Darwin's strange illness

[kendemyer]

Darwin's Strange Illness
http://www.bouncersplace.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4760


If that link doesn't work then go here:

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=1181

(I tried to post the information here but the board computer was being stubborn!

)

[ June 24, 2005, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: kendemyer ]

 

[UTEOTW]

Same warning here as on the other thread. As long as it is history that you or others are interested in, this might be fun for someone. But if you intend for this to be a reason to doubt the science, or if a reader takes it as a reason to doubt the science, then this is an example of the genetic fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

"A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing."

 

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I only debated at two evolutionist run forums. One was open to debate and the other was not.

The first link I gave is being moved and put into archives along with other threads I posted. It appears as if the forum owner is not open to debate. While regretable, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

You can access the thread material here :

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=1181

(I gave this as a alternative website )

Here is one line of information the second thread does not have.


Also, in one instance when Darwin's macroevolutionary position was very lightly publically praised by Charles Lyell, Darwin had a vomiting problem that lasted 10 days (see Scientific American source given later in this post).

TO: UTEOTW


I am not saying you said I commited a genetic fallacy. I do wish to say, however, I did not. I gave history of science information.

I did not say that Darwin vomited a lot when his macroevolution position was lightly praised or criticized and he had doubts, therefore don't believe in the macroevolutionary position.

Here is what I did say though:

"Is it surprising there is evidence for Darwin ruining his health when he was at the forefront of promoting his foolish ideas (see: creationism at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 )."


In short, I posit that Darwin had foolish ideas and doubts and he did not handle the criticism well and therefore he vomited. I do not say, Darwin vomited and had doubt and did not handle the criticism well therefore his macroevolution ideas were spurious.

 

[av1611jim]

So...there are some folks who theorize that ol' Chucky Darwin was a mental case?
I suppose that would explain his wacky ideas.
And I also suppose that that theory is just as valid as his own theory on the origin of species. Based on the evidence of course!!!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[kendemyer]

Here is what I wrote at another forum:


....I think you are correct about the eye quotes being taken out of context.

With that being said, I did some research and I think Darwin may have had some emotional issues in connection with the eye in regards to his ideas (how much I do not know).

I cite:

The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

taken from: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes11.html

At this same time, I do think this is true as well:

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.


" target="_blank">[url]http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes11.html

[/url]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Thanks, av1611, for reminding us all once again how the anti-evolution crowd has so little in the way of evidence to cite.

 

[kendemyer]

TO: av1611jim

You wrote:

So...there are some folks who theorize that ol' Chucky Darwin was a mental case?
I suppose that would explain his wacky ideas.
And I also suppose that that theory is just as valid as his own theory on the origin of species. Based on the evidence of course!!!

I will let readers read the following Scientific American quote and decide for themselves:

While his lieutenants Thomas Huxley and Joseph Hooker promoted evolution within scientific circles, Darwin kept an eye on how he was faring with the general public. He clipped, catalogued and indexed hundreds of offprints, about 350 reviews and 1,600 articles, as well as satires, parodies and Punch caricatures, with which he filled hefty scrapbooks-- a seemingly incongruous activity for a self-effacing sage. He remarked, "I am really quite sick of myself."

....In addition, historian and psychiatrist Ralph Colp, Jr., has correlated some of Darwin's worst attacks with psychosomatic stress. Colp demonstrated years ago that Darwin suffered many of the most severe bouts of illness whenever his work or his theory was attacked in print. In 1863, for instance, just after his geological mentor Charles Lyell published an infuriatingly tepid endorsement of evolution in his Antiquity of Man, Darwin's disappointment brought on 10 days of vomiting, faintness and stomach distress. (He then canceled a long-planned visit by Lyell to Down House.) Similarly, in 1871, anatomist St. George Mivart's scathing attack on The Descent of Man triggered two months of "giddiness" and inability to work-- part of a striking and recurrent pattern that Browne inexplicably ignores.

 

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I now predict that perhaps some evolutionist now may wish to say, "Well even if it were true, that Darwin was not exactly a paragon of mental health that doesn't mean he was wrong." Of course, I have already admited this and I certainly never committed the genetic fallacy (not that anyone accused me of it).

I would also add that even though some evolutionist may have to be dragged into admitting that there is evidence that Darwin acted strangely that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong about Darwin being given a clean bill of mental health.

 

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.