative? To me it indicates an insecurity for those who use the term. All I said was it was like calling someone part of the human race? It is a meaningless term but some people want to make sure it gets included real quick into a discussion. Anti ID people are so transparent. Don't you agree?jerry_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

Jerry:
Until the term creationist is defined it is a meaningless concept and one should not use it. Then after it is defined then it may be irrelevant to use it anyway.
David Kenyon, who you inferred was being tarred at Wikipedia with the creationist label provided one which I quoted above. Under his own definition, he's a creationist.
I could argue that atheists should also be dismissed from the origin of life and evolution debates because their ideology requires certain answers to scientific questions in order to support their world view.
You could, but that would be changing the subject, which started because you claimed that Wikipedia calling Thaxton and Kenyon creationists was a slur, rather than simply descriptive. To rephrase a point I made earlier: it's only negative if you don't like creationism. It's positive if you do. If you don't care either way, then it's just neutral fact: they're creationists.dbthomas_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 68 David Kellogg: ——”Claim: The Psalms are sadistic and advocate child murder. Evidence: Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock! Need I say more?” Clive: "Umm, yeah, kinda, how about a little context? The Psalmist is referring to the Babylonians, who were cruel to the Israelis. It’s more of a crying out about some future people that will overtake Babylon. It was an eye for an eye time, in the OT, prior to the “turn the other cheek” message in the NT dispensation of Grace." Are you saying that it used to be okay with God to smash infant's heads open on the rocks until Jesus spoke 2000 years ago? Eye for an eye? What's that got to do with the Waters of Babylon? The Babylonian infants didn't hurt the Israelis, why smash their heads open? But that is God's way according to the Bible, isn't it? Pharaoh decides to let the Israelites go, so God hardens his heart (Ex 9:12, Ex 10:1,20,27, Ex 11:10) so he changes his mind and then God kills all of the first born Egyptian children (Ex 12:10) because Pharaoh didn't let the Israelites go. And King David commits adultery and murder, so God punishes him by killing his baby. And I can multiply examples, but why flog a dead horse? That's (presumably absolute) Biblical Morality for you. Clive: "There is also a philosophical difficulty arguing against God in this way, because you have to assume God before you can vilify Him," You mean I can't say, "That Darth Vader was a very nasty guy!" unless I believe he existed? That's equivocation on your part. When we say that God was nasty, we're saying that going by your own reports, God would have been a very nasty Entity if He had existed. "All slippery items so you cannot be pinned down." The slipperyness is not on our end.djmullen_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Clive @ 75 I do not understand or accept your definition of the term racist. Here are three 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.
Clearly, all of these terms pertain to a person's beliefs, worldview, attitude or whatever you want to call it. Yes, the first definition does mention "inherent differences", but it is still quite clear the term racist is an individual's belief system (or group in the case of 2.) - not in the biological differences.JTaylor_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply