Darwin and his "mammy"

It appears as if Darwin was rather odd in his behavior.

I cite the following:

I also cite:

Apparently though sometimes his "mammy" could not calm him.

I cite:

 

TO: Donna

Here is what I found strange:

I have to agree with the biographer Brent. Also,
if you combine this behavior with the hysterical crying of Darwin( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112 ), very likely psychogenically caused vomiting when his work was critized or lightly praised (see Scientific American article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000# )and other strange behaviors (see: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist06.htm# ) I think Darwin acted rather oddly.


TO: UTEOTW

You want their to be a genetic fallacy but there is not. I think you need to understand there is a difference between what you want to exist and what actually does exist. Nowhere did I say the macroevolution position was errant due to Darwin acting strangely. Your continued getting disturbed when a history of science thread is started is unnecessary. Having a history of science knowledge prevents one from having a false view of science and thinking scientist are somehow precluded from erring and it also helps prevents one from having a undue attachment to a particular scientific hypothesis or theory.

I suggest the following resource for your review:

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_science

[ July 12, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: kendemyer ]

 

To: UTEOTW

You wrote:

Insinuating that I might want to slander is a highly inappropriate word you are using given your last post's lack of demonstration of slander. In this thread I have cited: Scientific American, a article which cites the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)and The American Journal of Medicine , and Peter Brent who is a Darwin biographer who's work is cited without disparagement by a work copyrighted by the American Scientific Affiliation (see: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miles.html ).

Now if you want to insinuate that that I want to slander Darwin I suggest you demonstrate it. If you cannot demonstrate your insinuation that I want to slander I suggest you retract your slander statement and apologize.

 

TO: UTEOTW

Insinuating slander is insinuating someone is lying. It is a serious insinuation not to be bantered about lightly. Now either retract the statement and apologize or demonstrate it.

Secondly, why are you insinuation I am lying given my sources? You never answered this. I view this as a lack of taking personal responsibility on your part.

I wrote in my previous post:

Lastly, you wrote:

You want to banty around me committing logical fallacies and banty about insinuations of me lying about someone without a shred of evidence. How much more plainly can I say it. I never said because Darwin acted strangely therefore the macroevolutionary position is errant. Now I certainly believe it is errant (see: creationism at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 ).

Giving history of science information never has and never will illogical no matter how badly you wish it was. I view your lack of taking personal responsibility as ludicrious and as a egregious lack of civility. Please if you want to assert something please demonstrate it.

[ July 12, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: kendemyer ]

 

TO: UT

Apology accepted.

Now you wrote:

Now I must insist on responsible post. Please do not refer to "evolution" given the context of our conversation. I must insist that you use the phrases "macroevolutionary hypothesis" or at least have the decency to use the phrase "evolutionary theory".

Secondly, I like history. I find that history particularly the history of science gives one perspective so one knows the limits of science so one can discern facts from mere opinions for example.

I would also argue that many people have highly emotional and romanticized views of history that cloud their reasoning. That is one of the reasons I like the Bible. It is a book of no allusions. It points out the flaws of its main characters. It calls man a depraved sinner in need of a new heart and human history bears this out (although men are said to have consciences and the Holy Spirit is said to convict men of sin) .

Here is one example of what I am talking about:

In school the play "To inherit the wind" is presented often as historical fact or near fact in schools. At least in the case of my school I know this was true. It isn't. This play adds to the fictional romanticized version of the whole creation-macroevolution hypothesis controversy for those on the macroevolution hypothesis side of the aisle.

Here is some historical commentary about the trial:

Scopes Monkey Trial
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/tennesse.html

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis
by David Menton
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/scopes.asp


Now if science is a social endeavor (and it is) if humans use emotion in their decision making (which I believe they do ) I think it helps to have a realistic historical view and a reasonable view of science in general. If you view scientist or particular science journals or the scientific community or a particular scientist with reverential awe and try to shield out any foibles or weaknesses I think this is very misguided. I think it helps to have a solid base of the history of science so you are not emotionally overly wedded to a particular paradigm. Science community paradigms do fall. History shows this. I think some people forget this and "worship the experts" or a particular paradigm. I think the scientist Alan Hayward makes some good points about experts (facts and opinions, predictions, reliability in various fields, opinions about the past, etc ). Here is his writings on the subject:

Can we trust the experts?
http://www.godstruth.org/chap13

Thus, I believe the history of science while certainly not a replacement for data can help people view expert opinion more realistically.

Now is it reasonable that some evolutionist rashly make accusations against creationist when historical discussions of Darwin are brought up? Now it clearly is not. Darwin should not be some sacred cow that is immune from historical investigation. If only the evolutionist were as open and frank as the Bible (Bible character weaknesses) in regards to critically examining people such as Darwin and others.

[ July 12, 2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: kendemyer ]

 

TO: UTEOTW

I am certainly not trying to make people commit a logical fallacy namely the genetic fallacy by saying because Darwin likely had a multiplicity of severe personal problems therefore the macroevolutionary position is false. There is nothing in my thread doing this which I have pointed out.

Now I know that some in the church of Darwin romantize "Darwinism" and have turned it into a quasi religion (they even put bumper stickers on cars! ).

For example, here is the lookup information at Wikipedia for Darwin:

Compare this to Newton:

Perhaps Newton was not a thinker!

Now some of the members of the church of Darwin could become upset when one of their icons has been injected with some historical realism. However, as I noted before history of science can play a helpful role in assisting people not to become overwedded to their pet theories or paradigms.

 

TO: Mercury

Notice I said the "lookup information". I sugggest you scroll down on the Newton link.

 

TO: Deacon

I hope you are not denying that there are zealous Darwinist who perhaps need to have a more realistic view of the creation-evolution issue and that history of science information is not helpful. If you are, I think the darwin bumper stickers are evidence that perhaps you could be mistaken.

As I stated before I see "Darwinism" as a quasi religion complete with bumper stickers in cars. I see some "Darwinist" as rabid ideologues who build shrines to Darwin (see my Wikipedia comment) and go nuts when some historical realism is injected vis a vis sources like Scientific American.com, etc. By jove, if Darwinism were ended the whole world would end and the whole human civilized world would end if the macroevolutionary position were rejected. Biological research would end! Pharmaceutical companies would be razed! Slavery would be reinstituted! Blah, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum.

Also, I created some threads on this issue because I wanted to enter some reality into the creation-evolution debate regarding the most holy secular icon of Darwin because I enjoy history and I wanted to see what happened (Given all the spurious attacks on Jesus and Paul I wanted to see what the Darwinist would do when faced with material from Scientific American.com , etc. in various discussions)! It was curious indeed. In fact, it got curiouser and curioser as time went on. Slanderer was insinuated. Liar was hurled at one board. It was comical and very entertaining. How dare you topple our idol Darwin you fundamentalist infidel! It reminded me of the account of Paul and the city of Ephesus in regards to the disturbance that broke out over "Diana of Ephesus". The zealous darwinist did everything but cry "Great is Darwin of the Darwinist! in their posts.

 

TO : mercury

I suggest clicking the link again and scrolling down again. The "lookup information" for Newton merely has his name. I have no further commentary on this matter.