http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#6117678051030146021

The Last of the Darwinian Racists

James Watson has always struck me a sort of classic product of a 19th
Century English Scientistic culture. He has the self-assured hubris of
that generation which was certain that Science can measure everything
and knows everything worth knowing, coupled with the frank and open
class consciousness and upper crust contempt for the lower orders that
makes him so confident in a lab and so incredibly dangerous in
applying what he discovers there to actual human beings.

Ever since Darwin, the dirty little secret that has been on a
collision course with western liberalism is the fact that Darwin and
many of his disciples took it for granted that the various races of
man are simply early stages of speciation that have not had time to
play out in history. Here's a little section from my upcoming book on
the four Marian dogmas, which looks (in part) at the 19th century
project (still very much ongoing as James Watson demonstrates) of
basing human dignity on something *other* than the fact that we are
creatures in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by Jesus
Christ:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:12:29 -0700, Jon Schild xmission.com>
wrote:

The word tends to be used far, far more by those who believe it's a
pagan religion than by scientists. So maybe they define the word.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:28:56 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:

Their personal attitudes still have nothing to do with the validity of
the Toe.

Never have. Never will.

--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion

Mark K. Bilbo wrote in message
news:D92dnV0Kc4Bj4ofanZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@giganews.com...

In article <1192886603.552096.210450@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet HotPOP.com> wrote:

What ever will you do? Once the "Last of the Darwinian Racists" is
gone, you certainly cannot call the remaining Darwinians racists, can
you?

Talk about painting yourself into a corner....

Sigh...

In any case, science marches on, and just the other day revealed a
voice related gene was found in some late Neanderthal bones from
Spain. That were very carefully handled to prevent contamination. They
dont know how the DNA, which they thot dated from 300,000 BP, got into
a Neanderthal.

Unless, whisper- the bones had Homo sapien genes in them. And this, on
top of the discovery of Homo Floriensis, that was not spozed to exist,
or this- http://hometown.aol.com/canovanogram/index.html which shows
us absolutely classic Homo Erectus in Australia. Who were not spozed
to be there. And oh yeah- that skull is not fossil, but *bone*. One
Aussie poster says these guys are still running around in the outback.


The some months ago, the hyoid bone, showing that Neanderthals had the
voice box to talk with. And that hybrid HNS/HSS child found in
Portugal last year, or just recently the Homo Erectus found in
Georgia, near the villiage of Dimanisi, dated from 1.7 million BP, who
is not spozed to be there either.

Howard Brazee

The words "Darwinism" and "Darwinian"is extensively used
by scientists, much as "Newtonian", and "Galilean" are
used. It is heavily used both by the advocates of
Darwinism and by those who openly oppose Darwinism

The people who do not use the word "Darwinism" are
those, such as Gould, who rather furtively oppose Darwin
and Darwinism - arguing that Darwinism is obsolete and
has been proven false, and any way Darwin did not say
what Darwinists think he said, and only racists and
nazis believe it, because Darwin did not say what he
said, and any way what he said is wrong.

Sound of Trumpet:

In large part because when the differences were
substantial, the settlers came pretty close to
exterminating the natives, as happened to the
neanderthals and to the early inhabitants of Australia
and Asia - if man has not had any speciations run all
the way to clear completion, it is more because of
genocide than because of mixing.

Studies of DNA suggest that today's Europeans did,in the
end, absorb some neanderthals by intermarriage, but it
was pretty close to total annihilation.

James A. Donald wrote:

"Darwinian" is used by scientists much as "Newtonian" and "Gaililean" are
used. "Darwinist" and "Darwinsim" are not, any more than "Einsteinist" or
"Galileanism" are.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:52:11 -0700, "Mike Schilling"

Here is Richard Dawkins on page one of "the selfish
gene" :
"This book is not intended as a general advocacy
of Darwinism. Instead it will explore ..."

He uses the word Darwinism all the time, and so do most
scientists. "Evolution" has too many meanings. When
they want to talk about the theory that evolution occurs
by natural selection, they say "Darwinism".

He uses Darwinist less frequently, but In "a devil's
Chaplain" he refers to himself and others as "neo
darwinists"