Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Link In The Minds Of Men- Charles Darwin Introduction

with 43 comments

In The Minds Of Men Charles Darwin

I am not sure how we will do this but we will be looking at this book in the next month chapter by chapter.

Yes this should be fun from Ian Taylor In The Minds of Men Charles Darwin and The New World Order.

Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

May 12, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Posted in book

Tagged with

43 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Why don’t you read a book about science, honestly portraying Darwin, instead?

    Dan

    May 13, 2009 at 12:19 pm

  2. Or better yet, just read Darwin chapter by chapter. You might find it interesting to find out that he doesn’t say anything having to do with “Social Darwinism”.

    Dan

    May 13, 2009 at 12:22 pm

  3. Sir, Darwin cannot answer thebig questions of philosophy and religion.

    dawkinswatch

    May 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    • And the Bible cannot answer the big questions about Biology! So stop trying to pretend otherwise.
      In the words or Edward Current – “Checkmate!”

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      May 13, 2009 at 3:11 pm

  4. Darwin was a biologist you idiot.

    Dan

    May 13, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    • What qualified Darwin as a biologist? He held no degree in the study of biology that I could find.

      mcoville

      May 13, 2009 at 4:51 pm

      • Prior to the 19th century, “Biology” as a science didn’t exist. Those who investigated the natural world (geology, biology, paleontology etc)were “Naturalists”, and there was no university degree in “Naturalism”. Most naturalists were genteleman scientists who were self-taught or belonged to societies where they shared information. Much as Cuvier is credited as the father of the science of paleontology, Darwin himself is credited as the father of Biology as a scientific discipline.
        So no, Darwin did not hold a degree in Biology, but what qualified him as a biologist was that same thing that qualified Galileo and Herschel as astronomers – he was extremely good at it.

        Bipedal Tetrapod

        May 13, 2009 at 5:22 pm

      • You’re kidding, right?

        Dan

        May 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm

  5. Dan in those days disciples were not split up into specialisms like today. That is why you could have people who were in different fields.

    dawkinswatch

    May 13, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    • If you would have read anything that Charles Darwin wrote, you’d know that he didn’t even attempt to write anything about philosophy, theology, or the like. He wrote about living organisms, how they change over time, etc.

      If you want answers to “The Big Questions,” talk about philosophers. If you want to talk about biology, talk about Darwin. If you want to be a total moron, confuse the two.

      Dan

      May 13, 2009 at 7:55 pm

  6. Thank you Bipedal, so he was an untrained naturalist that studied nature as a hobby. He was lucky enough to have a rich family that got him on a boat so he could hang out with the captain and read books. I can see how he had so much scientific evidence for his theory.

    It is great that modern scientists prop up their ideas with their diplomas and doctrines as proof they know what they are doing and the guy they worship had none of it.

    And sorry but Aristotle is credited as the “father of biology”

    mcoville

    May 13, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    • Not quite.
      He was a trained naturalist, though there was no degree in such a field. His family tried to prevent him from going on the Beagle. But while on the trip he began making careful, thorough, and copious notes and observations. From his observations he later drew his conclusions, which were evidence-based arguments.
      Most modern scientists do not use their credentials to prop up their ideas, they use evidence. Which is why I cite Darwin as the father of modern Biology – though Aristotle is often mentioned as the father of Biology, he was not an experimentalist or researcher, whereas Darwin was.

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      May 13, 2009 at 7:52 pm

      • Nice response. I have to give this mcoville credit though – he may have his facts all screwed up, but at least he can write sentences that make sense. Dawkinswatch, on the other hand saying, “Sir, Darwin cannot answer thebig questions of philosophy and religion,” just makes one’s jaw drop at the awesome stupidity of such a comment.

        At least mcoville wouldn’t cry fowl when his electrician doesn’t know dentistry, his secretary doesn’t know philosophy, and his priest doesn’t know how to engineer a skyscraper.

        Dan

        May 13, 2009 at 7:59 pm

  7. Dan please calm down, sir.

    dawkinswatch

    May 13, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    • What, you’re trying to suggest that your earlier comment WASN’T monumentally stupid????

      Dan

      May 14, 2009 at 6:36 am

    • Listen, you’re right, I’ll try and calm down, and you’ll stop being upset that your electrician doesn’t fix your plumbing, your dentist doesn’t change the oil in your car, philosophers don’t say anything about biology, and Darwin doesn’t say anything about philosophy.

      Fair deal?

      Dan

      May 14, 2009 at 6:44 am

  8. No because Darwin has been used in the social sphere, Darwin should never talked about survival of the fittest and favoured races.

    dawkinswatch

    May 14, 2009 at 11:48 am

  9. Darwin tried to answer the “big question” with his knowledge of the natural when he wrote “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

    If he stuck to only what was observed we would have had a nice science book about how finches adapted to the food supplies in their environment. Instead he speculated beyond the facts and dipped his toe in the deep end of philosophy. And now he is fair game to critic for his incompetence in explaining the ORIGIN of anything.

    mcoville

    May 14, 2009 at 11:58 am

    • Mcoville,
      Yes, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

      Clearly, he didn’t write “On the Origin of Life, the Universe, and Everything.”

      And by the way, he did stick to discussions of species, which you’d know if you’d read the book.

      Maybe I should take back the bit about you having more of a clue than DW.

      Dan

      May 14, 2009 at 12:04 pm

      • Are you denying Darwin spoke with speculation in his book and did not stick to the observable facts?

        mcoville

        May 14, 2009 at 1:11 pm

      • Are you denying Darwin spoke with speculation…

        No.

        Are you denying that Darwin spoke about the “Origins of Species“?

        Dan

        May 14, 2009 at 1:22 pm

  10. No because Darwin has been used in the social sphere…
    Ugh… you just don’t get it, do you?

    Dan

    May 14, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  11. Listen, it’s real easy to explain for those here who haven’t read On the Origins of Species (I’m looking at DW and mcoville here). I know, you’re panicked about the implications of “survival of the fittest” and think it’s what caused Christians to committ horrible atrocities (e.g., killing 6 million Jews). So I’ll boil it down to the principle observations and inferences that Darwin made concerning Natural Selection:

    Fact 1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born would again reproduce successfully.

    Fact 2: Except for minor annual fluctuations and occasional major fluctuations, populations normally display stability.

    Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. In a stable environment they remain relatively constant.

    Inference 1: Since more individuals are produced than can be supported by the available resources but population size remains stable, it means that there must be a fierce struggle for existence among individuals of a population, resulting in the survival of a part, often a very small part, of the progeny of each generation.

    Fact 4: No two individuals are exactly the same; rather, every population displays enormous variability.

    Fact 5: Much of this variation is heritable.

    Inference 2: Survival in the struggle for existence is not random but depends in part on the hereditary constitution of the surviving individuals. This unequal survival constitutes a process of natural selection.

    Inference 3: Over the generations this process of natural selection will lead to a continuing gradual change of populations, that is, to evolution and to the production of new species.

    First, do you see anything factually or logically incorrect in there?

    Second, where do you see anything in there about (1) philosophy or theology?; (2) the origins and meanings of life or the universe?; (3) genocide or eugenics?

    Third, why do neither Dawkinswatch nor mcoville acknowledge how crystal-clear Hitler was in his Christian motivations? Or about the mass genocides that Christians perpetrated in the name of Christ from the Middle Ages onward?

    Dan

    May 14, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    • Dan, stop building strawmen. When did Christians kill 6 million Jews?

      To start a post with such a fallacy destroys the rest of your own post.

      “why do neither Dawkinswatch nor mcoville acknowledge how crystal-clear Hitler was in his Christian motivations?” Have you ever read Machiavelli? Hitler was an Atheist that practiced Machiavellian principles of leadership as described in “The Prince”. He catered the what religions where necessary to stay in power without ever following the beliefs of those religions.

      This really is elementary history here, Dan.

      mcoville

      May 14, 2009 at 2:01 pm

      • Mein Kampf:
        “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..”

        Elementary history indeed – Hitler was a Christian. Deal with it.

        Dan

        May 14, 2009 at 2:10 pm

  12. “Are you denying that Darwin spoke about the “Origins of Species“?”

    Darwin: Intro to “Origin of Species…”: “These facts, as will be seen in the latter chapters of this volume, seemed to throw some light on the origin of species – that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of out greatest philosophers.”

    Yes, Charlie spoke to the Origin of Species, a philosophical subject as he points out.

    mcoville

    May 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    • Right. Sorry, he was talking about Aristotle and the ancient philosophers, when there was no distinction between biology and philosophy, that’s true.

      I thought you were talking about modern philosophy.

      Dan

      May 14, 2009 at 2:13 pm

  13. Dan, do understand the writings of Machiavelli and what he taught? Hitler twisted religion so he could gain power over the government because he, like Machiavelli, knew that most people would only give power to a more religious person.

    “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.” Adolf Hitler, doesn’t sound much a Christian to me.

    Checkmate.

    mcoville

    May 14, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    • LOL

      Are you Edward Current or something, satirically mocking Christians??? If so, good job.

      I’d love to see a citation for the Machiavelli invention for one. I don’t buy it – speculation over Hitler’s motivations sounds much to much like wishful thinking, hoping to exonerate Christians. So too things:

      First, if Hitler and the Nazis were atheist, why be anti-Semitic? Why favor Christians?

      And second, if Nazi Germany wasn’t Christian, referencing Christian motivations wouldn’t have worked in gaining power, would it?

      Dan

      May 14, 2009 at 2:37 pm

      • Crap, typos – one “to” should have been “too”, and a “too” should have been “two.”

        Dan

        May 14, 2009 at 2:38 pm

      • From the book “The Prince” by Machiavelli, “It’s good to appear to be pious, faithful, humane, honest, and religious, and it’s good to be all those things; but as long as one keeps in mind that when the need arises you can and will change into the opposite. It needs to be understood that a prince, and especially a prince recently installed, cannot observe all those qualities which make men good, and it is often necessary in order to preserve the state to act contrary to faity, contrary to mercy, contrary to humaneness, and contrary to religion. And therefore he needs a spririt disposed to follow wherever the winds of fortune and the variability of affairs leads him. As I said above, it’s necessary that he not depart from right but that he follow evil.”

        Machiavelli taught that a ruler need only appear religious so that the masses trust them, but when they wanted to get their own agenda moving they could ignore the aspects of religion that make men good. Sounds a bit like Hitler.

        To address your other questions:
        1. Atheists are anti-religion, which includes Jews. Hitler and the Nazi party did not favor Christians, in fact Hitler removed Christian teachings from the schools in favor of evolution.
        2. This is answered by the history lesson on Machiavelli.

        Do yourself a favor and read the cliff notes on “The Prince”. You will see how America is moving towards a Machiavellian rule, and it didn’t start with President Obama. You will also see how people like Hitler and King George of England used Machiavelli’s thoughts on the use of religion in order to move their agendas forward.

        Better yet, read “10 Books that Screwed up the world and 5 others that didn’t help”. Very informative book that talks about “The Prince” and other books like “Mien Kampf”.

        mcoville

        May 14, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  14. And you will note that the church has been dipping into their battered old copy of The Prince as well.

    Do yourself a favor and read the cliff notes on “The Prince”.
    Ah, now I see the problem. Try reading the source material once in a while, rather than a pre-digested version.

    Bipedal Tetrapod

    May 14, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    • Yes, many in charge of Churches are poor representatives of what true Christian is. This is a bit off the original topic though.

      You are assuming I did not read the original text, I suggested the cliff notes for Dan to start with. Try comprehending what you are reading before jumping to conclusions Biped.

      mcoville

      May 14, 2009 at 4:37 pm

      • mcoville,
        No, I’ve read The Prince, and know what it says. I wasn’t asking that – I was asking you for a citation that Hitler was “just playing Christian and following the Machiavellian playbook.”

        I guess you don’t have one?

        SO… I guess we all agree that in the face of contravening evidence, we have to take Hitler at his word, and agree he was Christian.

        And since you left the part alone that Nazi Germany was obviously Christian, you concede that point too?

        Great, so what was it about Christians murdering 6 million Jews being a strawman? Obviously, Nazi Germany (Christians) did do that.

        Dan

        May 14, 2009 at 4:46 pm

      • Missed this bit:
        many in charge of Churches are poor representatives of what true Christian is

        Of what a true Christian is or is supposed to be. If judging from history is any indication, they are very much acting like Christians have in the past, except nowadays they persecute (torture, burn at the stake, etc.) a lot less than they used to.

        Dan

        May 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm

  15. Dan, I quoted Hitler before, but here it is again…

    “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.” Adolf Hitler

    Hitler spoke against Christianity as much (if not more) as he spoke for it, he was a true Machiavellian politician.

    So to end this so we do not continue to go in circles. Hitler was not a Christian, he was a non theist (Atheists). Other than a few public announcements, which are explained through a study of “the Prince”, there is no proof he was a Christian. His acts go against Christian principles but fit nicely into the Darwinian principle of Eugenics.

    mcoville

    May 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    • Where exactly did he say that?

      Either way, that still leaves us with the fact that saying such pronouncements worked – inciting Christian hatred worked, and Christians (Nazi Germany) murdered millions of Jews.

      Dan

      May 14, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    • See this page:
      http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
      “Scholars are still unsure whether or not Adolf Hitler was a believing Christian or just a politically cunning theist, but what is certain however is there is no evidence he was an atheist”

      As for your last line, Darwin didn’t espouse eugenics, did not promote it, and eugenics cannot even be legitimately derived from Darwinian principles. Go back to Dan’s summary, or see mine in DW’s next post on Francis Bacon, and tell me how that can possibly justify eugenics?

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      May 14, 2009 at 6:47 pm

      • Well the debate over Hitler’s beliefs will go on and on so I will concede that he may not have been an atheists but there is no doubt he was not a Bible believing follower of Jesus, a Christian.

        As for eugenics being spawned form Darwinism, here is a write up from a PBS web site:
        “The specter of eugenics hovers over virtually all contemporary developments in human genetics. Eugenics was rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century, a period in which notions of fitness, competition, and biological rationalizations of inequality were popular. At the time, a growing number of theorists introduced Darwinian analogies of “survival of the fittest” into social argument. Many social Darwinists insisted that biology was destiny, at least for the unfit, and that a broad spectrum of socially deleterious traits, ranging from “pauperism” to mental illness, resulted from heredity.

        The word “eugenics” was coined in 1883 by the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its “undesirables” while multiplying its “desirables” — that is, by encouraging the procreation of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit. In Galton’s day, the science of genetics was not yet understood. Nevertheless, Darwin’s theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, “Could not the race of men be similarly improved?”

        Francis Galton was a contemporary relative of Charlie’s and he knew that the theory of evolution as put forth by Darwin led one to believe that you could make human life better by removing the unfit and letting the more fit of a species survive. Charlie also spoke about the human impact of his theory in the “Decent of man”.

        mcoville

        May 15, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  16. Bipedal Tetrapod

    You might be right, that Hitler was not an Atheist but in my findings there are not many real Atheist who are famous.

    Hitler used Atheism as a front just like the Communist but we know that a number of groups used Darwinian thought as a cover for their mystic side.

    Hitler was not a follower of Jesus.

    dawkinswatch

    May 14, 2009 at 10:39 pm

  17. Okay, first you say he used Christianity as a cover to hide his atheism, now you say he wasn’t an atheist but used atheism as a cover for mysticism. What next?
    And by “not many real atheists who are famous”, you really mean you can’t think of too many evil dictators to vilify for being atheist, so you ascribe atheism to one who actually wasn’t.
    As opposed to famous REAL atheists like Isaac Asimov, Albert Einstein, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, George Orwell, Sir William Golding, Arthur Miller, Woody Allen, George Carlin, Sir Noël Coward, Marlene Dietrich, Katharine Hepburn, Jamie Hyneman, Sir Ian McKellen, Andy Rooney, Clarence Darrow, and maybe Abe Lincoln and Ben Franklin.
    If you aren’t finding famous real atheists, you aren’t looking.

    Bipedal Tetrapod

    May 15, 2009 at 2:00 am

  18. I am dealing with Albert Einstein and showing that the man was in the same religion as Hitler, Blavastky’s theosophy.

    dawkinswatch

    May 15, 2009 at 2:28 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: