I recently borrowed the book (for the second time) from my local Public Library and was amused, but not really surprised, to find they had cut out the inner title-page that previously carried the “Preservation of Favoured Races” tag. Perhaps y’all out there should check out your local library to see whether the “Clean Up Darwin” conspiracy is nationwide.

Absolutely correct, russ.

NeoDarwinists cannot have it both ways. For NeoDarwinism to distance itself from Haeckel’s views about racial “fitness” is to be disingenuous to it’s central tenet “survival of the fittest”. The hypocrisy of NeoDarwinists is that when pressed on the issue they will publicly assume the righteous stance that “all men are ‘created’ equal”, but in confidence they give a wink and sneer “created by who, the flying spaghetti monster?”

A morality that is a product of some cost/benefit calculation for survival is an open door to racism, and NeoDarwinism is it’s key.

Tina, at the risk of some serious thread drift, and “talking religion”, I think you have some misunderstanding about what it means that the Jews are “chosen”. Regardless of how individual Jews may have behave at any given time, their sacred texts are jam-packed with documentation of their disobedience and rebellion against the God who chose them. Their chosen-ness is evidence of God’s mercy, not their own worthiness. I think the Old Testament makes this pretty clear.

And it is true that Christian proselytizers have often behaved in a condescending manner toward those they would persuade. This behavior contradicts the extreme humility that their scripture demands. In fact, one of the reasons that Christianity is less appealling than it would otherwise be is that it requires self-abasement and humility before God and other men. Repentance is not fun, and every Christian has to make it a lifelong pursuit!

And possessing better knowledge or ideas is not the same as being better. Bringing knowledge of modern medicine to cultures that rely on Shamaans and superstition for healing does not have to denigrate the people in those cultures. The same holds true if the knowledge is not about the physical person, but the spiritual person.

I think the difference with Haeckel, is that there doesn’t seem to be anything in Darwinism that would contradict his attitudes about race. There was no clear disconnect between his Darwinism and his attitudes. I humbly implore you to correct me if I’m wrong.

That can only be because he has the same urge to merge into the womb of Mother Nature as Haeckel did and probably the same type of imagery in his head that causes his mind exist only in his imagination. It’s probably because the developmental pattern of the Darwinists’ brain events are revisiting their common ancestry in fish brains. It’s a little known fact that Darwinists have “fish brains” at one end of development and “gill slits” at the other. I could even draw you a little image of it and note of the brain imagery: “Say, doesn’t this look a little like that or somethin’?” Apparently that’s the standard of evidence typical to biologists and their textbooks, so it ought to suffice for them. I just debated some and they still cling to the intellectually degenerate standards of their imagination and even argue for the same old imagery. So it is not as if this is purely a matter of history.

Interesting to note how Haeckel drew the Herd around him when he felt that running with the Herd was threatened:

After this compromising confession of ‘forgery’ I should be obliged to consider myself ‘condemned and annihilated’ if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among many of the most trusted observers and esteemed biologists. The great majority of all of the diagrams in the best biological text books, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of ‘forgery’, for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed.

–Haeckel cf. Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries
by J. Assmuth (Emphasis added)

The herd instinct is typical to the little fellows who cannot seem to recognize a conceptual type to save their lives. That’s Life.

You can also see how immediately defensive and ugly it gets when someone tries to point at the truth about Haeckel.

That fellow Wells probably knows a bit about that given that he tried to shatter their imagery. He’ll come across the proto-Nazi* tendency of those trying to engage in “biological thinking” these days. I hope he doesn’t expect them to begin thinking through their own biology conceptually in order to study Life. Most would rather engage in the perceptual, perhaps imagining a little historical narrative about things and then counting their own imagination as evidence, then perhaps trying to merge the past into the present, etc. It is quite an urge, to merge!

There is one of the Herd now. Observe, apparently he found his way back to the womb of Mother Nature, but misses his gill slits!

As I knelt there, fish beside me, dolphin overhead, an appreciation of my place in evolution hit me. This was the first time I had dived in the open ocean, and I couldn’t stop thinking about how I didn’t belong underwater. I needed a steel tank to carry my air, a mask to see, a wetsuit to trap my heat, weights to sink, an inflatable vest to rise, fins to swim.

(At the Water’s Edge, Fish With Fingers Whales with Legs and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea
by Carl Zimmer :2)

I guess his ears didn’t revisit the “gill slit” stage at that point in his development, although his brain events seem to be revisiting something.

*Some may be offended at me defining half-witted “Darwinian reasoning” and “biological thinking” as proto-Nazi given that much of the Darwinian imagination is the same now as it was a century ago. Yet look to the Darwinists who have projected onto ID that ID is like Holocaust denial. Perhaps you can be offended at that first, before settling once again into templates, talking points and Godwin’s Law. Why do I think that those trying to support Darwinian imagery these days have never debated a Holocaust denier? Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of history can trace patterns of ideas or the anti-idea of trying to pervert thought into “biological thinking” would know the irony of bringing up such topics. Apparently some biologists think that they know the history of organisms millions of years ago based for the most part on their ability to imagine historical accidents, yet they cannot be bothered with some of the results of “biological thinking” only a short time ago. Their thinking is indeed excreted from them just as their excrement is, yet they keep gathering in the “community” to tell each other that it does not stink.

I’m familiar with the site. Are you asking me to narrow down the topic to a particular patent for discussion related to education and law?

The cornerstone of Haeckel’s work was Lamarckism, as was Darwin’s work. “Inheritance of acquired characters” became the cornerstone of the Nazi Monism religion. Neo-darwinism rejects Lamarckism replacing it rather with Natural Selection (survival-of the fittest).

Making neo-darwinism “the cornerstone of modern science” raises this doctrine to the level of a religion which rejects creationism. It could easily be coined “Neo-monism”, but rather is called “New Age”. What fruit will it bear?

ID seeks to replace Neo-darwinism as the cornerstone of modern science, but is currently being rejected by the shapers of our world.

The word “corner-stone” here is key (pun intended). There is but one such stone that bears the fruit of life. Can I say “Jesus” on this blog? While ID at least recognizes the possiblity of a creator, it is still not a confession of faith, no matter who advocates it.

Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (Also Eph 2:20 Mat 21:42 Mar 12:10 Luk 20:17 1Pe 2:7)

Eph 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”

And rightly so, since he did much pioneering and foundational work in evolutionary biology, and rightly deserves credit. Where he deviates from objective study, and becomes an author of biologic mechanisms, rather than an impartial observer, is where we must draw the line. Much of his work is credible, but much of it has been shown to be not only flawed, but fraudulent. My take is that he was so convinced of the efficacy of his recapitulation theory, that he felt justified in modifying the embryo drawings to conform with what he nonetheless believed to be an accurate representation.

It’s probable, however, that years of preparatory work had backed him into a corner, whereby tweaking of the evidence was necessary to confirm long held hypotheses. Rather than say, “Well, guess I was wrong regarding the exact correlation of ontogeny and phylogeny”, he tweaked the evidence (embryonic charts), in the likely belief that further research would nonetheless confirm his hypotheses.

As a parallel, present day biologists may be similarly inclined to attempt, through their life work, to confirm nurtured beliefs and hypotheses, rather than be objective, and possibly to refute, or modify these concepts. However much that desire exists, and especially given what we know today, the dissemination of Haeckel’s charts in textbooks, and the adherence to flawed ontological concepts based on the work of Haeckel and Darwin, is unconscionable.

Some may not agree, but I see the evolutionary march in much the same way as I see the current march to war.

However, when a theory gives as evidence drawings that people have known to be fake for over 100 years, one has to wonder “What’s going on?”. I don’t think that anyone rejoices beating a “dead horse”. The reason why people still talk about Heackel’s drawings is that they are still used today to teach Darwinism.

If Darwinists are going to use frauds as evidence for their theory, why not use Piltdown man as evidence aswell? At least be consistent.

If they say “Well, we have found out that Piltdown Man was a fake”, we might ask “And haven’t we discovered that Heackel’s drawings are a fake?” Not only we discovered that those are fake, but Heackel himself admited that those were fakes! What more do we need to kick those drawings away from textbooks?

Like Kent Hovind says in one of his videos “If everything you have to suport your theory are facts that have been prooven wrong and/or fraudlent, then I guess you should find a new theory”

I couldn’t agree more.