Darwin and his "mammy"

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by kendemyer, Jul 12, 2005.

  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:


     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why the continued bashing of a long dead man? Do you merely find it interesting to discuss alledged problems of a figure from the 19th century? You should know by now, I try and point it out often, that trying to use allegations such as this to discredit the modern theory of evolution amounts to the genetic fallacy, or poisoning the well if you prefer, and has absolutely no bearing on whether the theory that followed is valid or not. Folks usually do not resort to such fallacies if they have a legitimate argument.

    If you really think that this is just interesting history, well we have a history forum.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/62.html?

    If you have a problem with the theory, some of your threads and threads by others have turned into actual, factual discussion that you can join plus we have a whole forum just for science.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/66.html?
     
  3. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know, but my husband and I call each other mamma and daddy, becasue we always were when we had young children. My in laws called each other mamma and daddy too, even after their youngest was 35. Wether or not this is the case here I don't know, but it isn't something strange.
     
  4. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe you did not notice that I gave a number of possibilities for your posts.

    1. Perhaps you wish to slander Darwin. "Why the continued bashing of a long dead man?"

    2. Perhaps you find it an interesting bit of history. "Do you merely find it interesting to discuss alledged problems of a figure from the 19th century?"

    3. Perhaps you are trying to give reasons to doubt evolution. "You should know by now...that trying to use allegations such as this to discredit the modern theory of evolution amounts to the genetic fallacy."

    I cannot tell which of these drives you. There may be even other reasons. You have tried to frame it as #2 but I think that your more likely agenda is #3. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but you appear to have an agenda of poisoning the well with respect to opinion of Darwin in order to try and discredit evolution. If that is true, you are comitting the stated fallacy. If not, your obsession with Darwins alledged problems seems...unusual.
     
  6. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was one of several possibilities.

    Now, do you deny that your ultimate agenda here is to make Darwin look bad and thereby cast doubt on evolution? That it is how it appears. And if appearances are correct, you are committing a fallacy.
     
  8. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  9. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    kendemyer, what is the point? I am not following.
     
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have time to track down all the allegations about Darwin to know their validity since they have no bearing on whether evolution is valid. You are correct that I should not have used the word "slander" so carelessly. I really meant in the sense of trying to attack the reputation of someone and not necessarily in the sense of making false accusations since I have no idea if the y are true or not. I did not mean to accuse you of dishonesty.

    Now, could you please answer for us all whether you simply have a personal fascination with Darwin that you wish to share or if you have a goal of making Darwin look bad and thereby potentially causing someone to doubt evolution? Could you confirm or deny for us that you have absolutely no ulterior motive other than an interest in history?
     
  11. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  12. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Thus, I believe the history of science while certainly not a replacement for data can help people view expert opinion more realistically."

    Is this a veiled way of answering "yes" to my question of whether you are trying to make people doubt the theory of evolution by alledging "weaknesses" in the character of Darwin? Otherwise I still do not know what is going on here.
     
  13. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! [​IMG]

    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.
     
  14. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    If your claim is true, why did you need to use a misleading comparison? The first link is to the page for "Darwin" which lists the various people named Darwin along with a short statement identifying them. The second link is to the page for the "Newton" unit of force.

    If you compare the pages for [Charles Darwin] and [Isaac Newton], the differences you pointed out disappear.
     
  15. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    TO: Mercury

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

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,923
    Likes Received:
    111
    Neat! Now let's see if you can do the same thing with Isaac Newton.
    Or name someone else.

    Is this a game? It belongs in the Games forum.

    It seems quite pointless to me.
    I guess that's what UTE's been getting at all this time.

    Rob
     
  17. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! [​IMG] 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. [​IMG]
     
  18. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still don't see it. If you mean the disambiguation pages, then Darwin is listed as "Charles Darwin (1809–1882) — renowned naturalist and thinker" (as you stated) while Newton is listed as "Sir Isaac Newton, the English scientist (laws of motion, universal gravitation, optics, calculus)" (not as you stated).
     
  19. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, it just shows that opposition to the science has so little to go on that desperate measures are called for - perhaps we can attack the man instead of the science - as if that does any good at all.
     

Share This Page

Loading...