Mankind has interfered way, way too much with it’s own natural selection process.
History of Science Society statement[edit]
The statement issued in the History of Science Society Newsletter said that the three historians had been misrepresented by the film company’s selective reconstruction of Darwin’s voyage. They said that they had been led to believe that “the movie was being made to be shown as an educational film on Australian broadcast television and possibly elsewhere”, and had only been alerted to the true nature of the movie shortly before its release. They describe the interviews filmed with themselves as having been edited to highlight certain aspects of Darwin’s views and character. Browne’s description of Darwin’s childhood delight in making up stories to impress people was “used to imply that the same motive may have driven his scientific thinking.” The film uses the description of Darwin’s later views on racial inequality but, the statement says, omits Bowler’s account of the thesis that Darwin’s work was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery, as put forward by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. A comment by Sandra Herbert that “Darwin’s theory required explanation of many aspects of life” was, the statement said, edited down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life. They stated that this opportunity to reach out to a wider public had turned out differently from their expectations, and that academics perhaps “do need to be more aware of the fact that the media organisations are not always open about their underlying agendas.” While they probably would not have contributed had they known the true origins of Fathom Media, they thought that the producers had a point in that if academic historians refuse to participate when historical information is sought by organisations they disapprove of, they cannot complain if less reputable sources are used instead.[4]
CMI has responded to these criticisms by quoting more extensive transcripts of the interviews to show that Bowler made no mention of Desmond or Moore, and that Herbert’s views were not misrepresented.[5] On Bowler’s claim, they quote the director (Steve Murray) as saying, “. . . in my interview with Prof. Bowler he offered no reference at all that I or others could tell (even on re-examining the transcripts), to the work of Desmond and Moore, nor was there any statement that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery, or anything to that effect”. In answer to Herbert’s claims, Murray said, “Professor Herbert seems to imply that somehow we twisted the meaning of her words, so that ‘many aspects of life’ was edited to imply ‘all aspects of life’. Yet where did she refer to ‘many aspects of life’? We simply included what seems to be a very clear statement that Darwin had to ‘explain everything!’ (Implied: ‘all aspects of life’)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voyage_that_Shook_the_World
Yeah, there were never any wars, Racism, violence, etc. and everyone lived in peace and harmony and then Darwin came along and wrote his book and ruined it all.
So... we are to blame all of the world’s ills on a millennia-old scientific theory that Darwin finally articulated in a form that vastly enabled biological science to advance?
BTW, the tactic of calling scientific inquiry “Darwinism” is really cute. Those who try to discredit science by referring to it as a religion are saying more about their opinion of religion and the faithful than they are about the scientific method. Or, more simply, by saying that science is bogus because it is a religion, these “creationists” imply that all religion is bogus. Does that *really* promote the Christian faith?
Multigenerational welfarism.
Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwin.
A bankrupt world view that has the added liability of being false.
#fakeworldview
“Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”
Charles Darwin
Nothing has changed in hundreds of years. We still have religious bigots so convinced of their belief in an afterlife that they feel compelled to kill women and children to secure their places.
If religious belief in a Supreme Being is based on faith.....
What is belief in Darwinism based on?
Considering the times, a very timely thread indeed. Christ said you’d know a tree by the fruit it bears. The “tree” of Darwinism has yielded evil fruit: Nazism, Communism, and the present day godless nihilism we are seeing everyday before out eyes.
To our modern Darwinian-Socialist-Nihilst world, amidst warnings of impending judgment, the book of Revelation presents its case for creationism straight and to the point:
“Worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” Rev. 14:7b
The theory of natural selection applied to people strongly suggests the rightness of conservative policies: Market economies, traditional values, strong defense and strong borders. Liberalism looks idiotic in a Darwinian analysis.
Conservatives who signal against Darwin are nuts.
I've just come from looking at the web page of the neo-Confederate "League of the South." Now being the scion of old Southern Unionist Republicans and one who prefers Hamilton to Jefferson, I have never agreed with the neo-Confederate ideology. But now they have gone stone-cold insane. They treat chrstianity as a mere aspect of Northern and Western European ethnoculture rather than something that claims to be absolutely and universally true, and they even seem to be mimicking the Armenians in considering themselves a "chrstian race" that has been redeemed as an ethnic group. They even invoke "blood and soil" (a doctrine that was invented only in the late nineteenth century and never existed in the Medieval Europe they idolize). Their "nationalism" is now purely racial, rejecting the Black and Jewish Confederates which other Confederate apologists invoke. In fact, the ideology of the so-called "neo-Confederates" is now so radical that it can't be called "neo-Confederate" at all, since even with all its racialism this particular ideology simply did not exist in the Confederacy.
Prepare to be not only dismissed as a "Protestant" but now as a "cuck" as well.
PS: Not many people are aware that "palaeocon" hero Robert Henry Winborne Welch Jr., the founder of the John Birch Society, was a Unitarian and an evolutionist. Herbert Spencer was one of his heroes.
And poor old Lamarck lost the “consensus science” battle to Darwin at the time, but has been proven ALSO CORRECT with the science of epigenetics. Environment DIRECTLY affects genes. In some ways, Lamarck is more right than Darwin. There are plenty of examples which don’t fit Darwin’s theory, creatures evolving suicidally in an environment not suited.
But put pony embryos into a horse’s womb and they come out extra large ponies. Genes respond immediately to an environment too. How you eat or breathe will spark a predisposition to a disease or not.
