Okay, Darwinism IS a religion … and a crappy one, too

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 18, 2013

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Religion}

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

On July 24, the Bank of England announced removing Charles Darwin from the British 10 pound note beginning in 2017. Shortly after the announcement, the supporters of the change were bombarded with rape and death threats – the vast majority came via Twitter.

Slate reporter Katie Roiphe notes that “No sooner was Darwin’s demise on the 10-pound note announced then anger flared up from every angle.”

Nick Schrifrin of ABC News reported that “the abuse flooded in. Horrible, vile abuse. Hundreds of Twitter users bombarded Criado-Perez on the service, threatening violence. Threatening rape. One Twitter user even created @rapehernow.

Okay, that’s it.

Darwinism is not only a religion, but it is headed up by some seriously questionable people who attract just the sort of adherents you might expect.

It’s only a banknote, folks. And to whose religion does a banknote belong?

We may take it as a given that if one’s religion so easily results in threats of mayhem, it is no good for the adherent or for society.

The next big question is, what about the Christian Darwinists? What ails them?

Note: As between Austen’s understanding of human nature and Darwin’s, bank on Austen any day.

Hat tip: Bornagain77

Comments

Obviously, the distinction is between a No Scotsman argument vs. a No True Scotsman argument. If one is claiming that the perpetrator is, in fact, a German and not a Scotsman at all, then one is not using the No True Scotsman argument. Similarly, in order to claim that one is making a No True Scotsman argument wrt a Christian racist, one would have to fist establish that the racist was, in fact, a Christian (that is a follower of Christ).Phinehas_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Nope. You need to call your interpretation something else to avoid confusion.Alan Fox_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Phin: Does this mean that if my father was German and my mother was Dutch and I claim to be a Scotsman, that others making a counter-claim would be making the No True Scotsman argument? Isn’t the point of the No True Scotsman fallacy not simply that someone has claimed to be a “Scotsman,” but that the claim has validity (i.e., they actually have the heritage to back it up)?
AF: Does this help?
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”. Antony Flew
It certainly doesn't help Mark Frank's argument, nor does it address mine. Allow me to demonstrate my point by using the Antony Flew quote, but with an important modification.
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about Hans Schwartzenberger from Dusseldorf whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. Apparently, Hans is claiming to be a Scotsman, but having evidence to dispute such a claim, Hamish feels that his initial opinion that "No Scotsman would do such a thing" is justified.
Now, Hamish might still be wrong in his assessment of Scotsmen, but Hans' brutal actions are hardly evidence of this. Nor is the suggestion that a Christian racist is akin to a Scotsman named Hans who was born and raised by German parents in Dusseldorf a No True Scotsman argument. Does that help?Phinehas_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, since you are hesitant to attribute the slightest to blemish to anything Darwinian, let's go straight to the horses mouth shall we and see what your hero, Darwin, said? Darwin on women: Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued - “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective. As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/08/darwin-zealots-reign-of-terror/ Darwin on races: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (p. 521). In fact Darwinism has a very dark history of being the root cause of 'pseudo-scientific racism': Summary Of Evidence For Human Evolution & The Racism Evolution Engenders – Don Patton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032606 In fact the 'pseudo-scientific racism' Darwinism engendered was so insidious, and obvious, that Darwinism can be traced back as a primary root cause for the NAZI holocaust: From Darwin to Hitler - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A The Dark Legacy Of Charles Darwin – 150 Years Later – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060594bornagain77_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

...this type of behavior is enigmatic of accepting Darwinism wholesale.
Ah, the enigmatic true Darwinist! What can one do against such reckless stupidity?Alan Fox_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Moreover, it is found that Christians respond better to psychiatric treatment than atheists do,, Christians respond better to psychiatric treatment than atheists: – July 21, 2013 Excerpt: “Our work suggests that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without, regardless of their religious affiliation. Belief was associated with not only improved psychological wellbeing, but decreases in depression and intention to self-harm,” explained Rosmarin. https://uncommondescent.com/religion/if-religious-believers-are-crazy Studies: Belief in God relieves depression – Sept. 2010 Excerpt: The operative term here is “caring,” the researchers said. “The study found that those with strong beliefs in a personal and concerned God were more likely to experience an improvement.” ,,,The researchers compared the levels of melancholy or hopelessness in 136 adults diagnosed with major depression or bipolar depression with their sense of “religious well-being.” They found participants who scored in the top third of a scale charting a sense of religious well-being were 75 percent more likely to get better with medical treatment for clinical depression. “In our study, the positive response to medication had little to do with the feeling of hope that typically accompanies spiritual belief,” said study director Patricia Murphy, a chaplain at Rush and an assistant professor of religion, health and human values. “It was tied specifically to the belief that a Supreme Being cared,” she said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/25/research-indicates-belief-in-god-relieves-depressi/?page=2&feat=home_headlines Whereas atheism, besides impeding psychiatric treatment, also leads towards more irrational beliefs overall,,, Look Who’s Irrational Now – 2008 Excerpt: “What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html Thus I find much room to doubt the validity of the recent meta-study that had found a slight advantage of intelligence for atheists when compared to the rest of the 'religious' population Verse and Music: II Tim. 1:7, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and a sound mind.” Kari Jobe – Revelation Song – Passion 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZMBrGGmeE (Preview)bornagain77_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

I guess it would, Joe. At which point, it would be worth reporting as news. But until then it's fantasy. It seems there's been a third arrest btw. And for anyone following along, here's a first hand account from the recipient of the rape threats: Internet trolls, Twitter rape threats and putting Jane Austen on our banknotes No mention of Darwin (unless you count a comment by a poster called "Darwins Beard" denouncing the tweets). BTW, I see why Denyse thought that this happened "the same week" as the Myers-Schermer thing. She's late to the party. The news broke long before the Roiphe piece appeared. Yet another failure to fact check.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Moreover, for one to deny that one even has a mind is to undermine the very ability of a person to reason in a coherent fashion in the first place: “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason) If you disagree with C.S. Lewis on this conclusion, here are some atheists who have reached the same exact conclusion as Lewis as to the epistemological failure inherent within atheism/materialism: Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.” Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True – video Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Evolutionists Are Now Saying Their Thinking is Flawed (But Evolution is Still a Fact) – Cornelius Hunter – May 2012 Excerpt: But the point here is that these “researchers” are making an assertion (human reasoning evolved and is flawed) which undermines their very argument. If human reasoning evolved and is flawed, then how can we know that evolution is a fact, much less any particular details of said evolutionary process that they think they understand via their “research”? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-are-now-saying-their.html The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?); Evolutionary guru: Don’t believe everything you think – October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s critique of the atheist Dr Rosenberg’s book, in the short video that follows, to get a glimpse for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s position turns out to be in regards to maintaining the epistemological integrity of our mind in relation to material reality. Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ also of related note: Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video – (Notes in video description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 Moreover, and not so surprisingly, in this following video there is reference to some studies that show that people who do not believe that they have a soul/mind are a bit more anti-social (psychopathic) than the majority of people who do believe they have a soul/mind: Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUmmObUi8Fq9g1Zcuzqbt0_g&feature=player_detailpage&v=XRGWe-61zOk#t=862s Finding out that atheists who do not believe in a soul/mind are a bit more psychopathic (anti-social) than the rest of us is really not that surprising of a fact to find out as this following author points out: The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3bornagain77_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

my thoughts are that this type of behavior is enigmatic of accepting Darwinism wholesale. Though the trigger may in fact not have been directly attributed to Darwin's removal from the banknote (I definitely think some of the responses are attributable to it but I would have to know more of the facts in more detail to say for sure) We, none-the-less, have very good evidence that, number 1, there has been a steep decline in altruism of young people since prayer was removed from school and a strictly secular origin story has been taught in American schools, number 2, atheism is responsible, by far, for the most horrific atrocities of the 20th century and in all of history, number 3, the general mannerisms of atheists/Darwinists on the internet, as anyone who has dealt with internet atheists can tell you, is entirely consistent with this type of behavior that was displayed in the banknote fiasco. Thus, though while Darwinists trying to make the best on a minor technical point of the OP, that would be somewhat difficult to flesh out in detail(i.e. there claim that none of this had anything to do with Darwin's removal), the fact of the matter is that the larger overall issue as to what enabled such behavior in the first place is almost directly attributable to the acceptance of atheistic neo-Darwinism. Notes, here is an e-mail I recently sent to a psychologist about the irrationality found within atheists: Here is an atheist’s reservation about the recent study that found Atheists to have a slight advantage of intelligence than the rest of the 'religious' population,, Before We Make Too Much of the Intelligence and Religiosity Study Excerpt: I mention these points for two reasons. First, I am seeing quite a few atheists gloating about the results of this study, and I expect few understand the limitations. From what I have read so far, these include but are not limited to the narrow definition of intelligence used by the authors, the reliance on studies conducted in the West and emphasizing U.S. Protestants, and the inclusion of studies that have been criticized by other researchers in the data set. Second, I am seeing too many comments like, “Duh! Was there ever any doubt?” Because we are likely talking about small differences here, I’m not sure such reactions are warranted based on this one study. This stuff tends to be quite complex and far from obvious. http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/08/before-we-make-too-much-of-intelligence.html This paper also doesn’t sit well with me for I know for a fact that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world: The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 You can see the dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public secular schools, at this following site; Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html There was a secular study that tried to ‘correct’ for the discrepancy between private Christian schools and public schools by ‘correcting' the scores for public schools upward because of economic concerns. But the following article points out the flaw in the 2007 study that found equality in education between public schools and private schools by ‘falsely correcting’ the test scores upwardly for public schools so as to match private Christian schools: Do private schools educate children better than public schools? Excerpt: However, moving past the dueling tests and studies, what’s clear is that private school students have better SAT scores, and better college admission and graduation rates, regardless of socioeconomic level. http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/private-schools-educate-public-schools Thus it seems, as with the ‘dueling tests and studies’ between private christian schools and public schools, that the results of these intelligence studies, may very well depend as much on the bias of the researcher(s) conducting the study as to what the evidence may actually say. Thus as with this current meta-analysis, and knowing for a fact that SAT tests for private Christian schools are, and have been, higher than public schools since prayer was removed from public schools, then I think it is fair to say that the bias of the researchers may certainly have played a large part in the results of this recent meta-study. Especially considering this fact, 'the inclusion of studies that have been criticized by other researchers in the data set.' Moreover, the removal of prayer from public schools has had a dramatic negative effect on the American society at large in regards to crime and drug use by young people,,, United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy) http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray – David Barton – graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig – May 2012 – podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960?s) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism I have no idea exactly what type of intelligence tests were analyzed to ascertain whether Atheists are more intelligent than everyone else who is religious or not, (definitely not an emotional intelligence test as is witnessed by the rude manners of many internet atheists) and exactly how biased they may have been in their selective use of date, but I do know that atheists deny they even have a mind separate from their brain in the first place. Thus, from a common sense point of view, I have no choice but to conclude that atheists have literally ‘lost their minds’ in their atheistic beliefs. Especially considering the fact that the most sure thing, most concrete thing, that we can know about ourselves and about reality is that we do indeed have a mind. This point was drawn out years ago by Decartes, who made that fact, that the most sure thing we can know is that we have a mind, into the semi-famous philosophical dictum 'I think therefore I am!' “Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body.” http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/descartes/DescartesDualism.pdf Decartes’ semi-famous ‘I think therefore I am’ philosophical dictum has, ironically, found now purchase in modern cosmology in the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/bornagain77_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

It would be funny if those two chumps went to trial and admitted they did it for ChuckyJoe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Andre:
Well if the shoe fits…..
Good grief! Apparently Andre thinks Lizzie's parody is accurate. Thanks for the confirmation, Andre!Alan Fox_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

#118 Andre That article is yet another argument on the lines of "Darwinists do bad things. Therefore these tweets were sent by Darwinists." It is also rather silly. Does he think there are no Christian theists who behave as badly?Mark Frank_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Well if the shoe fits.....Andre_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

What I'm reading here amounts to: Look, some people sent rape threats to women who had campaigned for a woman to replace Darwin on the English tenner, so they must been Darwinists, and even if they were antifeminists then they must have been Darwinists too because no Christian would do such a thing, and darwinists are atheists so they must have been darwinists, and anyway internet atheists are trolls, and they didn't want to see Darwin dropped from the tenner on Jerry Coynes blog, so they must have been Darwinist atheists, and anyway, an American Darwinist accused an American atheist of rape only one week later, coincidence, I don't think so and anyway Christians get rape threats all the time. Sheesh.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

#116 Andre The "thing" we were discussing was who sent those tweets and why. Your figures are evidence as to which character readers of Coyne's blog would prefer to have on the bank note. Surely you can see that the two are totally unrelated?Mark Frank_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Andre:
Dr Liddle Ever heard of looking at all the facts? 55% said Churchill must go 35% said queen must go 7% said Darwin can go Get it? This is not a feminist thing its the demise of the guy that killed God thing
And what about the fact that none of the people who voted on that blog made any rape or death threats whatsoever, and the fact that the people who did sent them to feminists who had objected to the replacement of Elizabeth Fry by Churchill, and the fact that all banknotes are redesigned regularly to reduce counterfeiting and Darwin was scheduled to go anyway, and the fact that there was absolutely no fuss made in England about the demise of Darwin, but only about the choice of Jane Austen? Yes, Andre, look at all the facts please, and do not conclude from evidence on an American blog that Darwinists would have liked to have kept Darwin on the English tenner, that the English people who sent rape and death threats to Criado-Perez and Creasey did so because they didn't want to see the Darwin banknote withdrawn, even though Criado-Perez and Creasey had absolutely nothing to do with the withdrawal of the Darwin banknote. I can't believe how willing people here are to defend the indefensible, rather than admit to have made a simple factual error.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Here is a great article highlighting the problem http://sententias.org/2012/11/01/the-problem-of-internet-atheists/Andre_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Andre,
Get it? This is not a feminist thing its the demise of the guy that killed God thing
What is? Denyse's ridiculous conflation or your irrelevant example?Alan Fox_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Ever heard of looking at all the facts? 55% said Churchill must go 35% said queen must go 7% said Darwin can go Get it? This is not a feminist thing its the demise of the guy that killed God thingAndre_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Lizzie, you don't know what the facts areJoe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

And, as Mark says, the comments on Jerry Coyne's blog are nothing to do with the rape threats that were sent to the feminist group who had had successfully lobbied to keep a woman on the English banknotes, and I see no rape threats, or threats of any kind, on that blog.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

So only Americans can read and respond on Coyne's blog? And yes, we realize that most Brits are not bright enough to question evolutionism. So what?Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

It is a Darwin thing and here is why! 1.) 55% of Jerry Cone’s readers where happy to replace Churchill with Jane Austen… Only 7% said Darwin can go…… Do you guys have an ounce of truth in you?
What is truth? Leaving that matter on one side for the moment. The OP is about abusive twitter messages sent to two prominent British feminists. You dragged in a thread from US Jerry Coyne's blog that regrets the passing of the Darwin tenner. No abuse of feminists or anyone else took place on Coyne's blog. Where's the relevance?Alan Fox_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Andre
Guys I’m not saying other people are innocent but the outburst here is not about feminism it’s about Darwin being replaced. That is the issue.
No, it isn't. The issue was Elizabeth Fry being replaced by Churchill on the £5 note. A feminist group called The Women's Room got up a petition to ask the bank to make sure that a woman was represented on the English banknotes. The petition was called: "Keep a Woman on English Banknotes". There was no request to remove Darwin. English banknotes are regularly redesigned to reduce counterfeiting. The replacement of Darwin was a complete non-issue. Darwin would have been replaced come what may. The issue was the replacement of Elizabeth Fry by Churchill. The group wanted a woman on at least one of the banknotes, and the Churchill replacement would have resulted in none. The bank responded by choosing woman, Austen, as the replacement for the Darwin tenner, rather than a man. Denyse is wrong, Philip is wrong and you are wrong. The facts are not as they are represented here, and the rape threats are sadly typical of what feminists receive whenever they are in the public eye, as they were in this case following their successful lobby to Keep a Woman on English Banknotes.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

#08 Andre Jerry Coyne runs an American blog which is read by people who have a specific interest in evolution and the US cultural debate about evolution. This nothing, zilch, nada to do with a bunch of loonies sending tweets in another country where there is very little interest in the debate over evolution.Mark Frank_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
So why were feminists targeted?
1- Cowards like to attack women 2- Those women were on the front-line of this eventJoe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

I'm not sure why you guys are trying to say its not a Darwin thing but a feminist thing. It is a Darwin thing and here is why! 1.) 55% of Jerry Cone's readers where happy to replace Churchill with Jane Austen... Only 7% said Darwin can go...... Do you guys have an ounce of truth in you?Andre_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

There's zero evidence for unguided evolution actually constructing something, yet that doesn't stop you guys from blindly accepting it.Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

#103 Andre But there is zero evidence that the outburst was about Darwin being replaced. That is our issue.Mark Frank_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

#99 Alan You mean Denyse uses BA77 as a source? I begin to understand.Mark Frank_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply