Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 556 of 824 (719724)
02-17-2014 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Faith
02-17-2014 2:51 AM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
Faith writes:
Well, I've already indicated what I see in the paragraph that suggests Darwin has an evolutionary explanation for the differences between the races as he has for the differences between the species.
And so what if Darwin was a racist? This would have as much effect on the theory as it would if he was a transvestite. It's irrelevant, and, as it happens, untrue.
And, bye-the-way, some elements of racial differences *are* evolution driven, the obvious one being skin colour.
Human skin color ranges in variety from the darkest brown to the lightest pinkish-white hues. Human skin pigmentation is the result of natural selection. Skin pigmentation in human beings evolved to primarily regulate the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, controlling its biochemical effects.[1]

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 02-17-2014 2:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 557 of 824 (719727)
02-17-2014 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 543 by Faith
02-16-2014 6:59 PM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
Hi Faith,
I didn't say Darwin didn't have racist attitudes. I said his racist attitudes were typical of his time and in fact better than most. To accuse Darwin of something that was true of almost all Europeans of his time makes no sense. You may as well accuse him of bathing only once a week.
You are correct that Darwin believed the negro races (and a number of other races that he names in The Descent of Man) inferior to the white races, and that he believed there was an evolutionary explanation. He actually believed the white races so superior that they would outcompete and exterminate them at some point, and I see you quoted this portion.
What I disagreed with most was the association of evolution with the Nazis. The Nazis were correct that a dominant race might be dominant because it evolved superior qualities, but evolution defines no inherently superior qualities. A trait is deemed superior if it allows an organism to better compete in a given environment, but that same trait may make an organism less competitive in a different environment. Move the blond fair-skinned Nazis to equatorial regions and watch them succumb to heat prostration and skin cancer.
Even intelligence is not always a superior quality. The human brain carries a great price in energy demands, and an environment low in food resources would encourage a smaller overall body size, including the brain.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 02-16-2014 6:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Faith, posted 02-17-2014 3:38 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 558 of 824 (719728)
02-17-2014 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 545 by Faith
02-16-2014 8:04 PM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
Faith writes:
The context suggests evolutionary differences, and I won't be disappointed if that's not what he meant, but it reads like that to me.
I don't know why people are arguing against you on this. It seems obvious to me, too, that Darwin believed the mental differences between races were real and not merely cultural. He was not afraid to draw comparisons between mental abilities.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by Faith, posted 02-16-2014 8:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 559 of 824 (719729)
02-17-2014 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 551 by PaulK
02-17-2014 2:24 AM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
PaulK writes:
So, there's really no way that you could get the idea that Caucasians are superior to Africans from the theory. The most you could do is to START with the idea of racial superiority and then appeal to the theory to "explain" it. But then the racism wouldn't be coming from the theory...
Well said. I've been trying to make this point, but not successfully so far.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2014 2:24 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 560 of 824 (719731)
02-17-2014 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by marc9000
02-16-2014 4:14 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
Hi Marc,
The implications that you claim were there are just your own imaginings. You don't read for comprehension so much as you read looking for excuses you can make up for introducing hateful diatribes on your own favorite topics into a discussion.
The facts remain the facts. Bill Nye never said or implied that only innovation was important to competitiveness. The debate was about science, and so Bill Nye appropriately confined his comments to be about science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2014 4:14 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 561 of 824 (719733)
02-17-2014 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by Faith
02-17-2014 2:26 AM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
The point was that the PARAGRAPH presents the THEORY in that light. Everything I've said is based on how I read what that paragraph says. It suggests to me that that was DARWIN's view of the theory at that time.
There was nothing honest in your "point". You had an agenda and tried to bolster it by inserting something most would find objectionable to where there is none.
ala "Have you stopped beating your husband?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by Faith, posted 02-17-2014 2:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by Faith, posted 02-17-2014 3:09 PM saab93f has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 562 of 824 (719756)
02-17-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by saab93f
02-17-2014 8:25 AM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
All I can do is say again that I have no agenda and I'm being completely honest about all of this. When I first read that paragraph, or reread it a couple years ago now, I was rather shocked by it then because it does appear to say what many people took evolution to mean in those days. That is, it implies that human races are on different levels of evolution just as humans are in relation to apes, different levels meaning "lower" and "higher." That was of course the way it was thought of in Darwin's day so he didn't invent it, but it does appear from that paragraph that he accepted it and provided an evolutionary explanation for it. Truly, honestly, that is how I read that paragraph, and I don't see how it can be read any other way. No doubt these things are thought of differently now, but I don't think you can honestly say Darwin had today's point of view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by saab93f, posted 02-17-2014 8:25 AM saab93f has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Percy, posted 02-17-2014 3:52 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 563 of 824 (719757)
02-17-2014 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Percy
02-17-2014 7:31 AM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
What I disagreed with most was the association of evolution with the Nazis. The Nazis were correct that a dominant race might be dominant because it evolved superior qualities, but evolution defines no inherently superior qualities. A trait is deemed superior if it allows an organism to better compete in a given environment, but that same trait may make an organism less competitive in a different environment. Move the blond fair-skinned Nazis to equatorial regions and watch them succumb to heat prostration and skin cancer.
I certainly don't agree with the Nazis' understanding of what makes a race superior or of the theory evolution. My only point was that in the paragraph by Darwin it was clearly implied that human races are on lower or higher levels of evolution, that's Darwin himself saying that as I read that paragraph. Perhaps he himself lost track of the implications of his own theory at that point, or merely intended to be explaining the generally accepted idea without sharing it, but as written that is simply what it appears to say: civilized man is evolutionarily superior to "savage" man. He also didn't propose the extermination of the "lower" races, of course, but there is the implication that it would be a good thing if it happened. Especially when he ends his paragraph by saying that it would be better if there were an even greater gap between civilized man and the apes due to civilized man's evolving even higher while the "lower" races die out.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Percy, posted 02-17-2014 7:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Percy, posted 02-18-2014 9:05 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 573 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2014 11:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 564 of 824 (719758)
02-17-2014 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by Faith
02-17-2014 3:09 PM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
Faith writes:
All I can do is say again that I have no agenda and I'm being completely honest about all of this. When I first read that paragraph, or reread it a couple years ago now, I was rather shocked by it then because it does appear to say what many people took evolution to mean in those days. That is, it implies that human races are on different levels of evolution just as humans are in relation to apes, different levels meaning "lower" and "higher."
It isn't the theory of evolution saying that the races are on different evolutionary levels. That there are qualitative differences between the races is something that was already believed when Darwin introduced his theory (and concerning some differences, such as skin color, they were of course correct). But there's nothing in the theory of evolution that says, "Black races are less evolved than white races."
But the theory of evolution did provide an explanation for those differences. It was believed that whites were cognitively superior to blacks, and evolution said that this was because whites had evolved greater cognitive abilities.
That smarter is better is a value judgement made by people, not by evolution. Smarter is not better than stronger (which 19th century Europeans believed was true of the black races), in the same way that faster is not better than digging burrows. The key requirement for survival is adaptation to the local environment. Improved adaptation is what is better. Depending upon the creature and the circumstances better might mean faster or stronger or taller or longer-necked or even smarter, but none of these qualities are inherently better than any other. There are many intermingling factors. At heart, what is better just all depends.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Faith, posted 02-17-2014 3:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 1:26 AM Percy has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 565 of 824 (719773)
02-18-2014 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by DevilsAdvocate
02-16-2014 5:08 PM


BTW here is the full version of racist Donny Reagan's racist rant:
Wow DA and you thought we had our differences in the past, this guy is gone, isnt he. I dint realize there were still people out there that actually verbalized thier prejudices out loud. I mean we all retain a certain amount of racisim, wehther we verbalize it or not,
But this guy looks like Russel Johnson and Robert Culp gone bananas.
I guess the two most logical questions to ask him, besides why he didnt quote the Bible, would be , can only handicapped white people, only marry other handicapped white people, because thats the way they were made?
And. If only persons of the same color, can marry only the same color, shouldnt the reproductive process not actually work, since it is against Gods purposes and against his will?
I guess whats scary is that he is not alone in his conclusions. What a goob
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-16-2014 5:08 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 566 of 824 (719776)
02-18-2014 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by Percy
02-17-2014 3:52 PM


AgainRe: Trashing Darwin?
Again, what the theory is today is apparently somewhat different than it was in Darwin's mind, as evidenced by what he wrote in that paragraph that has been quoted here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Percy, posted 02-17-2014 3:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2014 2:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 568 by Percy, posted 02-18-2014 8:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 567 of 824 (719778)
02-18-2014 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 566 by Faith
02-18-2014 1:26 AM


Re: AgainRe: Trashing Darwin?
quote:
Again, what the theory is today is apparently somewhat different than it was in Darwin's mind, as evidenced by what he wrote in that paragraph that has been quoted here.
I think you're confusing the theory itself with common (but wrong) ideas ABOUT the theory - and projecting them on to the quote.
The main point of the quote is to say that the differences between humans and other animals was not an adequate objection to the theory. And Darwin pointed to extinction as one way such a gap could be created. And he was right, as we've since discovered.
The quote is NOT about the differences between human races. Those differences are simply assumed and referred to in the service of making a quite different point.
Edited by PaulK, : correction & clarification to 1st sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 1:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 568 of 824 (719783)
02-18-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 566 by Faith
02-18-2014 1:26 AM


Re: AgainRe: Trashing Darwin?
PaulK's previous message has it right.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 1:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 569 of 824 (719784)
02-18-2014 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by Faith
02-17-2014 3:38 PM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
Faith writes:
My only point was that in the paragraph by Darwin it was clearly implied that human races are on lower or higher levels of evolution,...Perhaps he himself lost track of the implications of his own theory at that point,...
Except that there's no such thing as "levels of evolution", not today, not then, and especially not ever in Darwin's mind. As PaulK says, this is something you're projecting onto that passage. There can be varying degrees of adaptation to the environment, but there's no such thing as "levels of evolution." You're letting your mind become infected with the whole fallacy of one organism being "more evolved" than another. There's no such thing. There's only better adaptation. And of course if the environment changes then all that better adaptation that was evolved? Out the window, up for grabs, whatever.
...but as written that is simply what it appears to say: civilized man is evolutionarily superior to "savage" man.
The term "evolutionarily superior" has no meaning, so Darwin didn't say it or appear to say or imply it or hint at it. The word "evolution" didn't even appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. What's key is adaptation, and the measure of adaptation is relative to the environment.
He also didn't propose the extermination of the "lower" races, of course, but there is the implication that it would be a good thing if it happened. Especially when he ends his paragraph by saying that it would be better if there were an even greater gap between civilized man and the apes due to civilized man's evolving even higher while the "lower" races die out.
There is no such implication. Someone already explained this to you earlier, but I'll explain it again. That paragraph is addressing the gap between man and "his nearest allies" (chimpanzees and gorillas). He says this could be due to extinction, and that if the "savage races" and the "anthropomorphous apes" (again, chimpanzees and gorillas) were to go extinct in the future then the gap would become even larger.
I can only guess that your misinterpretation of that passage stems from a stumble over application of the phrase "man in a more civilised state." To make the hypothesized future gap even larger he's postulating that in the future man might be more civilized than in his day.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Faith, posted 02-17-2014 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 570 of 824 (721008)
03-02-2014 3:22 PM


Bill Nye Debate Sparked Funding 'Miracle'
Creation Museum: Bill Nye Debate Sparked Funding 'Miracle' Ken Ham credits God and Bill Nye for funding the struggling project.
...on Thursday he announced that his Creation Museum's proposed Noah's Ark theme park, including a 510-foot replica of the Biblical vessel, had against all odds secured a last-minute $62 million municipal bond offering. The miracle was God's, he said, but Nye also had something to do with it
I suppose God won't mind sharing top billing.

Replies to this message:
 Message 574 by JonF, posted 03-03-2014 12:36 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024